💻Government stablecoins are becoming a new tool of financial policy, situated at the intersection of technology, regulation, and trust. Their emergence reflects the desire of states to maintain control over the monetary circulation in the context of the digitalization of the economy.
The key question in this model is who exactly should be the issuer. The state can issue a stablecoin directly or delegate this function to private partners, maintaining oversight and regulatory levers.
Direct state issuance provides the maximum level of control. In such a model, it is easier to ensure compliance with monetary policy, manage reserves, and respond quickly to crisis situations.
👆However, direct state issuance has its limitations. State structures are often less flexible, slower to implement innovations, and may lag behind the private sector in user experience and technological speed.
🔥The model with private partners offers an alternative. Private companies have expertise in blockchain technologies, infrastructure, and scaling digital products, which accelerates the launch and development of stablecoins.
At the same time, the participation of private issuers increases regulatory risks. Without clear rules, the likelihood of opaque reserve management, conflicts of interest, and loss of trust from society increases.
👀Therefore, the key task of the state is to establish a strict but clear regulatory framework. It should define the requirements for reserves, audits, reporting, and risk management.
The structure of reserves is of particular importance. Regardless of who the issuer is, users must be confident that each token is backed by liquid and reliable assets.
The separation of roles is also important. The state should set the rules, control their compliance, and have intervention tools, but it is not necessary to participate in daily operational processes.
In the context of KGST, this dilemma is particularly evident. The project combines state interests with the involvement of private infrastructure, making the issue of the balance of power and responsibility critically important.
The hybrid model requires transparent decision-making mechanisms. Users should understand who is responsible for issuance, reserve storage, technical support, and compliance with legislation.
Regulation should also take into account the cross-border nature of stablecoins. Even a national token quickly goes beyond a single jurisdiction, complicating control and increasing coordination requirements.
Particular attention should be paid to the protection of the rights of holders. In case of failures or disputes, there should be clear legal procedures and guarantees for the return of funds.
The issue of trust is no less important. It is formed not by statements, but by the practice of regular audits, open reporting, and consistent actions of the regulator.
In the long term, those models will be successful where the state and private partners do not compete but complement each other within clearly defined rules.
Regulating government stablecoin issuers is not a choice between the state and the market, but a search for a sustainable balance that ensures stability, innovation, and public trust.