If it's crypto it's not money laundering

It appears to be official now. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, when illicit activity is routed via crypto infrastructure, then it no longer qualifies as money laundering.

Earlier this week the Department of Justice's deputy attorney general Todd Blanche sent out an internal staff memo saying that the digital asset industry (read: crypto) is "critical to the nation’s economic development." (Editor's note: it's not.) As such, staff have been instructed to stop targeting crypto platforms such as exchanges, mixers like Tornado Cash and ChipMixer, and offline wallets for the "acts of their end users." 

What does "the acts of their end users" mean? Further clarity arrives deeper into Blanche's memo. It helpfully draws attention to how cartels operating in the fentanyl trade often use digital assets. This is well known. Tether, for instance, is a popular payments platform in the fentanyl trade. (See here, here, and here). And yet, the Department goes on to explain that while it will continue to pursue cartels, terrorist organizations, and other illicit enterprises for their financial crimes, it "will not pursue actions against the platforms that these enterprises utilize to conduct their illegal activities."

This marks a radical departure from long-established financial law on Planet Earth, where financial institutions are generally held responsible for the "acts of their end users," and are pursued when criminals use them to "conduct their illegal activities." It's what's known in law as money laundering.

Money laundering is a two-sided crime. There's the first leg: a criminal who has dirty money. And there is the second leg: the criminal's counterparty, a financial intermediary (a bank, crypto exchange, remittance platform, money courier, or helpful individual) who processes the dirty funds. Both legs are prosecutable. That's precisely what happened to both TD Bank and its cartel-linked customers when they were charged last year. Financial providers are held liable for the crimes of their users.

The same two-sidedness goes for sanctions evasion. There is the sanctioned party and there is the financial platform that facilitates their evasion. Both are indictable.  

If, as Blanche suggests, digital asset platforms are no longer to be targeted for the "acts of their end users," that's effectively saying that the second leg of a money laundering or sanctions violation is no longer a violation, at least not when a crypto platform is involved. So if cartel deposits dirty money at an exchange like Binance which facilitates their crypto transactions, the exchange won't be pursued. Only the cartel will be.

In effect the entire technology has been handed a get-out-of-money-laundering-jail-free card. A detached observer could safely assume that crypto platforms will respond by easing up on their compliance measures—they won't be indicted, after all—which, in turn, will allow more bad actors to make use of their services.

The memo provides more details. It's quite likely that both the ongoing Tornado Cash case (which I've written about extensively) and the ChipMixer case will be dropped, as the memo explicitly states that the Department will no longer target mixing and tumbling services. Tornado Cash, a smart-contract based mixer, operates with a large proportion of its infrastructure running through automated code, whereas first-generation mixers like ChipMixer are entirely human-operated. The latter had mostly disappeared thanks to a series of successful criminal convictions, but will spring back into action as the threat of indictment recedes—leading to more anonymity for the entire system, including for criminals.

The memo's prohibition against Department lawyers targeting "offline wallets" likely refers to "unhosted wallets," which presumably applies to stablecoins—a highly popular type of crypto token pegged to national currencies. Stablecoin users can either hold balances of a stablecoin like Tether or USDC in unhosted format, within their personal crypto wallets, or hold them with the issuer for redemption into actual dollars, in which case they become "hosted." The implication seems to be that if unhosted stablecoins are used by bad actors, the issuers themselves won't be targeted. It's a fantastic policy—if your goal is to encourage fentanyl cartels to use stablecoins.

This decriminalization of crypto money laundering is a ratification of how much of the crypto ecosystem already operates. Just last week, for example, I wrote about stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle allowing Garantex, a sanctioned Russian exchange, to hold balances of their stablecoins. The issuers seem to believe that providing access to illicit end users like Garantex is legal. And now, it seems, the government has confirmed their view by no longer targeting unhosted wallets for the "acts of their end users."

Now that we've explored some of the immediate legal and technical consequences of this decision, it's worth asking: who on earth benefits from this sudden shift in policy? Because clearly most people will be made worse off. 

I'm only speculating, but here's who this policy may be designed to appease and/or reward:

• Trump-voting libertarians who have arrived at the odd belief that money laundering shouldn't be a crime.
• San Francisco crypto entrepreneurs who want to create financial platforms on the cheap, without the burden of building expensive compliance programs to prevent criminals usage. These entrepreneurs also want their crypto platforms to have access to bank accounts, but banks have been hesitant due to the high risk of crypto-based money laundering. Now that crypto has immunity, banks no longer have to worry. Crypto entrepreneurs voted for Trump, funded him, and are a big part of his administration. This is their payback.
• Trump himself who seems intent on building a murky authoritarian system of bribery and patronage à la Putin or Orban. This system requires money laundering-friendly financial infrastructure, and the Department's memo may be an early step to creating it. (The Trump family, with its many crypto-based entrepreneurial efforts, is also part of the second group.)

In the long term, banks and other traditional providers may benefit, too. With crypto-based finance now unburdened of a major law, every single financial provider operating outside of this crypto-friendly zone, such as traditional banks and fintechs, will be incentivized to switch their database infrastructure over to crypto in order to qualify for this loophole. That means shifting your Wells Fargo U.S. dollar savings account over to a blockchain-based dollar saving account. Doing so will allow banks and fintechs to cut compliance costs and increase their profits.

Once the entire financial sector has migrated through the loophole, it will no longer be a crime to launder funds for criminals. And with mixers no longer being charged by the Department of Justice, that means blanket anonymity for everyone.

As far as the public's welfare goes, the memo is awful. Like theft and fraud, money laundering is immoral and should be punished. Giving one stratum of society a free pass from any law, whether that be money laundering or theft or murder, erodes trust in government and the financial-legal system.

More broadly, society's money laundering laws are a key defence against all types of other crimes. The so-called predicate offences to money laundering such as robbery, human smuggling, and corruption become much more tricky to carry out when, thanks to money laundering laws, the financial system does its best to shut them out. The dissuasive effect engendered by this effort stops many would-be criminals from ever leaving the licit economy. Take away those laws and the case for becoming a criminal becomes much more persuasive.

Why sanctions didn’t stop Russia's Garantex from using stablecoins

Stablecoins, a new type of financial institution, are unique in two ways. First, they use decentralized databases like Ethereum and Tron to run their platforms. Secondly, and more important for the purposes of this article, they grant access to almost anyone, no questions asked. 

I'm going to illustrate this openness by showing how Garantex, a sanctioned Russian exchange that laundered ransomware and darknet payments, has enjoyed almost continual access to financial services offered by stablecoin platforms like Tether and USDC throughout its six year existence, despite a well-known reputation as a bad actor. 

Last month, law enforcement seizures combined with an indictment and arrest of Garantex's operators appear to have finally severed Garantex's stablecoin connection... or not. Evidence shows that Garantex simply rebranded and slipped right back onto stablecoin platforms.  

Stablecoins' no-vetting model is a stark departure from the finance industry's default due diligence model, adhered to by banks (such as Wells Fargo) and fintechs (such as PayPal). We all know the drill—provide two pieces of ID to open a payments account. Requirements for businesses will probably be more onerous. Anyone on a sanctions list will be left at the door. Banks and fintechs must identify who they let on their platforms because the law requires it.

By contrast, to access the Tether or USDC platforms, the two leading U.S. dollar stablecoins, no ID is required. Anyone can start using stablecoin payments services without having to pass through a due diligence process. Sanctioned customers won't get kicked off, as Garantex's long-uninterrupted access shows. Regulators seem to tolerate this arrangement—so far, no stablecoin operators have faced penalties for money laundering or sanctions evasion.

A quick history of the Tether-Garantex nexus

Garantex became notorious early on for its role in laundering ransomware payments. Russian ransomware gangs hacked Western firms, extorted them for bitcoin ransoms, and cashed out at Moscow-based exchanges like Garantex. Garantex also became a popular venue for laundering darknet-related proceeds, particularly Hydra, once the largest darknet market. Reports allege that the exchange's shareholders have Kremlin links and that terror groups Hezbollah and Quds Force have used it.

Founded in 2019, Garantex was connected to Tether's platform by August 2020. We know this because an archived version of Garantex's website from that month show trading and payment services being offered using Tether's token, USDT.

Archived Garantex.org trading page from March 2024 with USDT-to-ruble, Dai-ruble, and USDC-ruble markets [link]

This connection to Tether allowed Garantex's customers to transfer their Tether balances to Garantex's Tether wallet, in the same way that a shopper might use their U.S. dollar account at PayPal to make payments to a business with a PayPal account. This allowed Garantex's users to trade U.S. dollars (in the form of Tether) on its platform for bitcoins or ether, two volatile cryptocurrencies, and vice versa. The Tether linkage also meant that Garantex could offer a market for trading ruble-USD.

By April 2022, Garantex's bad behaviour had caught up to it: the exchange was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). U.S. individual and entities were now prohibited from doing business with Garantex. Out of fear of being penalized, most non-Russian financial institutions would have quickly severed ties with it. Yet Tether, based in the British Virgin Islands at the time, permitted its relationship with Garantex to continue without interruption. Archived copies of Garantex's trading page from mid-2022 and 2023 show that Tether-denominated services were still being offered.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2023 that around 80% of the exchange’s trading involved Tether, despite sanctions being in place. The net amounts were not small. According to Bloomberg, an alleged $20 billion worth of Tether had been transacted via Garantex post-sanctions. A 2024 Wall Street Journal report revealed that sanctions-evading middlemen used Tether to "break up the connection" between buyers like Kalashnikov and sellers in Hong Kong, with Garantex serving as their venue for acquiring Tether balances. 

Finally, analysis from Elliptic, a blockchain analytics firm, alleges that Garantex offered USDT trading services to North Korean hacking group Lazarus in June 2023. This transaction flow is illustrated below:

The Garantex/Tether nexus in 2023: Elliptic alleges that North Korean hackers stole ether from Atomic Wallet, converted it to Tether using a decentralized exchange 1inch, and then sent Tether to Garantex to trade for bitcoin. (Click to enlarge.) Source: Twitter, Elliptic

Tether's excuse for not off-boarding sanctioned entities such as Garantex? A supposed lack of government clarity. 

When Tornado Cash was sanctioned in 2022, for instance, the company said that it would "hold firm" and not comply because the U.S. Treasury had "not indicated" whether stablecoin issuers were required to ban sanctioned entities from using what Tether refers to as "secondary market addresses." Translating, Tether was saying that if bad actors wanted to use Tether's platform to transact with other Tether users (i.e. in the "secondary market"), it would let them do so. Tether's only obligation, the company believed, was to stop sanctioned users from asking Tether itself to directly cash them out of the platform into U.S. dollars (i.e. the "primary market").

This is quite the statement. Imagine if PayPal allowed everyone—including sanctioned actors—to open an account without ID and send funds freely within its system, only intervening when bad actors asked PayPal to cash them out into regular dollars. That was Tether's stance. Or if Wells Fargo let sanctioned actors make payments with other Wells Fargo customers, but only stopped them from withdrawing at ATM. Banks and fintechs can't get away with such a bare bones compliance strategy; they must do due diligence on all their users. But Tether seemed to believe that a different set of rules applied to it.

In December 2023, Tether reversed course. It would now initiate a new "voluntary" policy of freezing out all OFAC-listed actors using its platform, not just "primary market" sanctioned users seeking direct cash-outs. This brought Tether into what it described as "alignment" with the U.S. Treasury. Soon after, Tether froze three wallets linked by OFAC in 2022 to Garantex.

However, this action was largely symbolic. By the time Tether froze those wallets, Garantex had already abandoned them and opened new ones, thus allowing the exchange to maintain access to Tether's platform. Tether's no-vetting model permitted this pivot. Archived versions of Garantex's trading page show that it continued offering Tether services throughout 2024 and early 2025.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently confirmed Garantex's tactic of replacing wallets in its March 2025 indictment of the exchange's operators. It alleges that Garantex frequently cycled through new Tether wallet addresses—sometimes on a daily basis—to evade detection by U.S.-based crypto exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, which are legally required to block customer payments made to sanctioned entities.

That the relationship between Tether and Garantex continued even after Tether's supposed 180 degree turn to "align" itself with the U.S. government is backed up by several reports from blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. The first, published in August 2024, found that a large purchaser of Russian drones used Garantex to process more than $100 million in Tether transactions. The second describes how Russian disinformation campaigners received $200,000 worth of Tether balances in 2023 and 2024, much of it directly from Garantex. In a March 2024 podcast, Chainalysis executives allege that "a majority" of activity on Garantex continued to be in stablecoins.

After years of regular access to Tether's stablecoin platform, a rupture finally occurred earlier this month when Tether froze $23 million worth of Garantex's USDT balances at the request of law enforcement authorities. The move came in conjunction with a seizure by law enforcement of Garantex's website and servers. 

Garantex's website was seized in March 2025 by a collection of law enforcement agencies.

In a press release, Tether claimed that its actions against Garantex illustrated its ability to "track transactions and freeze USDt." But if Tether was so good at tracking its users, why did it connect a sanctioned party like Garantex in the first place, and continue to service it for over four years? Something doesn't add up.

Not just Tether: other stablecoins offered Garantex access, too

Tether doesn't appear to have been the only stablecoin platform to provide Garantex with access to its platform. MakerDAO (recently rebranded as Sky) and Circle Internet may have done so, too.

Circle, based in Boston, manages the second-largest stablecoin, USDC. When OFAC put Garantex on its sanctions list in April 2022, Circle was quick to freeze one of the designated addresses. It did no hold any USDC balances. However, like Tether, Circle's no-vetting policy means that it doesn't do due diligence on users (sanctioned or not) who open new wallets, hold USDC in those wallets, and use them to make payments within the USDC system. Circle only checks the ID of users who ask it to cash them out. Thus, it would have been a cinch for Garantex to dodge Circle's initial freeze: just open up a new access point to the USDC platform. Which is exactly what appears to have happened.

On March 30, 2022, Garantex used its Twitter/X account to announce that it was offering USDC-denominated services. Beginning at some point in the first half of 2022, close to the time that the U.S. Treasury's sanctions were announced, Garantex began to list USDC on its trading page (see screenshot at top). The exchange's trading page continued to advertise USDC-denominated financial services through 2023, 2024, and 2025 until its website was seized last month. 

Tether, Circle's competitor, proceeded to freeze $23 million worth of USDT on behalf of law enforcement authorities, as already outlined. However, respected blockchain sleuth ZachXBT says that Circle did not itself interdict Garantex's access to the USDC payments platform, alleging that "a few Garantex addresses" holding USDC had not been blacklisted.

MakerDAO is a geography-free financial institution that maintains and governs the Dai stablecoin, pegged to the U.S. dollar. Archived screenshots show that Garantex added Dai to its trading list by September 2020, not long after the exchange had enabled Tether connectivity. According to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic, Russian ransomware group Conti has used Garantex to get Dai-denominated financial services. Garantex is able to access the Dai platform because MakerDAO uses the same no-vetting model as Tether. In fact, MakerDAO takes an even more hands-off approach than the other stablecoin platforms: it didn't seize any of the original 2022 addresses emphasized by OFAC. That's because Dai was designed without freezing functionality.

Not vetting users is lucrative

Providing financial services to a sanctioned Garantex would have been profitable for Tether and competing stablecoin platforms managed by Circle and MakerDAO. 

All stablecoins hold assets—typically treasury bills and other short term assets—to "back" the U.S. dollar tokens they have issued. They get to keep all the interest these assets generate for themselves rather than paying it to customers like Garantex. If we assume an average interest rate of 5% and that Garantex maintained a consistent $23 million in Tether balances over the 34 months from April 2022 (when it was sanctioned) to March 2025 (when it was finally frozen out), Tether could have earned approximately $3.2 million in interest courtesy of its relationship. 

Not only does their no-vetting model mean that stablecoin platforms get to earn ongoing income from bad actors like Garantex, this model also seems... not illegal? Stablecoin legal teams have signed off on the setup, both those in the U.S. and overseas. Government licensing bodies like the New York Department of Financial Services don't seem to care that licensed stablecoins don't ask for ID, or at least they turn a blind eye. (Perhaps these government agencies are simply unaware?) Nor has the U.S. Department of Justice indicted a single stablecoin platform for money laundering, sanctions violations, or failing to have a compliance program, despite it being eleven years now since Tether's no-vetting model first appeared. The model seem to have legal chops. Or not?

Banks and fintechs are no doubt looking on jealously at the no-vetting model. Had either PayPal or Wells Fargo allowed Garantex to get access to their payments services, the punishment would have been a large fine or even criminal charges. Sanctions violations are a strict liability offence, meaning that U.S. financial institutions can be held liable even if they only accidentally engage in sanctioned transactions. But more than a decade without punishment suggests stablecoins may be exempt.

This hands-off approach benefits stablecoins not only on the revenue side (i.e they can earn ongoing revenues from sanctioned actors). It also reduces their costs: they can hire far fewer sanctions and anti-money laundering compliance staff than an equivalent bank or fintech platform. Tether earned $13 billion in last year with just 100 or so employees. That's more profits than Citigroup, the U.S.'s fourth largest bank with 229,000 employees, a gap due in no small part to Tether's no-vetting access model. 

The coming financial migration?

Zooming out from Garantex's stablecoin experience, what is the bigger picture? 

I suspect that a great financial migration is likely upon us. Financial institutions can now seemingly provide services to the Garantex's of the world as long as the deliver them on a new type of substrate: decentralized databases. If so, banks and fintechs will very quickly shift their existing services over from centralized databases to decentralized ones in order to take advantage of their superior revenue opportunities and drastically lower compliance costs. 

This impending shift isn't from an inferior technology to a superior one, but from an older rule-bound technology to a rule-free one. PayPal recently launching its own stablecoin is evidence that this migration is afoot.

The argument many stablecoins advocates make to justify the replacement of full due diligence with a no-vetting access model is one based on financial inclusion. Consumers and legal businesses in places such as Turkey or Latin America, which suffer from high inflation, may want to hold digital dollars but don't necessarily have access to U.S. dollar accounts provided by local banks, perhaps because they don't qualify or lack trust in the domestic banking system. An open access model without vetting solves their problem.      

What about the American voting public? Do they agree with this migration? The last few decades have been characterized by a policy whereby the government requires financial institutions to screen out dangerous actors like Garantex in order to protect the public. Forced to the fringes of the financial system, criminals encounter extra operating dangers and costs. The effort to sneak back in serves as an additional choke point to catch them. To boot, the additional complexity created by bank due diligence serves to dissuade many would-be criminals from engaging in crime. Is the public ready to let the Garantexes back in by default? I'm not so sure it is.

Tether is available at Grinex, a Garantex reboot. [link]

Garantex's stablecoin story didn't end with last month's seizures and indictment. According to blockchain analytics firm Global Ledger, the exchange has been renamed Grinex and continues to operate. Tether services are already available on this new look-alike exchange, as the screenshot above reveals. Global Ledger says that $29.6 million worth of Tether have already been moved to Grinex as of March 14, 2025. 

This is the reality of an open-access, no-vetting financial system: bad actors slip in, eventually get cut off, and re-enter minutes later—an endless game of whack-a-mole that seems, for now at least, to be tolerated. It will only get larger as more financial institutions, eager to cut costs, gravitate to it.

Stablecoins are non-fungible, bank deposits are fungible

On Twitter/X, I recently suggested that the network effects of the stablecoin market are massive. Tether, which has four times more wallets than all other stablecoins, is locked-in as the stablecoin lingua franca, just like English has been locked-in as the global language of business. 

In case you've missed the trend, stablecoins are fiat money (primarily U.S. dollars) that are issued on a new type of database called a blockchain. The total value of stablecoins in circulation has grown from $0 to over $200 billion in a decade, with Tether dominating at $138 billion.

When I said at the outset that the stablecoin market is governed by network effects, what I meant is that a positive feedback loop exists whereby the value that a network (i.e. languages or stablecoins) provides to users increases as more users join the network. Once a given stablecoin has entered into this virtuous loop, other issuers cannot join in, and will have troubles competing. It's a winner take all market that Tether and its stablecoin USDt (and perhaps smaller competitor USDC, issued by Circle) have already won.

Larry White, a monetary economist who I've mentioned a few times on my blog, asked me why I think network effects are present in the stablecoin market. We don’t see network effects with other U.S. dollar payment media like checkable deposits, Larry points out (and I agree), so it's not clear why we should see this with stablecoins.

Here's my logic.

Stablecoins aren't fungible, bank deposits are

The key is that while U.S. dollar stablecoins—Tether's USDt, Circle's USDC, PayPal USD, etc—are pegged to the dollar, and thus seem to be alike, they are not actually completely alike. That is, they are not fungible with each other. 

Fungibility is one of my favorite words, and I write about it quite often on this blog. It means that members of a population are interchangeable, or perfectly replaceable with each other. All grams of pure raw gold are interchangeable. Not all grams of pizza are alike—pizza is non-fungible.

U.S. dollar bank deposits (say Well Fargo dollars and Chase dollars) are fungible with each other. Rather than being independent, they are fused together as homogeneous and singular U.S. dollars. A Chase dollar is just as good as a Wells Fargo dollar for the purposes of making payments.

That's not the case with stablecoins, which are like pizza. Or better yet, in the same way that Chinese yuan and UAE dirham are pegged to the dollar but remain independent currencies, each U.S. dollar stablecoin is pegged to the dollar but functions as its own distinct non-fungible currency. For the purposes of making payments, one stablecoin is not as good as another one, just like how dirham balances aren't perfect replacements for yuan.

The reason behind this difference is that U.S. banks cooperate with each other by accepting competitor's money at par on behalf of their customers. For instance, I can take a Wells Fargo check to my Chase branch and Chase will accept it 1:1 even though it represents a competing bank's dollar. Or I can send an ACH payment directly from Wells Fargo to Chase, and Chase will accept that Wells Fargo dollar at par and convert it into a Chase dollar for me. 

The effect of this reciprocal acceptance is that all U.S. banking dollars are tightly knit together, or interchangeable. A fungible standard has been created.

I can't perform these same actions with stablecoins. I can't send 100 USDC to Tether to be converted into 100 USDt, nor send 100 USDt to Circle, which issues USDC, to be converted into 100 USDC. Stablecoins issuers are loners. They've chosen to avoid banding together to weave a unified U.S dollar stablecoin standard.

This lack of standardization explains some weird things in the stablecoin market, like why there are so many markets to trade USDt for USDC (see below). Notice that the clearing price in these stablecoin-to-stablecoin markets is never an even $1, but always some inconvenient price like 0.991 or 1.018.

Some of the multiple markets for trading USDt for USDC, all at varying prices Source: Coingecko

 

There is no equivalent trading market for Chase-to-Wells Fargo balances or TD-to-Bank of America dollars. These banks' dollars are perfectly compatible and don't require such markets.

The advantages of a single dollar standard

Harmonization is useful. Anyone can walk into a McDonald's and purchase a Big Mac for $5.69 with whatever brand of bank dollar they want. Money held at small banks is just as useful as money at massive ones: the Bank of Little Rock may only have five branches, but its dollars are accepted at McDonald's all across the world, on par with those of Chase, America's largest bank.

McDonald doesn't accept stablecoins, but if it did, it would have to offer multiple prices for a Big Mac: i.e. 5.73 USDt and 5.68 USDC. Each stablecoin serving as its own particular unit of account is inconvenient, both for McDonald's and its customers. PayPal USD probably wouldn't even be accepted at McDonald's: it's too small.

The lack of standardized stablecoin market becomes even more awkward in asset markets. If you want to buy $1 million bitcoins on, say, Binance, there's a whole array of different U.S. dollar stablecoin markets available, including bitcoin-to-USDt, bitcoin-to-USDC, and bitcoin-to-FDUSD. (FDUSD refers to First Digital USD, a medium sized stablecoin.)

The table above shows the prices of bitcoin and ether on Binance, the world's largest crypto exchanges. Notice that liquidity in both Binance's bitcoin and ether trading market is compartmentalized into different stablecoins rather than being fused into a single homogeneous US dollar-to-bitcoin market. Source: Coingecko

You can forget about easily buying bitcoins with PayPal USD stablecoins. No crypto exchange offers that trading pair; PayPal USD is too small to be worth the hassle.

This has the effect of fragmenting the liquidity of the stablecoin market into different buckets. Instead of stablecoins-in-general having a certain level of marketability, each individual stablecoin has its own distinct liquidity profile in asset markets.

In contrast, the liquidity that a Wells Fargo dollar, a Bank of Little Rock, or a Chase dollar provides to their owner in the context of asset markets has been unified into a collective whole. If you want to buy shares of Blackrock's iShares Bitcoin ETF, there isn't a separate market for Wells Fargo-to-bitcoin or Chase-to-bitcoin. As for Bank of Little Rock dollars, they are just as fit for bitcoin purchases as its much largest competitors.

A winner-takes-all market

Now we can understand why network effects dominate the stablecoin market.

If you want to start using stablecoins to trade crypto or buy stuff, you will always be arm-twisted by market logic into choosing the largest most liquid stablecoin. And your decision to go with the largest one makes that stablecoin a little more liquid, thus solidifying its pole position.

Selecting a smaller stablecoin like PayPal USD makes little sense. McDonald's will never accept it, and there are many crypto assets that you won't be able to buy with it. Even when certain PayPal USD trading pairs are available, the bid-ask spreads will be wide, imposing much larger costs on you than if you simply went with a larger stablecoin. Thus network effects, working in reverse, repel uptake of PayPal USD.

The unsafe stablecoin is the largest

Tether remains the largest stablecoin, despite being one of the most unsafe stablecoins. (USDC does not get top marks for safety, either.) Network effects explain this.

Stablecoin rating agency Bluechip awards Tether a D rating, noting that it is "less transparent and has inferior reserves... USDT is not a safe stablecoin". Under normal conditions (i.e. those not characterized by network effects) the safest stablecoins would have long-since displaced Tether from its leading spot. But in stablecoin markets, the safest stablecoins—Gemini USD, PayPal USD, and USDP, all rated A or A- by Bluechip—remain insignificant players. The virtuous circle in which Tether is locked dominates all other factors.

These are the best-ranked fiat stablecoins according to Bluechip. But they are also tiny, with market capitalization below $1 billion. There appears to be no point trying to be a safe stablecoin, since the network effects arising from liquidity completely dominate any safety concerns that users might have.

Eyeing Tether's profits, new competitors are entering the stablecoin market. But this is a game they probably shouldn't bother playing. PayPal arrived last year with PayPal USD, but to date it remains mostly irrelevant, despite huge growth in the overall stablecoin market over the same period. Ripple and Revolut are also slated to bring out their own products. They're also destined to mediocrity, because they're too late to make the jump into the virtuous loop that Tether and (to a lesser extent) Circle occupy. 

(There is one caveat. Should one of the two leaders eventually be shutdown for money laundering offenses or sanctions evasion, one of these also-rans could be vaulted into their spot.)

Might the stablecoin sector eventually migrate over to the unified fungible standard that characterizes banking deposits? 

No, that's probably not going to happen. For a fusion to occur, Tether and runner-up Circle, which issues USDC, would have to start accepting their competitors' stablecoins at par. But they won't go down this path, since that would kill off the network effect that gives them their unrivaled dominance over the rest of the pack. No, it's in the interests of the leaders for chaotic non-fungibility to continue. 

Alas, this lack of standardization may limit the stablecoin sector's broader potential to serve as a cohesive global payment alternative to the better-organized banking standard. Sometimes a bit of cooperation trumps competition.

Stablecoins – a digital version of Swiss bearer savings books

Before anti-money laundering laws arrived in Switzerland, anyone could walk into a Swiss bank and open an account without showing any ID. The bank would then issue you something called a bearer savings book, otherwise known as inhabersparheften or livrets d'épargne au porteur. Ownership of the savings book was considered by the bank to be proof of ownership of the underlying funds in the account. The person who opened the account could keep the book or, if they wanted to, pass it on to someone else without notifying the bank, at which point this second person was now entitled to the underlying funds, who could pass the book on to a third person, etc.

In essence, Swiss banks were issuing their very own version of cash.

As time passed and society's awareness of money laundering grew, usage of Swiss bearer savings books accounts was circumscribed by law. In 1977, banks were required for the first time to identify the initial customer to open the account. Also, anyone who wanted to withdraw over CHF 25,000 had to be identified by the bank. But the savings books still enjoyed a significant degree of anonymity. After account opening and prior to withdrawal, books could continue to circulate without identity checks.

In 2003, the issuance of new bearer savings books was prohibited by the Swiss government. Banks were now required to cancel existing savings books when they were presented to a bank's physical desk. Existing bearer savings books could continue to circulate anonymously from hand to hand, like cash, but thanks to steady cancellations they represented just 0.002% of the total assets held in Swiss bank accounts by 2019.

And so ended the Swiss bearer savings book. In the meantime, however, a similar financial instrument has arrived: the stablecoin.

To get some stablecoins, you need to deposit funds with the issuer, which will identify you upon deposit, but after that the stablecoins are free to circulate in the wild without any sort of checks. You can send them to a friend, and she can send them to a relative overseas, and that relative can transfer them to a drug dealer, and none of these subsequent owners need to show their IDs to the issuer. Stablecoin issuers, much like Swiss banks that once issued bearer savings books, often have no idea who they are dealing with.

So if Swiss bearer savings books have long been prohibited, why are stablecoins allowed to proliferate?

This is exactly the point made last month by FINMA, Switzerland's financial regulator, when it indicated that it will no longer tolerate the anonymous transfer of stablecoins. New guidance states that the identity of anyone holding a stablecoin must be "adequately verified by the issuing institution." So not only yourself, but your friend, her relative, and the drug dealer in the above transaction chain will be required to provide their ID.

To justify its new policy, FINMA appeals to the idea of technological neutrality. My take on technological neutrality is that just because a financial product—in this case a payments product—appears on a novel medium, or substrate (i.e. a blockchain) doesn't mean it is exempt from the same rules that already apply to equivalent products like bank savings books, which are issued on older substrates. Same function, same regulations.

Up till now, stablecoin issuers like Tether have tried to dodge these identification requirements with the legal fiction that only primary holders of stablecoins (i.e. those who originally deposited funds to get stablecoins) are their customers, and so it is only to this batch of holders that they have a due diligence obligation. Secondary, tertiary, and subsequent holders are not "customers", and so the issuers say they don't need to identify them.

But FINMA isn't buying this argument, and rightly so. All holders, not just primary ones, have a "permanent business relationship" with the issuer, says FINMA, and so everyone must be identified. You can certainly understand why FINMA wants to get ahead of this problem. If regular Swiss banks all see that stablecoins are enjoying special treatment, then they'll all join in on the party by switching over to the new substrate.

FINMA's guidance may not seem like a big deal. There are only two Swiss franc stablecoins to which it applies, and they are both tiny. Bitcoin Suisse's XCHF has under 1 million CHF in circulation, and Centi's CCHF doesn't appear to have much more. (Facebook may have run into an earlier informal version of this rule when FINMA assessed initial versions of its Libra stablecoin.)

But as a respected part of the global regulatory fabric, FINMA could very well be copied by other regulators. More importantly, FINMA is a member of the  Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, an umbrella organization representing the anti-money laundering authorities of 38 major nations. FATF promotes global anti-money laundering standards by blacklisting countries that fail to adopt them. If FINMA's policy on stablecoins is indicative of an emerging FATF approach to stablecoins, then expect it to spread.

The shocking thing to me is that it has taken this long for a major global regulator to issue a concrete ruling on the issue of stablecoin anonymity. It's about time. Standard anti-money laundering practice requires financial institutions to verify who is using their platform. Stablecoin issuers shouldn't get a free ride.

The intensifying effort to isolate Russia's banks

Last week the U.S. government expanded the coverage of its Russian secondary sanctions program to encompass most of Russia's banks. It's a very big step, one that has been long-awaited by sanctions watchers, and will likely have significant repercussions for Russia and its trading partners. Here's a quick explainer.

Stepping back, we can think about the U.S.'s sanctions war on the Putin regime as an effort proceeding in two acts. The first involved a "casual" round of primary sanctions beginning as far back as 2014 when the Russians invaded Crimean. Then the heavy round began in December 2023, almost nine years later, with the arrival of secondary sanctions.

Pound for pound, U.S. secondary sanctions are far more impactful than primary sanctions. Primary sanctions cut off American entities from dealing with designated Russian targets but allow non-American actors to step into the breach and take their place. This merely shifts or displaces trade routes, creating a nuisance rather than reducing trade outright.

Secondary sanctions like those introduced last December aim to curb this displacement effect by extending prohibitions on dealing with Russia to non-U.S. actors, in particular foreign banks. The gist of secondary sanctions is: "If we can't deal with them, then neither can you!"

Why do non-American actors in third-party nations like China and Turkey bother complying with U.S. secondary sanctions on Russia? The U.S. wields an incredible amount of influence by threatening to cut third-parties off from the U.S. economy should their ties to Russia be maintained. The importance of accessing the U.S., in particular its financial system, far outweighs lost Russian business, prompting quick compliance.

So what exactly happened last week? Let's first re-explore what occurred in December 2023.

If you recall from my previous article, the December secondary sanctions targeted foreign banks. Their aim was to prevent bankers in places like India, Turkey, China and everywhere else from interacting with Russia, but only with respect to a narrow range of transaction types – those linked to the Russia's military-industrial complex.

More specifically, a Chinese or Turkish bank could continue to deal with Russian customers as long as the transaction in question involved goods like cars or dishwashers. The novelty is that they were now prohibited from conducting any transactions with Russia that involved weapons, military equipment, and dual-use goods, on pain of losing access to the crucial U.S. financial system.

In addition to a flat-out prohibition on military-industrial goods, the U.S. Treasury also compiled a blacklist of around 1,200 or so Russian individuals and entities that support Russia's military-industrial complex by working in allied sectors such technology, construction, aerospace or the manufacturing sectors. The December order stipulated that if caught dealing with any of these 1,200 or so names, a foreign bank could be cut off from the U.S. banking system. Russian individuals and businesses who were not on said military-industrial complex list, however, could still be served by foreign banks, even if they had been otherwise sanctioned. (Remember, primary sanctions only apply to U.S. actors.)

As I wrote back in February, anecdotal data from the first two months of secondary sanctions suggest that they are having an effect. Below I've updated the chart from an earlier tweet showing Turkish exports to Russia, which continues to trend downwards (note the 12-month moving average.)

In a recent article, The Bell assessed customs statistics and found that since the start of 2024, imports from some countries are down a third in some countries compared to 2023, notably Turkey (-33.8%) and Kazakhstan (-24.5%).

Source: The Bell

Which finally gets us to last week's announcement.

The scope of the secondary sanctions has been dramatically widened by adding around 3,000 or so additional names to the original 1,200 or so individuals and entities involved in Russia's military-industrial complex, for a total list that is now 4,500 long, according to FT. The reasoning for this extension is that now that Russian is a war economy, pretty much everyone is contributing to the war effort. 

The most important of the additions to the list are Russia's banks. The Treasury's press release drove home this point by specifically drawing attention to the branches of Russian bank in New Delhi, Beijing and Shanghai that are now are off limits.

Going forward, any bank in China or India that interacts with a Russian bank, say Sberbank, now risks losing its crucial connection to the U.S. This is huge! The majority of global trade is conducted by banks in one country interacting with banks in another on behalf of their respective customers. If Russian banks are cut off from this global network, that's tantamount to severing the entire Russian economy from the international economy. With their bankers now isolated, Russian firms won't be able to buy or sell stuff overseas, nor repatriate funds to pay their local employees.

I'm still trying to get my mind around the enormity of this. Russia has become the top destination for Chinese auto exports, for instance, and those purchases require getting a Russian bank and a Chinese bank to interact with each other. How on earth will Russia import Chinese cars without the intermediation of Russian banks? Or appliances, or smartphones?

There are two significant exemptions to the secondary sanctions coverage: agricultural products and  crude oil. What this means is that while a bank in India can no longer deal with a Russian bank like Sberbank, that prohibition ends if they want to conduct transactions with Sberbank that involve grain or oil. Since Russia's economy is so reliant on its oil exports, this exemption is a gaping hole in the sanctions wall that Ukraine's allies are trying to build.

How will Russia and its trading partners react?

A few sacrificial banks

To keep trade flowing between Russia and trading partners like China, it may be necessary for China to serve up a sacrificial bank or two to the U.S. sanctions regime. Who to sacrifice? A small bank with little to no U.S. business is a prime candidate. Such a bank may be able to afford being cut-off from the U.S. financial system in order to ensure that its mostly Russian-linked clientele can keep making bank-to-bank payments.

An example of a willing-to-be-sanctioned financial institution is the Bank of Kunlun, a small Chinese bank which continued to facilitate Iranian transactions even after secondary sanctions were levied on Iran in late 2011. The U.S. government reacted the following year as it had threatened that it would: it cut the Bank of Kunlun off from the U.S. financial system, a state of affairs that continues to this day. Kunlun remains the only bank in the world on the U.S.'s CAPTA (Correspondent Account or Payable-Through Account) list; a register of financial institutions which cannot get a U.S. bank connection.

An appearance on the CAPTA list hasn't stopped the Bank of Kunlun from doing business, however. According to the Atlantic Council, Kunlun has become one of the main connection for so-called Chinese "teapots" – small independent refineries – to buy oil from Iran. Apparently, one of its flagship products is "Yi Lu Tong," which means "Iran Connect." Of course, the Bank of Kunlun can't do a shred of U.S. business, which severely limits its clientele.

In any case, the Bank of Kunlun, or something like it, could end up being the linchpin of Russian sanctions avoidance.

AML-dodging stablecoins

Another alternative option for Russian trade will be to turn to U.S. dollar stablecoins like USDC and Tether. Stablecoins are blockchain-based payments platforms that offer balances pegged to national currencies, usually the U.S. dollar. Unlike banks, which do due diligence on their customers, stablecoin issuers will allow anyone to use their platforms, no questions asked. This feature offers Russian firms a reliable non-bank payments option for settling purchases of Chinese or Turkish products.

Stablecoins are not a new route for Russians keen to evade the long-arm of U.S. sanctions. I wrote last year about how intermediaries linked to a sanctioned Russian oligarch purchased oil from Venezuela's sanctioned state-owned oil company using Tether stablecoins, or USDT. "No worries, no stress," says the Russian to his Venezuelan contact. "USDT works quick like SMS."

"...quick like SMS" [link]

More recently, a Russian sanctions evader describes how he uses Tether to "break up the connection" between buyers like Kalashnikov and sellers in Hong Kong, making it harder for US authorities to trace the transactions. "USDT is a key step in the chain." 

Turning to the U.S., what might its next steps be in the sanctions war?

Extend the secondary sanctions to oil

Sanctions are a cat and mouse game. As Russia inevitably finds ways to adapt to last week's actions, the U.S. will have to find alternatives to keep up the pressure on the Putin regime. A prime candidate for the next ratcheting up of secondary sanctions will be to extend their reach to Russia's oil industry.

The U.S., EU, and other coalition countries are currently trying to cap Russian oil prices at $60 in order to reduce Russia's revenue base, with mixed success. One option would be bring the rest of the world into the price cap effort in order to make it more effective. A simple upgrade to the secondary sanctions regime would allow for this. Foreign banks would still be able to conduct transactions with Russian banks that involve oil, but only if these banks have verified that those purchases have been made at a price of $60 or lower. Any international bank caught breaking the price cap would risk losing its financial connection to the U.S.

Locked up in escrow

Another way to tighten the noose on Russia would be to modify the secondary sanctions program to impede the ability of Russian oil exporters to repatriate or easily utilize the funds they receive for oil sold abroad. 

How would this work? As before, foreign banks in, say, India would still be allowed to conduct oil transactions with Russian banks at prices not exceeding $60, subject to a new sanctions feature stipulating that all oil proceeds must be confined to escrow accounts in the buying nation, in this case India. If Putin does wish to use the funds in Indian escrow accounts to make purchases, they can only be used to buy Indian products. If an Indian bank fails to keep oil proceeds "locked up" in India, and lets them escape by wiring them back to Russia or a third party like Dubai, then it could face the threat of losing its U.S. banking access.

If implemented, this locking restriction would dramatically reduce Putin's ability to repurpose oil revenues. Stuck in foreign banks with only a limited menu of local goods to buy (and likely earning sub-market interest rates), Russian resources would languish, illiquid and uncompensated.

This sort of restriction isn't a new idea. It was successfully tried out on Iran beginning in 2013 in the form of the notorious Section 504 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (TRA), once described as a bit of sanctions warfare that was "so well constructed and creative that in some respects it can be considered… beautiful." I wrote about it eleven years ago. It's time to dust it off.

How PayPal can use stablecoins to avoid AML requirements and make big profits

There's a new financial loophole in town: stablecoins. Stablecoins are dollar, yen, or pound-based payments platforms that are built using crypto database technology.

Financial institutions are always looking for loopholes to game the system. Typically this has meant avoiding capital requirements or liquidity ratios in one jurisdiction in favor of a looser standards elsewhere. The new stablecoin loophole allows for a different set of financial standards to be avoided, society's anti-money laundering regulations.

I'll explain this new loophole using PayPal as my example.

PayPal now offers its customers two sorts of regulated platforms for making U.S. dollar payments. The first type will be familiar to most of us. It is a traditional PayPal account with a U.S. dollar balance, and includes PayPal's flagship platform as well as PayPal-owned platforms Xoom and Venmo. These all have strict anti-money laundering controls.

The second type is PayPal's newer stablecoin platform, PayPal USD, which has loose anti-money laundering controls. PayPal USD is built on one of the world's most popular crypto databases, Ethereum. Dollars held on crypto databases are typically known as stablecoins, the most well-known of which are Tether and USDC.

What do I mean by fewer anti-money laundering controls?

If I want to transfer you $5,000 on PayPal's traditional platform, PayPal will first have to grant both of us permission to do so. It does so by obliging us go through an account-opening process. PayPal will carry out due diligence on both of us by collecting our IDs and verifying them, then running our information against various regulatory blacklists, like sanctions lists. Only after we have passed a gamut of checks will PayPal allow us to use its platform to make our $5,000 transfer.

Contrast this to how a payment is made via PayPal's new stablecoin platform.

First, we both have to set up an Ethereum wallet. No ID check is required for this. That now allows us to access PayPal's stablecoin platform. Next, I have to fund my wallet with $5,000. I can get these these funds from a third-party who already holds money on PayPal's stablecoin platform, say from a friend, or from someone who buys goods from me, or from a decentralized exchange. Again, no ID is required for this transaction to occur. Once I have the funds, PayPal will process my $5,000 transfer to you.

Can you spot the difference? In the transaction made via PayPal's legacy platform, PayPal has diligently got to know everyone involved. In the second transaction, PayPal makes no effort to gather information on us. And lacking our names, physical addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers, it can't do a full cross-check against various regulatory black lists.  

More concretely, PayPal's legacy platform does its best to stop someone like Vladimir Putin, who is sanctioned, from ever being able to sign up and make payments. But if Putin wanted to use PayPal's new stablecoin platform, PayPal makes almost no effort to stop him from jumping on.

One of the biggest expenses of running a legacy financial platform is anti-money laundering compliance. Programmers must be deployed to set up onboarding and screening processes. Compliance officers must be hired. If a transaction is suspicious, that may trigger a halt, and the transaction will have to be painstakingly investigated by one of these officers. The platform is hurt by lost customer goodwill – no one likes a delay.

That's where the stablecoin loophole begins.

PayPal can reduce its costs of getting to know its customer by nudging customers off its traditional platform and onto its PayPal USD stablecoin platform. Now it can onboard them without asking for ID. Since it no longer collects personal information about its user base, fewer transactions trigger flags for being suspicious, and only rarely do they register hits on sanctions blacklists. That means fewer halts, delays, and costly investigations. PayPal can now fire a large chunk of its compliance staff. The reduction in costs leads to a big rise in earnings. Its share price goes to the moon.

For now, PayPal's stablecoin platform remains quite small. Only $150 million worth of value is held on the platform, as the chart at the top of this post shows. The company's legacy platforms are much larger, with around $40 billion worth of balances held. Given the compliance cost difference, though, I suspect PayPal would love it if its stablecoin platform were to grow at the expense of its legacy platform.

I've used PayPal as my example, but the same calculus works for the financial industry in general. If every single bank in the financial system were to convert over to a stablecoin platform for the delivery of financial services, and no longer use their legacy platforms, the industry's total anti-money laundering compliance costs would plummet.

So far I've just explained this all from the perspective of financial institutions, but what about from the viewpoint of the rest of us? Society has set itself the noble goal of preventing bad actors from using the financial system. A large part of this effort is delegated to financial institutions by requiring them to incur the expense of performing due diligence on their platform users. This requires a big outlay of resources. Many of these costs are ultimately passed on to us, the users.

If institutions like PayPal switch onto infrastructure that doesn't vet users, then resources are no longer being deployed for the purposes we have intended, and the broader goals we have set out are being subverted. Is that what we want? I'd suggest not.

---

Some followup thoughts:

1. PayPal's stablecoin platform employs fewer anti-money laundering controls than its regular platform. On the other hand, its stablecoin platform has stricter standards in other areas, including the safety of its customer funds. I wrote about this here: "It's the PayPal dollars hosted on crypto databases that are the safer of the two, if not along every dimension, at least in terms of the degree to which customers are protected by: 1) the quality of underlying assets; 2) their seniority (or ranking relative to other creditors); and 3) transparency."

2. The pseudonymity of stablecoins is something I've been writing about for a while. In a 2019 post, I worried that at some point this loophole would lead to "hyper-stablecoinization," a process by which every bank account gets converted into a stablecoin. I'm surprised that almost five years later, this loophole still hasn't been closed.

3. The typical riposte to this post will be: "But JP, stablecoins are implemented on blockchains, and blockchains are transparent. This prevents bad actors from using them, and so stablecoins should be exempt from standard anti-money laundering rules." I don't buy this. Bad actors are using stablecoin platforms, despite their pseudo-traceability. "Its convenient, it's quick," say a pair of sanctions breakers about payments made via Tether, the largest stablecoin platform. Society has deputized financial institutions to perform the crucial task of vetting all their users. By not doing so, stablecoin platforms are shirkers. Trying to outsource the policing task to the public or to the government by using a semi-transparent database technology doesn't cut it.

Why do sanctioned entities use Tether?

Tether, a stablecoin, has been in the news for offering sanctioned actors such as Hamas a means to participate in the global payments ecosystem.

In this post I want to explore in more depth how Tether is being used to dodge sanctions. I'm going to avoid drawing on the Hamas example, which has been controversial, and will instead dissect the U.S. Department of Justice's recent indictment of group of business people who brokered oil purchases from PDVSA, Venezuela's sanctioned state-owned oil company.

Let's get right into things. In this particular case, the buyers – who indirectly represented a sanctioned Russian aluminum company – seem to have used two methods for settling payments with Venezuela: bank wires and cash. (Tether makes an appearance in the second.)  

Before we get to Tether, we need to understand how the bank wires worked.

The Russian buyers operated through a network of shell companies, or fronts, set up in places like Dubai. "Because of [sanctions] we are using 'fronting'" the Russians admit. The Russians' Dubai-based shell companies had accounts at an Egyptian bank with a branch in Dubai. In a lovely line, one of the Russians, Orekhov, describes this bank as the "shittiest bank in the Emirates ... They have no issues, they pay to everything."

...the shittiest bank in the Emirates [link]

The more reputable Dubai banks probably didn't want to risk enabling the potentially sanctioned transactions of a Russian shell company, but here was a bank that had no qualms.

The Russian front companies couldn't wire U.S. dollars directly to the PDVSA; it was sanctioned. Instead, the payments were sent via the Egyptian bank to a number of foreign shell companies owned by the PDVSA, located in places like Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. With the payments sent, the Russian's boats could be loaded with Venezuelan oil.

The second payment method was U.S. banknotes. In fact, the PDVSA seemed to have preferred cash. In the excerpt below, the Venezuelan contact, Serrano, says that the Russian middleman, Orekhov, lost out on a previous oil shipment because a competing buyer offered to pay 100% in U.S. banknotes. "The key is cash," says Serrano. Venezuela is mostly dollarized, and with the PDVSA cut off from U.S. banks, you can understand why U.S. paper money would be quite valuable to the PDVSA.

"The key is cash" [source]

In response, the Russians suggest two cash-based payments options. In the first, they will send a bank wire to a Panamanian bank, and the Panamanian bank will pay the PDVSA cash in Venezuela. "This is simply a service that they do," says Orekhov. The second option that he suggests is to bring paper money to Evrofinance in Moscow. Evrofinance is a bank that is controlled by the PDVSA and has been sanctioned by the U.S.

The indictment doesn't detail whether either of these two solutions was chosen, but instead focuses on a third cash-based solution, one that involves using Tether, or USDt, as a switch.

The indictment documents this transaction particularly well. It's November 2021 and the Russians' ship is about to berth in Venezuela for loading. The Venezuelan contact, Serrano, notifies the Russian, Orekhov, that he needs to get ready to pay for 500,000 barrels of PDVSA oil. Orekhov responds by sending $17 million worth of USDt to a broker in Venezuela, who converts the USDt to cash. "No worries, no stress," says the Russian to his Venezuelan contact. "USDT works quick like SMS."

"...quick like SMS" [link]

Once the broker receives the $17 million USDt, the cash is placed in a bank where PDVSA officials can collect it. Now the boat can be loaded.

So in this case Tether is being used as third-party rail for buying cash in Venezuela. It is serving as an alternative to a set of bank wires made through shell companies, a notably speedier one. "It's quicker than telegraphic transfer," says Orekhov. "That why everyone does it now. It's convenient, it's quick."

Going the Tether route also has the benefit of not requiring a single know-your-customer (KYC) check. Orekhov could have bought $17 million USDt, and sent it to the Venezuelan broker, and neither of the two would have had to show the owner of the platform, Tether, their ID or fill out any forms. It's like using the "shittiest bank in the Emirates," except with even fewer hassles.

Delving further into the indictment, we learn that another key benefit of Tether is that it provides a degree of protection from the legal hazards of a traditional bank wire transfer. If you scroll down to the part of the indictment where charges are being laid, particularly Count Two, it is the bank wires that are at the root of Orekhov and Serrano's legal woes, not the Tether transactions.

Among many other crimes, Orekhov and his Venezuelan counterpart, Serrano, are accused of sanctions evasion, more specifically conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is the bit of legislation that contains U.S. sanctions law.

What specific actions incriminated them? This is a good question, because on first glance the defendants seem to be beyond the pale of U.S. jurisdiction. Both men were foreign nationals operating outside of the U.S. They connected a non-US buyer to a non-US seller. The product is not made in the America. Without a U.S. nexus, it would appear that Serrano and Orekhov are safe from the long reach of U.S. law enforcement.

The ultimate hook that catches Orekhov and Serrano is that part of their dealings were deemed to have occurred on U.S. soil. They made wire transfers using the "shittiest bank in the Emirates," and those wire transfers were ultimately processed through correspondent banks based in the New York metropolitan area.

To understand how New York-based banks touched the transaction, you need to know a little bit about how wire transfers work. To be capable of making a U.S. dollar wire transfer, the "shittiest bank in the Emirates" needed to have an account with a large U.S.-based correspondent bank, like JP Morgan. Likewise, the bank that the PDVSA shell companies were using would have also had accounts at a U.S. correspondent bank in order to accept U.S. dollar wires. A correspondent bank is a bank that, in addition to conducting regular banking business, specializes in serving foreign financial institutions.

So long story short, when U.S dollar funds moved from the Egyptian bank to the PDVSA shell accounts, much of the underlying activity to support this fund transfer occurred back in the U.S. the on the books of a bank such as JP Morgan.

That's the Department of Justice's smoking gun. Serrano and Orekhov are accused of having "caused" a U.S.-based financial institution to process tens of millions in U.S. dollar-denominated payments in violation of the IEEPA.

The Tether transactions, by contrast, do not provide the Department of Justice with anything incriminating. USDt transfer occurs on the books of Tether (which is registered in the British Virgin Islands), completely bypassing the New York correspondent banking system. So when they paid with USDt, Serrano and Orekhov didn't "cause" a U.S-based actor to do anything wrong.

Put differently, if the Russians and Venezuelans had conducted all their transactions with Tether and cash, and avoided bank wires altogether, it would have been impossible for the U.S. to indict them for violating the IEEPA. Thus, not only is Tether "quick like SMS," it also provides a degree of safe harbour from sanctions law.

But not for long?

In a recent letter to Congress, the U.S. Treasury says that stablecoins such as Tether pose a sanctions risk, and requests legislation to close this loophole. The Treasury notes that while it already has jurisdiction over offshore wires transfers because they "transit intermediary U.S. financial institutions," or correspondent banks, it does not have the same authority over "equivalent-value stablecoin transactions, because certain stablecoin transactions involve no U.S. touchpoints." (That's the core of what we were talking about in the previous paragraphs.)

"...stablecoin transactions involve no U.S. touchpoints"

To remedy this, the Treasury wants Congress to update its sanctions toolbox to give it "extraterritorial jurisdiction" over U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoin transactions. In brackets, it also adds "other U.S dollar-denominated transactions" to its wish list. What this appears to be conveying, and I could be wrong, is that the Treasury wants the ability to leverage the U.S. dollar symbol, more specifically the dollar's role as the dominant unit-of-account, as a new nexus for controlling transactions made by foreigners. 

If such a law were to pass, folks like Serrano and Orekhov could now be indicted not only for the traditional crime of making offshore U.S. dollar wire transfers that "cause" New York banks to violate sanctions law, but also for paying with Tether, because the latter invokes the U.S. dollar trademark. 

Leveraging the unit-of-account role of the U.S. dollar to get authority over foreign transactions is a huge step to take, certainly much broader than relying on correspondent banking as authority. Doing so would extend U.S. sanctioning power to a much wider set of foreign economic activity, not just U.S. dollar stablecoin-based transactions, but also potentially to U.S. cash payments, since those too make use of the U.S. dollar accounting unit. Congress will have to think hard before it grants the Treasury's request.

How stablecoin opacity and sloppy reserve management paid off (for now)

[I wrote this article for CoinDesk earlier this month and am republishing it here.]

USDC Boasted Transparency but It Didn't Help When Silicon Valley Bank Got Into Trouble

The weekend of March 10, 2023, was a profound test of how well stablecoins hold up under pressure. Now that everything has settled, some odd lessons have been passed on, namely: Transparency doesn't seem to be a good thing. And forget about prudent management of reserves – it's just not worth it.

Opacity and sloppy reserve management win the day. Or, at least, so it would appear.

Leading up to Friday, March 10, the issuer of second-largest stablecoin USD coin (USDC), Circle, was probably the industry's most transparent issuer.

It provided daily updates to investors through its BlackRock-managed money market fund, which backstops the stablecoin. On top of that, Circle had just adopted the New York Department of Financial Services’ guidance for stablecoin transparency, which required two attestation-of-reserves tests each month.

In contrast, Circle’s arch-competitor, Tether, which publishes attestation reports on a less-frequent quarterly basis, lagged far behind on transparency.

To boot, in its attestation reports Circle disclosed all sorts of useful information to users, such as each individual Treasury bill’s CUSIP number and where it banks. On that list was Silicon Valley Bank.

It was the last bit of data – Circle's banking relationships – that seems to have caught everyone's attention that Friday. After experiencing a run through most of the week, Silicon Valley Bank shares were halted at 9:30 a.m. local time after plunging 62% in premarket trading. Just before noon, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that it would be shutting the bank down.

Keen-eyed social media commentators scanning Circle's disclosures noticed the mention of deposits held at Silicon Valley Bank. Tweets were issued.

They certainly had cause for concern. When a bank fails and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) takes it over, depositors are only protected up to $250,000 per account. Anything above that amount is at risk. The implication was that if Circle had funds stuck at Silicon Valley Bank, it could suffer big losses. That meant potentially being insolvent. And that raised the possibility that USDC holders might not be made whole.

Social media began to demand a statement out of Circle. CoinDesk picked up on Circle's Silicon Valley Bank problem after lunch. Curve's massive 3pool, an important source of stablecoin liquidity, began to be drained as fearful traders swapped their USDC for USDT. By that evening, 3pool was empty and Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange by trading volume, suspended 1:1 conversions between Binance USD (BUSD) and USDC, indicating a significant amount of stress in the market.

By 7 p.m. ET, a slight USDC depegging from the U.S. dollar occurred on trading markets, and after 10 p.m. Circle finally issued a statement. It revealed that $3.3 billion of USDC’s reserves was in limbo at Silicon Valley Bank. The market was stunned. USDC's price began a sickening plunge to below 90 cents.

The irony of this is that neither of Circle's competitors, Tether and Paxos, disclose where they bank. And so commentators on social media didn't have enough dirt on Tether and Paxos to start asking questions. While USDC collapsed on exchanges, the prices of the Tether and Paxos stablecoins held solid.

Had Circle been as opaque as its competitors, no one would have known that Silicon Valley Bank was its banker and the weekend run on USDC probably would never have occurred.

The lesson would seem to be: Don't be transparent or, if you need to be transparent, don't be transparent about your shortcomings.

How might Circle have managed its reserves differently?

Paxos, which issues the Paxos dollar (USDP) stablecoin and, until recently, BUSD, offers some cues. According to the Paxos attestation reports on USDP, Paxos keeps hundreds of millions worth of deposits with banks, but all of those deposits are insured.

It bypasses the $250,000 limit in two ways.

First, some of Paxos' deposits are invested through placement networks. The way this works is that Paxos' bank farms money out to other partner banks in $250,000 blocks. Each of these blocks is completely covered by FDIC insurance. Although there are 4,333 FDIC-insured banks in the U.S., providing a theoretical coverage ceiling of $1.08 billion, in practice Paxos only uses deposit networks for part of its deposit balance.

For the remaining unprotected part, Paxos has contracted with an insurance company to be covered by private deposit insurance. Of the $270 million in cash reserves used to back USDP going into the crisis, $72 million was privately insured.

And that, folks, is how to prudently manage large cash balances. It's a pain. You can't just casually stash your billions at a bank; you've got to go out of your way to properly secure it.

Which leads us into the second irony. If it didn't pay for Circle to be transparent, it also didn't pay for Paxos to be prudent.

On Sunday evening, March 12, the FDIC announced that the $250,000 limit on insurance would be waived. All deposits held at Silicon Valley Bank would be extended a blanket guarantee. Circle's $3.3 billion was safe. In moments, the price of USDC rocketed back up to its $1 peg.

The crypto sector had just benefited from its first federal bailout, and not a small one at that. According to FDIC, the 10 largest deposit accounts at Silicon Valley Bank held a combined $13.3 billion, implying that Circle was the largest beneficiary of the bailout.

The moral of this part of the story is that the government's official cap of $250,000 was never very serious; unofficially, FDIC protects everything. Paxos' careful deployment of private insurance and deposits networks seems to have been a waste of time and resources, and its competitors' "don't think, just deposit" strategy the right one.

In the aftermath, Circle now advertises USDC as "a stablecoin with GSIB cash." That means no longer keeping a big chunk of its cash reserves at mid-size banks like Silicon Valley Bank but lodging most of it at Bank of New York Mellon, a global systemically important bank, one almost certain to benefit from a bailout should it fail. That also means Circle probably won’t bother going through the process of negotiating private deposit insurance.

As for Tether, which issues the least transparent of the big stablecoins going into March 10, it wasn't terribly prudent, either. Its public attestation reports give no indication that it routes its $5 billion or so in cash through deposit networks, nor does it resort to non-FDIC insurance. It fully absorbs the risk of its bankers going bust.

Yet, the amount of USDT in circulation has exploded by around $9 billion, or 11%, since that weekend.

On a long enough timeline, another significant stablecoin test, like the one that faced USDC, is inevitable. The reasons for the next one will be difficult to predict, and likely different from the last one. While opacity and a nonchalant approach to reserve management may not have been punished this time around (indeed, they seem to have been rewarded), if issuers internalize these lessons, then the next stablecoin crisis will only come sooner, and at a much larger scale.