Artem Lyashanov: Why Regulatory Clarity for Stablecoins Has Not Solved the Main Problem

The EU and the US have finally obtained clear regulatory frameworks for stablecoins, but they have built them differently. This creates a new type of complexity for institutions operating in both jurisdictions at once. Artem Lyashanov explained why regulatory clarity on its own does not yet mean operational compatibility.

Two Frameworks, Two Different Approaches

A year ago, uncertainty was the industry's main problem. Now frameworks have emerged in both jurisdictions, and this is genuine progress: institutions can plan capital around a known regulatory profile instead of an unknown one.

In his assessment, at the level of principles the frameworks do indeed align:

Both require one-to-one reserve backing with highly liquid assets;
Both prohibit paying yield on payment stablecoins;
Both set requirements for AML/KYC, audits and redemption at par.

The European framework divides stablecoins into e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens, each with its own licensing requirements. The American model creates a separate category: permitted payment stablecoin issuers supervised by several regulators at once.

"These licensing pathways simply do not overlap," explains Artem Lyashanov.

Why One Company Runs Two Parallel Compliance Programs

A global institution that uses stablecoins for cross-border settlements effectively maintains two separate compliance systems for one and the same asset class. Two custody regimes, two reserve audit regimes, two different interpretations of what segregation of funds means in practice.

He stresses that this is not a one-time adjustment but a recurring systemic cost:

Every new product requires a separate legal analysis under both frameworks;
Banking relationships and custody agreements have to be duplicated;
Supervisory bodies do not share information with each other.

As far as one can tell, there is no mutual recognition mechanism between these regimes yet, and one is unlikely to appear in the near future, he adds.

Jurisdiction as a Strategic Decision

Just a year ago the choice was simple: regulated or unregulated status. Now it is a choice between several legitimate but incompatible regimes. And this decision shapes a company's banking relationships, custody architecture and supervisory obligations for years to come.

He draws attention to one potentially significant but still distant development:

The American framework provides for a regulatory passporting mechanism for jurisdictions with a comparable level of regulation. If it works, issuers from substantially similar regimes will be able to enter the US market without establishing a separate legal entity in the United States. But this requires bilateral negotiations between regulators, and practical implementation is probably still a long way off.

Regulatory passporting is a mechanism whereby a company that has obtained a license or authorization in one jurisdiction can operate in another jurisdiction without going through the full licensing procedure there again, provided that the regulators of the two countries recognize each other's regimes as sufficiently equivalent.

"Jurisdictions that formally fall within neither the European nor the American regulatory perimeter, but have recognized and mature financial supervision, are becoming strategically important precisely because of this incompatibility," explains Artem Lyashanov.

According to him, the key advantage of such jurisdictions is a principles-based rather than purely prescriptive approach to regulating digital assets:

Sufficient flexibility for new financial instruments without constant changes to legislation;
A level of rigor that the internal compliance teams of large institutions accept;
Long-standing bilateral agreements with major financial centers that allow them to function as a regulatory bridge between systems.

Despite the progress in regulation, Artem Lyashanov cautions against viewing the current situation as final:

Both frameworks continue to evolve independently of each other, under the pressure of their own political logic, so the gap between them will likely remain a structural rather than a temporary phenomenon;
Companies that build infrastructure for a single jurisdiction risk facing a costly rebuild when entering another;
Regulatory passporting remains merely a possibility, and relying on it as a strategy is premature for now.

"In my assessment, the advantage will go to those companies that design their infrastructure from the very start around the existence of this gap, rather than hoping it will quickly disappear," concludes Artem Lyashanov.