A Risk Mitigation Model of Monetary Ecosystem with Stablecoins

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10469
• Title: A Risk Mitigation Model of Monetary Ecosystem with Stablecoins
• Authors: Hongzhe Wen (Washington University in St. Louis), R.S.M. Lau (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)
• Classification: q-fin.RM (Quantitative Finance - Risk Management)
• Publication Date: 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10469

Abstract

Stablecoins have become an integral component of global financial infrastructure, with a total market capitalization exceeding $250 billion as of 2025. With their increasing integration into payment and settlement systems, new channels of systemic risk exposure have emerged, particularly liquidity risks during periods of market stress. This study develops a hybrid monetary architecture that embeds fiat-backed stablecoins within a central bank-anchored framework to structurally mitigate liquidity vulnerabilities. The proposed model combines 100% reserve backing, interoperable redemption channels, and standing liquidity facilities to guarantee instantaneous redemption at par value. Using the 2023 SVB USDC depegging event as a calibrated stress scenario, the architecture demonstrates the capacity to reduce peak depegging deviation, shorten stress duration, and stabilize redemption queues under high redemption intensity.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Identification

1. Liquidity Risk Challenges: Although stablecoins are designed to maintain a 1:1 peg to fiat currency, they may experience value fluctuations during financial crises (such as bank runs), making liquidity risk a primary concern for all stablecoin stakeholders.
2. Regulatory Uncertainty: Following the signing of the U.S. GENIUS Act in 2025, stablecoins obtained a federal regulatory framework; however, balancing innovation with stability remains a challenge.
3. Systemic Risk: The rapid growth of the stablecoin market (from early billions to $250 billion) has rendered it systemically important financial infrastructure, necessitating appropriate risk management frameworks.

Research Significance

• Stablecoin transaction volumes have surpassed the combined totals of Visa and Mastercard, becoming a critical component of the global payment system
• 99% of stablecoins are pegged to the U.S. dollar, with significant implications for dollar monetary dominance and global financial stability
• The 2023 SVB incident exposed the interconnection between stablecoin reserve risks and the traditional banking system

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Pure Public Solutions (direct central bank issuance of retail CBDCs) may inhibit private innovation and raise concerns about government regulatory overreach
2. Laissez-faire Approaches may result in unstable runs or unregulated private currency abuse
3. Existing Stablecoin Models lack structural liquidity safeguards and rely on ad hoc government intervention to resolve crises

Core Contributions

1. Proposes a Hybrid Monetary Architecture: Develops a two-tier architecture combining private stablecoins with central bank infrastructure, balancing innovation and stability
2. Constructs a Liquidity Risk Mitigation Model: Addresses liquidity vulnerabilities structurally through 100% reserve backing, interoperable redemption channels, and standing liquidity facilities
3. Empirically Validates Framework Effectiveness: Uses the 2023 SVB-USDC depegging event for stress testing, demonstrating that the hybrid architecture significantly improves stability metrics
4. Provides Policy Guidance: Offers a credible pathway for integrating stablecoins into regulated financial systems while maintaining monetary integrity

Methodology

Task Definition

Design a hybrid monetary ecosystem architecture enabling privately-issued stablecoins to operate safely within central bank regulatory frameworks, while:

• Inputs: Existing stablecoin infrastructure, central bank policy tools, regulatory requirements
• Outputs: Structural liquidity risk mitigation solutions
• Constraints: Maintain monetary policy effectiveness, ensure financial stability, promote innovation

Model Architecture

Two-Tier Hybrid Architecture Design

Tier One - Core CBDC Infrastructure (Public Layer):

• Federal Reserve operates wholesale/retail CBDC ledger
• Provides interfaces to regulated intermediaries
• Supplies default-risk-free settlement assets
• Leaves retail customer relationships to the private sector

Tier Two - Private Tokens and Deposits (Private Layer):

• Banks or fintech issuers tokenize deposits
• Issue stablecoins redeemable 1:1 for CBDC
• Hold reserve assets as CBDC balances or Federal Reserve-held Treasury securities
• Achieve interoperability through shared messaging and redemption protocols

Key Technical Components

1. 100% Reserve Backing (Synthetic CBDC Model)$ILCR_{\Delta t} = \frac{IMR_{\Delta t}}{Q_{\Delta t}(p)}$ where $IMR_{\Delta t}$ represents immediately liquidizable reserves within time $\Delta t$, and $Q_{\Delta t}(p)$ represents p-quantile redemption demand.
2. Federated Network and Interoperability

• Standardized message formats and APIs
• Cross-platform bridging protocols
• Unified liquidity pools

3. Programmability and DeFi Integration

• Support for smart contract functionality
• Compatibility with existing DeFi protocols
• Automated payment logic

Technical Innovation Points

1. Structural Liquidity Safeguards: Unlike ex-post interventions, this architecture eliminates maturity transformation channels through design, addressing run dynamics ex-ante
2. Monetary Integrity Preservation: Ensures all forms of dollars (bank accounts, wallets, smart contracts) are equivalent and fully interchangeable
3. Regulatory Technology Integration: Real-time transparency, blockchain proofs, and continuous Federal Reserve data publication displaying reserve status

Experimental Setup

Dataset

• Time Series Data: Minute-level USDC-USD price data during the SVB event (March 10-15, 2023) from Kraken exchange
• Redemption Data: Circle historical daily USDC redemption data
• Reserve Parameters: Cash reserves 12%, Treasury securities 45%, repurchase agreements 43%; USDC circulation $43 billion

Evaluation Metrics

1. Liquidity Indicators
   • Instant Liquidity Coverage Ratio (ILCR): $ILCR_{1h} = 1.861$, $ILCR_{24h} = 13.257$
   • Minimum Margin Guarantee (MMG): $MMG_{1h} = 0$
2. Market Stability Indicators
   • Maximum Depegging Deviation: $D_{max} = \max D_t$
   • Stress Duration: $M_\varepsilon = \sum 1\{D_t \geq \varepsilon\}$
   • Longest Stress Period: $L_\gamma = \max\{\text{consecutive run length } D_t \geq \gamma\}$
3. Operational Indicators
   • Waiting Time: Calculated based on Erlang-C queueing model

Comparison Methods

• Baseline Model: Existing stablecoin architecture (without direct central bank support)
• Hybrid Model: Proposed two-tier architecture

Experimental Results

Main Results

Key Findings

1. Significant Reduction in Depegging Magnitude: The hybrid architecture reduces peak depegging from 12.19% to 3.05%, a 75% reduction
2. Shortened Stress Duration: Stress state duration reduced by 30%, with longest consecutive stress period shortened by 22.9%
3. Stabilized Operational Queues: While the baseline model exhibits queue instability in worst-case scenarios, the hybrid model achieves a peak waiting time of only 57.7 seconds

Case Study: SVB Event Recurrence

Event Background: Following SVB's collapse on March 10, 2023, Circle disclosed that $3.3 billion in USDC reserves were held at SVB, representing 8$0.87.

Hybrid Architecture Advantages:

• Reserve Risk Mitigation: 100% central bank custody eliminates commercial bank credit exposure
• Lender of Last Resort Support: Standing collateralized credit lines address temporary liquidity mismatches
• Transparency and Trust: Real-time verifiable reserve status reduces panic
• Interoperability and Redundancy: Diversified redemption channels prevent single points of failure

Related Work

Digital Currency Development Timeline

1. Cryptocurrency Evolution: From Bitcoin in 2008 to the emergence of stablecoin concepts
2. Central Bank Digital Currencies: 94% of central banks participating in CBDC projects, with China's e-CNY leading implementation
3. Stablecoin Types: Fiat-backed (USDT, USDC), crypto-collateralized (DAI), algorithmic (failed UST)

Regulatory Framework Development

• Legislative progress in Singapore, European Union, Switzerland, UAE, Hong Kong, and United States (2023-2025)
• Updated FATF standards and cross-border compliance requirements
• Policy shift from "wait-and-see" to "comprehensive regulation"

Theoretical Foundations

• Application of Diamond-Dybvig bank run model to stablecoin scenarios
• Liquidity risk management theory
• Monetary competition and cooperation theory

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Hybrid Architecture Feasibility: Demonstrates the effectiveness of public-private partnership models in maintaining innovation while ensuring stability
2. Structural Risk Mitigation: Possibility of addressing liquidity risks through design rather than ex-post intervention
3. Clear Policy Pathway: Provides concrete solutions for integrating stablecoins into regulated financial systems

Limitations

1. Regulatory Coordination Challenges: Cross-border regulatory inconsistencies may impede liquidity mobilization
2. Technical Implementation Complexity: Requires resolution of message format fragmentation, data localization requirements, and other operational challenges
3. Political Economy Considerations: Requires coordination among central banks and regulatory authorities across jurisdictions

Future Directions

1. Cross-Border Interoperability: Development of international standards and protocols
2. Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Application of zero-knowledge proofs and similar techniques in compliance
3. Dynamic Risk Management: Real-time monitoring and adaptive adjustment mechanisms

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theory-Practice Integration: Combines Diamond-Dybvig theory with real-world cases, enhancing persuasiveness
2. Rigorous Quantitative Analysis: Employs multiple metrics to quantify architectural improvements
3. Clear Policy Orientation: Provides specific, actionable policy recommendations
4. Comprehensive Technical Details: Encompasses full-spectrum design from system architecture to operational details

Weaknesses

1. Idealized Assumptions: Conditions such as 100% central bank custody may face political and technical resistance in practice
2. Single Case Dependency: Validation primarily based on the SVB event, lacking diverse stress test scenarios
3. Underestimation of International Coordination Complexity: May underestimate challenges in cross-border implementation

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new theoretical frameworks for digital currency risk management
2. Policy Reference: Offers policy-making guidance for central banks and regulatory authorities
3. Industry Guidance: Provides risk management guidelines for stablecoin issuers and financial institutions

Applicable Scenarios

• Major economic powers' central banks considering stablecoin regulatory framework design
• Large stablecoin issuers seeking compliance pathways
• International organizations coordinating cross-border digital currency policies
• Financial institutions assessing stablecoin business risks

References

The paper cites 42 important references, covering:

• BIS research reports on digital currencies and financial stability
• Central bank CBDC pilot project documentation
• Classic literature on Diamond-Dybvig bank run theory
• FATF anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards
• Major stablecoin project technical documentation and audit reports

Overall Assessment: This is a research paper of significant theoretical and practical value in the field of stablecoin risk management. Through rigorous quantitative analysis and real-world case validation, the authors propose an operationalizable hybrid monetary architecture solution, offering innovative approaches to addressing the critical issue of stablecoin liquidity risk. The paper's strong policy orientation provides important reference value for the development of global digital currency regulatory frameworks.