FSB maps how a run on a global stablecoin could cross borders, multi-issuer coins first

Serguey Asael Shinder13 October 2026, 06:542 min read

The Financial Stability Board has published a note for the G20, "Global Stablecoin Arrangements: Cross-border vulnerabilities and financial stability monitoring", dated 12 October 2026. It summarises the FSB's ongoing work and builds on its 2023 high-level recommendations and the 2025 peer review of their implementation.

The market. As of mid-2026, the FSB puts the total market value of stablecoins at around 300 billion dollars, essentially unchanged from a year earlier, with 99% by value pegged to the US dollar. Stablecoins are still used mainly as liquidity to enter, exit and trade in crypto markets; in some emerging and developing economies they also serve as a store of value.

Why issuers differ from banks. A bank knows its depositors and manages redemptions with a view of its whole balance sheet. A global stablecoin issuer, the FSB writes, may not know who holds its liabilities, where they are domiciled, or where redemption demand will appear, while its reserves and holders' legal protections stay anchored in specific jurisdictions. Round-the-clock secondary trading could speed up a sell-off if redemptions cannot keep up — or help arbitrage restore the peg.

The multi-issuer case. In arrangements where affiliated issuers share liability for one coin but hold separate reserves, holders may be able to redeem with any issuer. Redemption demand could then concentrate on a single entity in the group, and rebalancing reserves across borders may break down in stress. Where holders' locations cannot be established, it may be unclear which issuer owes what — and, in insolvency, which national regime applies.

Regulatory gaps. The interaction of frameworks across borders, including the treatment of foreign-issued stablecoins, is uncertain or undefined in many jurisdictions. The FSB notes that this has encouraged complex structures and regulatory arbitrage, with some issuers locating in lightly regulated or unregulated jurisdictions, and that global stablecoins and national frameworks remain untested in severe stress.

Data. Authorities rely mostly on private compilers of blockchain data whose methods vary, which creates comparability and credibility risks. Some limits are structural, such as pseudonymous public blockchains; others, like data that exists but is not disclosed, are more tractable.

What comes next. The note proposes monitoring the depth and structure of secondary markets and the geographic distribution of holdings, redemptions and reserves, and names three areas for further work: monitoring cross-border vulnerabilities, cross-border cooperation and information-sharing, and planning for the distress or failure of a global stablecoin arrangement.

Source: FSB, "Global Stablecoin Arrangements: Cross-border vulnerabilities and financial stability monitoring" — https://www.fsb.org/2026/10/global-stablecoin-arrangements-cross-border-vulnerabilities-and-financial-stability-monitoring/