Talk:Stablecoin

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2025 (3)

Add additional reference (https://www.jsm.com/publications/2025/what-hong-kong-stablecoin-issuers-need-to-know-about-the-latest-aml-cft-compliance/) for this line: "In particular, guidelines require stablecoin issuers to have strict rules on anti-money laundering, risk management, and corporate governance." Reditswk (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This reference does not add anything not covered by the existing citation to the South China Morning Post, and may be an attempt at WP:REFSPAM. Day Creature (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing input/feedback

@Arutoria I've been reviewing the article and making some edits where the text seems broader than what the sources directly support. In a few places the wording may risk issues such as WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:UNDUE. Since some of the sections I edited seem to overlap with material you added, I wanted your input.

For example, the humanitarian aid section relies on reporting on the ImpactMarket crypto project. In that context, it feels like its being used for broader claims about aid than what the source directly states.

More generally, other sections seem to rely on pilot programs, proposals, or limited case studies. These appear to more forward-looking instead of writing from the perspective of a editor reading the article 10 years in the future WP:10YT. I’m not sure all of these are significant enough to include unless there are stronger independent sources showing broader usage.

Any thoughts? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Sibshops, thank you for reviewing the article!

Regarding the humanitarian aid part, there are more sources I can add. I didn't add wrote too much about that part because I was more focused on collecting information about regulations around the world (something that should have been done by financial institutions but somehow the information is not easily available and I have to look through legislation.)

Digitisation and Sovereignty in Humanitarian Space: Technologies, Territories and Tensions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2022.2047468#d1e569

While I understand these programmes are still being implemented at a small scale, I think it is important to point out their use in developing countries. Due to the limited internet infrastructure and information from these areas, we are bound to receive less information about the Global South.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-stablecoins-could-further-weaken-africas-public-finances

I have been seeing more coverage about how stablecoins are increasingly being adopted in Africa. In terms of volume, the scale cannot compare to the speculation we are seeing in the US, but the number of people affected could be much higher.

I can write more about the use in developing countries and humanitarian aid. Is it only that part (Stablecoin#Aid distribution) that require rewriting? Thank you. Arutoria (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

cgdev appears to be a blog post. The tf online is a journal and needs to be evaluated from a WP:SCHOLARSHIP perspective, and I am not sure if it is WP:PRIMARY here. The piece has a lot of citations, but at least the first part of it, its more citations for the purpose of creating a thesis and doesnt appear to be WP:SECONDARY. For cryptocurrency in general we are only using high quality sources, mainstream sources. That means no coindesk and it also means no primary blog posts by NGOs and no primary quasi research pieces. To put it simply on these crypto articles we need to see stuff covered by the likes of bloomberg, wsj, nyt, high quality authorship of books, etc. Trying to put together some sort of piece about how stablecoins might help the world in the future is problematic from POV, SYNTH, CRYSTAL, etc. Also predictions of how stablecoins will destroy the world are just as problematic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The current article is quoting from reliable sources. That is why I am asking the OP for clarification regarding which part they think is problematic. I am aware that coindesk is not a reliable source and they are not quoted in the article. Arutoria (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I can make the changes myself, but if you feel any of them aren't warranted, please feel free to revert. I'm mainly interested in getting your feedback on the general direction of the edits and whether the concerns I raised seem reasonable. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I am mostly fine with the changes. Sometimes I avoided mentioning specific stablecoins (such as USDC in the case of Ukrainian aid) because I don't want to be seen as promoting specific cryptocurrencies. But if you think that is necessary, it is fine by me.

Regarding the "criminal use" part, the reason I picked "pig butchering" as a subtopic is because they are very very important for people especially in Asia. Nearly everyone here had received some form of scam calls.

And I want to avoid grouping these scams with uses such as in the case of Russian stablecoins. While the state is being sanctioned by American and some European countries, the average, common citizen in Russia using stablecoin to conduct business can hardly be called "crime". Remember that they could be trading with Armenian, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. who did not participate in the sanction.

I made a section named Ukrainian war because I know that stablecoin use in the country is increasingly common. Their government even received donations in USDT during crowd funding.

https://www.elliptic.co/blog/live-updates-millions-in-crypto-crowdfunded-for-the-ukrainian-military

Unfortunately the above link might not be considered a reliable source and therefore I cannot add that information into the article. If this is reported by a more reputable avenue, this would make that part more complete. Arutoria (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And I want to avoid grouping these scams with uses such as in the case of Russian stablecoins.

Do you have any suggestions on how you would prefer to organize it?

One of the sources discusses the ruble-based stablecoin in the context of sanctions evasion, so I thought placing it under the crime section would be reasonable. If that grouping doesn't seem right, the section could maybe be renamed something like "Illicit uses" instead?

For example, the source states:

Through his ruble-based stablecoin A7A5, money is funneled via black-market exchanges in Turkey, the UAE, and Lebanon before being recycled into Moldovan politics to evade sanctions.

https://www.stimson.org/2025/moldovas-2025-elections-a-test-case-for-russias-hybrid-warfare/ ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

'Criminal use' seems fine to me. The sources for the paragraph on Russian sanction evasion are pretty clearly about criminal uses. Any hypothetical Armenian, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. who participate in this scheme don't get to pick-and-choose whether or not they also participate in sanctions -that's kind of the whole point of sanctions. Per cited sources, this stablecoin exists to evade sanctions. It's not even subtle. If reliable sources discuss non-criminal uses, let's see them, but considering the context and raw quantity of sources about criminal uses, any source which completely ignores this aspect is inherently fishy. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Grayfell, I understand you have your own issue with the article. Can we discuss first before making drastic changes? For e.g. in the Venezuelan case, I have seen more sources describing the issue. But because no one was having an issue back then, I didn't add too many sources to avoid making things too complicated.

The image of Venezuela is to illustrate the hyperinflation and therefore make comparison to USD-denominated stablecoin in the paragraph. It is a perfect image to illustrate the situation which led to adoption of stablecoin.

New Vision is the most visited source of news in Uganda and not just some unknown outlet.

If you have issue with the source/content/image, please flag them before making drastic changes. I am not good at html stuff so finding text from old version is difficult for me. Thank you. Arutoria (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You understand? Are you sure? Because your comments do not reflect that understanding. This is a collaborative project, and I am not obligated to 'flag' problems for your convenience. As for being 'drastic', I think drastic changes will likely needed here, eventually, but those edits I made were not drastic.

The image was not "perfect", since it had no direct connection to the topic of the article, and should not be used for decoration or to tell a political story. This is per MOS:IMG.

I did not remove the New Vision source. You will need to proportionately summarize what sources say without WP:SYNTH. Stick to reliable sources. Do not go hunting for weaker sources to inflate the article with small-scale examples. Start with substantial sources and only use weaker sources to provide context or fill-in non-controversial details. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Hyperinflation" may not be the most accurate description for this type of usage, in the first place. The El País article describes usage as a "hedge against volatility" rather than framing it strictly in a hyperinflation context. So I renamed the section to 'Currency Substitution'

I also reviewed the two sources cited for hyperinflation-related usage in Argentina and Turkey. One appears to be a student-run publication, the other seems to be describing a possible use case rather than documenting usage. I tried to find a substitute reliable source, but didn't have any luck. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah...the good old antagonistic @Grayfell is back.

Quoting, "You understand? Are you sure? Because your comments do not reflect that understanding."

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Despite attempt to have good faith conversation, you think you are always correct and have no attempt to have a discussion first. Remember before I started becoming the main editor of this article months ago? I asked for everyone's opinion on the direction first, and then only made edits AFTER I see no objection. Its possible to find that archive.

You mentioned this is a collective work, which is why it is even more important to have discussion first. Do you realise the reason editing Wikipedia become so unwelcoming to newcomers is exactly because of attitude like this?

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite

I am glad you don't work in education. (If you do, my condolences to your students.) Because learning is going to be a nightmare under your direction.

In a rush to prove you are right, you even re-reverted before one day in a locked article and only realised the mistake in later edits. This is exactly the reason I asked for discussion first, because of possible situation like this.

And you didn't even mentioned "good faith edit" in your revert despite me stating clearly the reason for the edit. Is that how Wikipedia has become now? Everything is about war and not working together?

Unfortunately I have a full time job and its Monday here so I do not have the time to respond to your point one by one yet.

For this reason I trust @Sibshops to continue their editing. At least they have the gratitude to discuss first and not make rash edits. Thank you for collaboratng Sibshops! Arutoria (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not a newcomer. You've had an account for over a decade, with over a thousand edits. Therefor, I assume that you already know about WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the rest. To be blunt, you do not need to know HTML (which is not used in editing most Wikis anyway) to browse the article's history.

I don't know which edits you disapprove of, nor why, nor would that invalidate them. Are my edits 'drastic'? That doesn't tell me anything.

It's not appropriate for you to speculate, but I have worked in education. Invoking my students to insult me ain't really in the spirit of WP:AGF, is it?. It doesn't matter, either. This talk page is not a school and (I assume) you are not one of my students. This is an encyclopedia article.

Likewise, this isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, and that's part of the problem with the current article. (I'm sure you've already seen WP:RGW). If you want to talk about specific changes, do so. If you want to start a new talk section to do so, go ahead.

I must admit, I am pretty cranky about the images, and if I'd noticed it sooner, I would've removed them sooner. Showing a random group of refugees minding their own business was a mistake. It just looked exploitive. The current wording on the bolivar image is grammatically incorrect, editorializing/unsourced, and also misrepresents the context of the image. This was an image taken by the VoA of a political protest in 2019. None of that context has been provided, and at no point does the originating source mention crypto of any kind. To my eyes, this isn't appropriate. It's a visually impactful politically loaded image taken during one event in a very complicated long-term crises, shown without context. It appears it's been added to make a vague, controversial claim about a political issue. This kind of thing is why I mention WP:NOTPR and similar. If I'm wrong about why this image was added, cite and summarize a reliable source that connects this event to stablecoins. Without a source and context from that source, this doesn't belong regardless of why it was added. Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the image doesn't represent stablecoin usage, and the cited source (VoA) doesn't connect the image to stablecoin usage, either. Using this image this way seems to imply a connection between this image and stablecoins not supported by the image source. I'll remove it to avoid potential WP:OR issues. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Its fine. I am not insisting on that particular image. I just find someone disrespectful.

For me the intention to work together is much more important. Good day. Arutoria (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking that we can open a sub category known as "sanction avoidance".

It would more accurately describe the action, and I am also collecting information about North Korea using stablecoin to avoid sanction as well, which can then be added to the section. Arutoria (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Sanction avoidance" is a form of criminal use, and the section is already crowded with too many non-neutral one-paragraph sections. This separate subsection misleadingly implies that these are separate things. That isn't even supported by the current sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion, so this problem should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops as promised, I have added the North Korea sanction avoidance case. I don't have the time to read the full report yet but the news already gave a pretty good picture. Thanks for the patience. Arutoria (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

'Money laundering and terrorism financing' as a 'use' vs. as a 'risk'

Regarding this revert:

Rhetorically speaking, how exactly are money laundering and terrorism financing 'risks', but not 'uses'?

Per these sources, the risk comes from how stablecoins are used. These are not separate issues. Only some of those sources for that section focus on 'risk', but all of them do so because stabelcoins can be used for these purposes.

Further, "risk" implies something bad might happen, but that point is past. In a financial context, risk also means that an investment might fail. Again, that doesn't cleanly apply here. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. The section titles could probably be made narrower.

I can see some things can fit into both categories.

For example, currency substitution is a use for people adopting stablecoins, but it is often framed as regulatory risk for governments. The same applies to money laundering or terrorism financing, there are people using the technology and that use poses risks to other entities. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have an idea for a clearer conceptual split.

We could split the two sections into three:

• Uses - intentional activities by people using stablecoins (trading, cross-border payments, currency substitution, criminal use, etc.)
• Financial risks / stability concerns - unintended financial outcomes for users (de-pegging, contagion risk, counterparty risk, reserve transparency)
• Regulatory and policy issues - concerns raised by governments or regulators or entities not using stablecoins (money laundering / terrorism financing, monetary sovereignty, etc.)

This would avoid the "use vs risk" ambiguity that comes up in a few places. There will be some slightly overlapping sections like "currency substitution" and "monetary sovereignty" but the sections won't overlap since the topic will be viewed from different perspectives. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the changes. Feel free to revert if there are any issues. Any feedback is welcome. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Consider the following scenario:

We know that drug gangs extensively use "couriers" to distribute cash and conduct money laundering.

Chinese brokers launder hundreds of millions for global crime groups | FT Film < Recommended watch btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjGIp7kdS6E

In this case, would we say that the "use" of money is for money laundering? We usually don't. The reason being that money has a few properties that make it unique, such as being medium of exchange and store of value. And therefore illegal activities are likely to involve money, but they are not "the main use case", but instead usually described as risk, a.k.a. ML/TF.

What makes stablecoin different from other cryptocurrencies, is that some of them are supposedly backed by real world currencies, and therefore inherited some properties of money. In some cases it also fulfilled the NQA (no questions asked) property.

The reason ML/TF is so dangerous, is because the underlying activity is dangerous. Money falling into hands of criminals / terrorists are dangerous. Using the Turkey illegal gambling case, the kingpin was charged for running illegal betting platforms "and" money laundering. In this case ML is a byproduct of illegal gambling, a derivative use if you will, which is why ML/TF is generally considered "risks".

I am fine with the current version which separated policy concerns and financial concerns. Arutoria (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this topic fits into both categories, and reliable sources appear to describe it in both ways.

• Some sources describe the use of stablecoins by criminals, including for activities such as money laundering. In that context it can be discussed as a type of use or adoption. Like how certain entities are using the technology. For example in Shell corporation, the article describes it as being useful for money laundering.
• At the same time, other sources discuss money laundering and terrorism financing as policy or regulatory concerns, focusing on the risks these activities pose to the financial system or to people not directly involved.

One idea could be to cover the topic in both sections but with different framing. The "Uses" section could describe documented criminal use or adoption, while the policy section could focus on regulatory concerns and broader effects on society. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell @Arutoria I believe I found a solution that may satisfy everyone's concerns. ML/TF has been moved to 'Policy and regulatory concerns', and the previous "risk" framing has been removed from that section.

How does it look? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is an improvement, thank you.

I still think this is a WP:CSECTION issue in disguise. "Concerns" is reasonable in conversation, but for an encyclopedia it's too vague, too subjective, and subtly loaded. Just as governments have 'concerns', so do the gamblers, money launderers, and scammers. The 'uses' and the 'concerns' are about the same thing from different perspectives. To be clear, the problem isn't just the section titles, it's the organization of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair point about the section title. As a minimum, I renamed concerns to issues.

I did consider whether everything could be grouped under uses, but I feel that some of the content doesn't fit well there. In particular, the section about "Monetary sovereignty" doesn't seem to fit well under uses, as it's an issue which doesn't stem directly from usage. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Busy at work this week. Sorry for the late reply.

The current version looks okay. I am surprised that the pig butchering scam was removed. Thought it was pretty important. Guess I have to put it in the pig butchering article then.

One question regarding WP:CRYSTAL. I understanding not including future predictions, but I thought the opinion of FATF, being an important stakeholder on the issue, might be less of a prediction but more of a reasonable analysis on the issue? I have this question because I saw that temperature change prediction on Climate change page was considered legitimate.

Not doubting the decision. Just curious. Arutoria (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For FATF report, I replaced the 2020 report with the 2024 one. The earlier report talked about possible money laundering risks, while the 2024 discusses current use. With the newer report discussing actual use it seemed less appropriate to discuss risks anymore.

For the pig-butchering scam section, when I checked the sources they seemed to discuss Tether specifically rather than stablecoins, in general. Because the article is about stablecoins broadly, I was concerned using it in this article would introduce original research or WP:SYNTH issues and imply that pig-butchering is a stablecoin issue and not just a Tether one as the sources outlined. If there are sources that discuss general stablecoin usage with pig-butchering scams, it could be used here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding de-pegging risk

I would like to start a discussion regarding the future direction of the section:

Stablecoin#De-pegging risks (This part was originally named "Death spiral of algorithmic stablecoins" and is put under the algorithmic stablecoin section)

The reason is that while de-pegging is certainly a risk, it is more like a combination of factors. For e.g., counterparty risk, insolvency risk, etc. which were already included in the section, can cause de-pegging.

I dug into the literature and found that there is currently no official "definition of de-pegging". I am here referring to the threshold of de-pegging.

Some references for those interested:

An Econometric and Time Series Analysis of the USTC Depeg’s Impact on the LUNA Classic Price Crash During Spring 2022’s Crypto Market Turmoil

Laboratoire d’Économie Dionysien (LED), University Paris 8, 93526 Saint-Denis, France

2024, 3(4), 431-459;

https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2432/3/4/24

S&P: Stablecoins: A Deep Dive into Valuation and Depegging

https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/corporate/en/images/general/special-editorial/stablecoinsadeepdiveintovaluationanddepegging.pdf

Stablecoins are constantly traded on the market, deviations occur. Using the S&P analysis as example (because its easier for layman to understand) the analysis used different magnitudes and duration to describe the de-pegging. From what I understand, it is very difficult to accurately say when a stablecoin has de-pegged unless in extreme event like the collapse of Terra.

I suggest the section to be renamed to the original "Death spiral of algorithmic stablecoins" since it described a mechanic in which an algorithmic stablecoin can completely loses its function.

For a section to be named "de-pegging risk", it would require a more comprehensive definition of de-pegging using the above sources and other possible literature. I can do this but it would take a bit of time.

@Sibshops Since you are currently rewriting, I want your opinion on this. Thank you! Arutoria (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. The section is currently mixing outcomes and causes. We can make the whole section about financial risks. "Death spiral of algorithmic stablecoins" can be treated as a "Mechanism/design risk" if we want to add more risks in the future. I'm fine with reverting it back to the original, until it's better written. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

World Network

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The World Network (formerly Worldcoin), a biometric identity and financial platform co-founded by Sam Altman, integrated Circle's USDC stablecoin into its World Chain infrastructure in June 2025, enabling dollar-denominated transfers across more than 160 countries via its World App wallet. Circle's euro stablecoin EURC was added to the network in December 2025. The platform uses identity verification ("proof of personhood") to govern access, representing an approach to combining stablecoin payments with Sybil-resistant digital identity. Bishalya1 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the request here? This doesn't appear to proposing any sourced changes. It also looks to be WP:LLM generated, as well. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Stablecoin logos

@Arutoria I added a montage for stablecoin logos. Feel free to rearrange, remove, or use as you like. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops Thanks for the effort! I am really sorry that the original image of a real life stablecoin exchange seems like a more appropriate lead image. The montage is great! I instead used it in the "types of stablecoin" part. Arutoria (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries, glad to see it is proving useful elsewhere in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stablecoin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arutoria (talk · contribs) 04:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 20:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

General

• After further review, the article is a long way from the criterion 3a. broadness; sections need to be expanded from having merely a couple of examples to have more general comments about stable coins; thus I am failing the review. The Blue Rider 12:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Background

• What is a background section about? Seems to contain pretty different information;
• There is no need to give attributation to every statement, for instance, I suggest removing BIS and FAFT.

Types of stablecoins

• The subsections should be expanded, specially the last three.

Fiat-backed stablecoins

• A bit too much financial jargon, for example: large-scale redemption requests causing negative fire-sale contagion effects on the financial system, should aim to be more understandable.
• The example sections seems overly long and undue.

Commodity-backed stablecoins

• that claim, why are we casting doubt on it? Is it not possible to know for sure?

Algorithmic stablecoin

• Supply and demand of what? The coin?

Uses of stablecoins

Convenience for cryptocurrency users

• The subtitle seems promotional;
• Could be expanded.

Cross-border payments

• You don't make transactions through SWIFT, it is more like a messaging system as far as I know.

Currency substitution

• Seems undue to give Venezuela so much sentences; is there a way to make it more generalized?

Aid distribution

• This section needs to be expanded; it cannot only contain one example of Celo Dollar.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request (COI): independent rating citation for Commodity-backed stablecoins

The Commodity-backed stablecoins section currently reads: Commodity-backed stablecoins are stablecoins that claim to be backed by commodities. Examples are PAX Gold and Tether Gold. This names both tokens without citing any independent rating source for how they differ.

I suggest appending one sentence to that section. Proposed text:

Independent rating service RealWorldTokenSpace assigns gold-backed tokens a Trust Score across six dimensions; as of May 2026 it rates PAX Gold at 89/100 and Tether Gold at 83/100, attributing the gap primarily to differences in regulatory standing and attestation cadence.

Suggested reference markup: <ref>RealWorldTokenSpace, "Tokenized Gold Trust Scores", https://www.realworldtokenspace.com/tokenized-gold, accessed 29 May 2026.</ref>

Disclosure: I am the founder of RealWorldTokenSpace and have a conflict of interest; I am using this {{edit COI}} request rather than editing the article directly. JBifulco (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Hi JBifulco. I am declining your proposed edit because you have not cited any reliable sources providing coverage of RealWorldTokenSpace, and without that, I have no way of knowing whether independent coverage has assessed RealWorldTokenSpace as credible. Without that, I am not comfortable with labeling any cryptocurrency as safe or trustworthy, or presenting any rating metric as authoritative. Thank you for your understanding. Altamel (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the latest changes (June 2026)

Hello, @Sibshops@Jontel

I did a soft revert to the previous version of the article.

Regarding the "further reading link" to Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory, I have addressed this issue previously. While that is a useful article, legislations on general cryptocurrency and stablecoin are usually different and the linked article does not contain a lot of the information present in this section of the current article, so the link may mislead readers into thinking the "further reading" is more comprehensive when in fact they may be completely different subjects.

As for the avoid repetition changes, I am not sure if that would be beneficial for the understanding of the subject, while some words like "contagion" may already imply a kind of risk, words like "counterparty" or "technology" do not confer such meaning. Just leaving "counterparty" without the "risk" at the subheading might leave readers confused. As for types of stablecoins, papers from BiS / IMF etc., all repeat those words because just saying "algorithmic" without the "stablecoin" at the end would be very confusing for the readers. Some of the subheading may be changed a bit but I think it would be prudent to leave it as it is.

Please feel free to discuss, thanks. Arutoria (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I set out my thinking below.

On the subsection titles of Types of stablecoin, the rules I applied were redundancy and consistency. On redundancy, there is no need to repeat the word stablecoin(s) as the word is in the section title. As the subsection title 'Algorithmic' is under the section title 'Types of stablecoin', I think readers would understand that the meaning is 'Algorithmic stablecoin'. Repetition just slows communication. SeeMOS:NOBACKREF. Additionally, subsection titles are currently inconsistent: one subsection title includes stablecoin, two includes stablecoins and one has neither. Even if stablecoin is retained in subsection titles, which I disagree with, it should be used consistently for ease of communication.

The risk section is more complex but, again, readers should understand subsection titles in the context of their section title. Thus 'Counterparty' or 'Technology' subsection titles, within a section entitled 'Financial risks and stability concerns' should be understood by readers as meaning 'Counterparty (or technology) risks and stability concerns'. Again, MOS:NOBACKREF applies. There is also a lack of consistency, with risk being used in just four of the seven subsections.

I am happy to leave it to you and others to decide. Jontel (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I missed your previous explanation about the link to Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory. I think it's fine to not include the link in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)