The Stablecoin Risk Nobody Talks About
Inspired by the Bank Policy Institute’s November 2025 analysis Stablecoins were meant to make payments faster, cheaper, and smoother. A digital token pegged to the U.S. dollar—how complicated could that be? But if you look at what the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and U.S. regulators are saying lately, the so-called “safe” coins might be anything but. For treasurers, that matters. Because stablecoins aren’t just a crypto curiosity anymore—they’re creeping into settlement infrastructure, fintech rails, and bank-tech partnerships. The question isn’t if they touch your world, but how much risk they drag along when they do. The Stable Promise, the Fragile Reality The U.S. “GENIUS Act” (yes, someone actually called it that) is supposed to give stablecoins a legal and supervisory framework. It requires issuers to fully back tokens with high-quality liquid assets and redeem them on demand. On paper, that looks like the kind of regulation treasurers could live with. But paper isn’t balance-sheet reality. Even fully backed stablecoins can stumble if their reserves lose value or redemptions get messy. In other words, they can “break the buck” just like a money-market fund. The BPI highlights that risk clearly: the peg is a promise, not a guarantee. DeFi: The Wild West of Liquidity Here’s where it gets more interesting. Many stablecoins end up circulating on decentralised finance (DeFi) platforms—an unregulated playground that looks like a banking system with none of the adult supervision. Stablecoins are borrowed, leveraged, re-lent, and rehypothecated across multiple chains. When that loop breaks, liquidity disappears overnight. The risk doesn’t stay in DeFi—it seeps into payment networks, custodians, and even fintechs connecting to corporate treasuries. It’s a classic contagion problem in a new wrapper. Why Treasurers Should Care Most treasurers won’t touch stablecoins directly. But here’s the catch: your payment provider, your ERP, or your fintech partner might. And that means you’re exposed whether you like it or not. Think about it this way: You don’t need to be holding stablecoins to get splashed by their problems. What Regulators Are Worried About The BPI’s latest note reads like a polite but firm warning to lawmakers: the GENIUS Act could backfire if implemented too loosely. Their key points: Translation: regulators see what’s coming, and it looks suspiciously like a parallel financial system. What This Means for Corporate Treasury For treasurers, this is not about betting on blockchain. It’s about protecting liquidity and ensuring continuity in a financial system that’s quietly changing shape. Final Thought Stablecoins could still change how money moves—24/7, borderless, programmable. The opportunity is real, but so is the need for discipline. For treasurers, the advantage goes to those who prepare before the market standard shifts. The future of payments might not belong to whoever adopts stablecoins first, but to whoever understands their risks best. Also Read Join our Treasury Community Treasury Mastermind is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.
Franklin
Why your business needs an in-house Bank today
This article is written by Nomentia If you’re managing 200+ bank accounts across 12 countries with a spreadsheet and goodwill, you’re not alone. But you are doing it wrong. You’re losing control. And you know it. Every late close, every FX surprise, every “where’s the cash?” email from your CFO is a symptom of a system that’s outgrown itself. Treasury teams are burning hours reconciling internal transfers, chasing balances, and paying transaction fees to banks just to move money between their own entities. Pretending it’s normal. Pretend that treasury has to be complex. That intercompany flows must be messy. That setting up banking for a new subsidiary must take months. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t. You wouldn’t run finance without a general ledger. Why are you still running treasury without an internal bank? Meet Janne Tuunanen With over a decade of experience at Nomentia, Janne Tuunanen has worked closely with companies across industries to solve complex treasury challenges. He shares his insights on what it takes to build a solid business case for implementing an in-house bank. What is an in-house bank, really? The in-house bank is the fix most companies know about but haven’t acted on. Why? Because it sounds big, and no one has time for big. But not doing it is already costing you in speed, visibility, and money. Instead of relying on dozens of external banks and manual processes, an in-house bank lets you control the movement of money across your group. With an IHB, you can: The result? Fewer accounts, fewer fees, cleaner intercompany flows, and real-time visibility into global cash. The best part? It’s measurable, and it’s next. The treasurer’s wake-up call Meet Johan, a treasurer who thought he had things under control. Johan manages treasury for a €500 million turnover manufacturing group with operations in eight countries. On paper, things look fine. Cash is flowing. Payrolls are met. No one is panicking. But underneath, things look a little different. The company has 250 external bank accounts spread across 14 banks. Every month, Johan’s team spends two weeks consolidating balances. The month-end close takes three days, and that’s on a good month. Intercompany loans are tracked in spreadsheets. No one has a clear view of the group’s cash position until it’s too late. Then the audit lands. The FX report shows €60,000 in preventable losses over the past year. All due to poor internal netting and suboptimal currency rates. It’s not a surprise. Johan knew they were exposed. But now the CFO knows too. That same week, a new acquisition in Spain stalls because treasury can’t open local accounts fast enough. Local teams are wiring money manually. Risk is spiking, and Johan’s phone won’t stop ringing. He finally sits down and maps it out. Too many accounts. Too many banks. Too many internal transfers that cost real money. He adds up the fees, the staff hours, the hidden losses. It’s not sustainable. Things need to change. Building the business case: A clear ROI It’s easy to assume an in-house bank is only worth the trouble for the big players. That’s exactly what Johan thought, too, until he did the math. Johan started mapping the chaos onto a spreadsheet: bank accounts, transaction volumes, fees, staff hours, and FX losses. What begins as a gut feeling turns into a clear financial case. And the numbers speak for themselves: Category Before IHB After IHB Savings / Gains External bank accounts 250 90 160 fewer accounts Monthly costs per account €5 €5 Annual costs €15,000 €5,400 €9,600 Weekly transactions 6,000 6,000 Internal transactions processed via banks Yes No €60,000 saved Transaction costs per item €0.20 €0.20 – Treasury headcount needs Increasing – FTE for admin €30,000 saved FX handled via banks Yes Internal pricing €30,000 saved Hedging effectiveness Fragmented Centralized €30,000 Year-one costs (setup + solution) €70,000 Total one-year savings €159,600 Net year-one gain €89,600 Monthly net gain ~€13,000 Beyond ROI: Strategic impact of In-house bank Twelve months after implementing the in-house bank, Johan’s treasury looks nothing like it did before. Month-end close, once a painful three-day scramble, now takes less than a day. The team no longer chases balances or reconciles intercompany positions. Instead, it’s all visible in real time. What used to be manual, fragmented, and reactive is now automated, centralized, and calm. When the company acquired a new subsidiary in Poland, treasury had banking in place within hours. No waiting for local accounts. No compliance bottlenecks. Payments were live on day one. The internal FX desk, once an operational headache, now runs like a miniature profit center offering better-than-bank rates to group entities and locking in spreads the company used to pay to third parties. But the biggest change? Strategic speed. With cash visibility across entities, better hedging tools, and a unified payments layer, the business can now move quickly, no matter whether it’s a new market, a major deal, or a shift in capital structure. The in-house bank didn’t just bring savings but changed how fast the company can think and act. If you’re considering it, you probably need it Most companies don’t realize how inefficient their treasury operations are until the costs become visible. If you’re even thinking about an in-house bank, it’s worth asking yourself a few direct questions: These aren’t just operational questions. They point to whether your finance function is built to support scale, speed, and strategic decision-making. If your answers make you uncomfortable, you’re already overdue for an in-house bank. Why you’re (probably) ready for an in-house bank Treasury complexity doesn’t scale well, and most companies are already feeling it. Too many accounts. Too many fees. Too much time spent on things that should be automatic. If your finance team is still chasing balances, reconciling internal transactions manually, or waiting weeks to set up banking for a new entity, you’re not behind. You’re exposed. An in-house bank isn’t a luxury. It’s infrastructure. It gives you the tools…