IMF: Domestic stablecoins may lift demand for dollar-backed tokens

Efforts to promote stablecoins pegged to local currencies in order to reduce dependence on dollar-backed tokens may end up doing something quite different: making it easier for users to switch into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.

In remarks delivered at the University of Cape Town, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that if local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain infrastructure, conversion between the two could become routine through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer swaps. The implication, he suggested, is that stablecoin design aimed at curbing dollar exposure could inadvertently improve access to FX stablecoins.

Key takeaways

• IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-coin stablecoins could also facilitate conversion into dollar-backed tokens if both run on shared blockchain infrastructure.
• Once interoperability is built, Katz said users may be able to exchange between stablecoin types via decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or P2P swaps.
• He argued that this could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries such as banks and currency dealers.
• Katz highlighted that outcomes are likely to differ by country, depending on dollarization levels, market access, and economic institutions.
• He urged regulators to ensure onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points are integrated within regulatory frameworks.

Why interoperability changes the stablecoin story

The IMF official’s central point is not merely about what stablecoins are pegged to, but about how easily they can be moved and swapped once they share technical rails. Katz argued that if local and dollar stablecoins “operate on the same blockchain infrastructure,” users would have multiple pathways to convert between them—effectively reducing the practical difference between holding a rand-linked or a dollar-linked token.

This matters because stablecoin adoption is often shaped by more than the peg. According to Katz, even when local-currency tokens are available, many users may still prefer dollar tokens due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and acceptance across platforms and borders. In other words, the attractiveness of dollar stablecoins may be structurally reinforced by where activity and market depth already exist.

When those advantages are paired with interoperability, the “local-currency” intention can be diluted: users may treat pegged tokens as interchangeable short cuts rather than as separate ecosystems.

Potential impact on FX markets and capital-flow monitoring

Katz also framed the issue from the perspective of how FX activity and capital flows are handled. He said that routing conversion and movement through decentralized venues could move foreign-exchange activity away from banks and currency dealers.

The policy consequence, in his view, is that the usual frictions—those gaps that authorities can sometimes leverage to observe, measure, and manage capital flows—may be reduced. If stablecoin trading and exchange become more direct and automated, regulators may find it harder to rely on the traditional chokepoints that exist in bank-led FX systems.

At the same time, Katz argued that the direction of travel could be consistent with broader adoption dynamics: “In this way, local-currency stablecoins might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins.” That is a key tension running through his remarks—efforts meant to localize currency exposure could end up making FX stablecoins more accessible.

What the IMF official cited from South Africa

Katz pointed to South Africa as an example where dollar-backed stablecoins have seen limited traction, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand. He noted that it was “too early” to draw firm conclusions, but the pattern underscores the possibility that local-pegged products have struggled to achieve the same pull as dollar-denominated alternatives.

For investors and market participants, the takeaway is straightforward: liquidity and ecosystem maturity can matter as much as the peg itself. If dollar stablecoins already circulate across a wider set of venues and users, interoperability could channel demand toward the assets that offer the easiest conversion and deepest markets.

Country-by-country risks: dollarization versus restricted access

While Katz did not present a one-size-fits-all forecast, he argued that the risks vary across countries. He suggested that stablecoins could largely replace existing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies—meaning the shift would be more about substitution of what people already hold.

In contrast, he warned that in countries where access to dollars is restricted and economic frameworks are weaker, stablecoins could increase foreign-currency demand. In those settings, the accessibility gains from onchain conversion may become economically consequential, potentially shifting how households and businesses seek to hedge or transact.

That distinction is important for policymakers who might otherwise assume that “local-currency stablecoins” automatically reduce cross-border currency pressures. Katz’s framing implies that the broader macro effect depends on whether stablecoin adoption replaces existing behavior or changes the feasibility of accessing foreign currency in the first place.

Regulators may need onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points

Rather than advocating for a simplistic approval or prohibition approach, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory coverage around the full stablecoin lifecycle—specifically onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points. His comments imply that supervision cannot stop at issuing rules for pegged tokens; it also has to address where conversions happen and how users enter and exit stablecoin positions.

From a market-structure standpoint, this is a crucial policy challenge. If decentralized exchanges and liquidity pools become the primary route for swapping between stablecoin types, regulation that only targets centralized issuers may miss the most active venues for price discovery and asset conversion.

What to watch next is whether jurisdictions pursuing local-currency stablecoins also take interoperability and exchange routing seriously in their regulatory designs. If local and dollar stablecoins become technically unified, Katz’s warning suggests demand may flow toward the tokens with the deepest liquidity and widest acceptance—potentially changing both the mechanics of FX access and the practical tools available to monitor cross-border financial activity.