TL; DR
- Stablecoins vs CBDCs is a proxy war over global payment rails.
- BRICS bans on stablecoins are designed to block dollar penetration and accelerate monetary multipolarity.
- The U.S. is turning to stablecoins as a defensive tool to preserve reserve-currency reach without adopting a CBDC.
- Opinion: A mercantilist system is re-emerging, splitting money into 2 types: domestic and international.
Summary: Monetary Supply Chains
Authored by GoldFix
Housekeeping: Presented two ways: Accessible podcast (on site) , and slightly more formal written version below. What looks like a debate about Stablecoin vs. CBDC is really a global struggle for control
“Payment is a monetary supply chain. The world is now contesting that chain, with the U.S. defending the dollar and China advancing the yuan. Gold appreciates inside this conflict as the only truly global settlement asset both sides can use.”
The global debate over stablecoins, central bank digital currencies, and BRICS monetary initiatives is widely misunderstood because it is framed through technical jargon rather than power, control, and incentive structures. At the macro level, stablecoins and CBDCs are policy tools. At the geopolitical level, they are weapons in a contest between a challenged reserve currency and a rising multipolar order. At the secular level, they reflect a return to mercantilism, where nations compete to control payment rails, capital bases, and settlement mechanisms. The fight is not about technology. It is about who controls money, where it circulates, and whose rules govern trade.
Cutting Through the Terminology Fog
The current monetary discourse is saturated with overlapping and often contradictory language. Stablecoins, CBDCs, tokenized money, digital rails, programmable currency. The terminology itself obscures the underlying dynamics.
“If this soup of terminology is seemingly confusing, well, if you take a look at it from a macroeconomic perspective it will make sense. But if you take a look at it from a geopolitical, secular perspective, a mercantile perspective, it makes a lot more sense.”
The confusion is not accidental. Much of the debate focuses on surface-level mechanics while avoiding the structural motivations behind policy choices. When framed properly, the behavior of the United States, China, and the BRICS bloc follows a coherent logic.
The Macro: Policy Tools and Stated Intentions
At the macroeconomic level, the discussion centers on rules, policies, and official justifications. Governments explain their actions in terms of consumer protection, financial stability, and monetary sovereignty.
From this vantage point, the United States seeks to maintain its position as issuer of the global reserve currency. One adaptation under consideration is the expansion of dollar-based stablecoins. These instruments allow the dollar to move more easily across borders and into jurisdictions where direct dollarization would face resistance.
“Stablecoins are a sugar-coated wrapper that makes it easier to swallow the bitter pill of U.S. dollar dependency, especially for smaller countries.”
In response, many nations either ban stablecoins outright or restrict them unless issued under domestic authority. The stated solution is the adoption of central bank digital currencies, which are framed as tools to protect citizens and preserve national monetary systems.
At this level, the narrative appears fragmented. Some countries ban stablecoins. Others encourage them. Some experiment with CBDCs. Others delay. Taken only at face value, the policy landscape looks inconsistent.
Geopolitical: GRC Status Versus Multipolarity
Zooming out reveals coherence. What appears fragmented at the policy level resolves into a contest between two opposing monetary objectives.
On one side stands the incumbent global reserve currency. On the other stands a coalition seeking multipolarity.
“What the BRICS are really doing by banning stablecoins and adopting CBDCs is shutting the dollar out. They want their currencies to float economically and discover their own value.”
BRICS initiatives such as cross-border settlement platforms, bilateral trade arrangements, and large-scale gold accumulation are not isolated projects. They are components of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on the dollar-centered system.
This shift places the dollar on the defensive. Stablecoins become a countermeasure. They allow the dollar to retain relevance even as formal banking and settlement channels fragment.
“It is BRICS versus the United States. Multipolarity trying to assert itself and the incumbent reserve currency trying to protect its position.”
At this layer, stablecoins and CBDCs cease to be neutral technologies. They become instruments of strategic competition.
Structural Layer: Mercantilism Returns
Zooming out again reveals the deepest framework. The global economy is transitioning away from globalism toward regionalization. As trade blocs harden, so do monetary zones.
“The world is split in two. The world is regional. And as a regional world breaks down from globalism, you are going to have regional currencies.”
In such a system, nations prioritize control over capital flows, tax bases, and internal demand. This is mercantilism in modern form. Digital money simply accelerates and formalizes the process.
China’s opposition to stablecoins follows directly from this logic. Dollar-linked stablecoins represent an injection of foreign monetary influence into the domestic economy.
“To use dollars at the retail level is to replace the currency of the nation slowly and surely from the inside out.”
CBDCs, by contrast, lock capital within national systems. They reinforce domestic control while enabling selective engagement externally.
The United States approaches the problem from the opposite position. As the dominant issuer, it benefits from global circulation of its currency. If traditional mechanisms weaken, alternatives must be developed.
“If the U.S. cannot maintain its global reach with its currency as it currently stands, then it needs to adapt to what BRICS are doing.”
Stablecoins become the adaptation layer. Even without adopting a formal CBDC, stablecoins can replicate many of the same control functions domestically while preserving private-sector intermediaries.
“Stablecoins will serve the same purpose as CBDCs for U.S. citizens, just run by private companies. And there’s your corporatism.”
Bifurcation of Money: Domestic Use Versus International Settlement
As mercantilism reasserts itself, money bifurcates by function.
Domestically, nations deploy digital currencies to manage taxation, compliance, and internal stability. Internationally, different instruments emerge to settle trade and sovereign obligations.
“You are going to have money that you use to buy things, and then you are going to have money that you use to settle international debts.”
In parts of the East, this may involve CBDCs paired with gold-linked settlement mechanisms. In the West, it may involve stablecoins layered atop existing financial infrastructure.
This division mirrors historical mercantilist systems where trade settlement and domestic circulation operated under different rules.
Payment Rails as the True Battleground
At the core of this entire transition lies one concept.
“Payment rails are the things that people use to settle their trades.”
Payment rails determine whose currency is used, whose rules apply, and whose system captures transaction data and fees. They are fragmenting globally.
