sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr says stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are not a credible alternative to central bank money

Investing / news
Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr says stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are not a credible alternative to central bank money
[updated]
A photo of a bitcoin ATM in a cafe
Photo by General Bytes on Unsplash

Stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies cannot be used as a substitute for central bank money and are primarily speculative investments, according to Reserve Bank (RBNZ) Governor Adrian Orr. 

New Zealand’s top central banker made the comments in a briefing to Parliament’s finance and expenditure committee on Monday afternoon. 

Committee Chairman and National Party MP Stuart Smith asked whether the RBNZ was concerned independent digital currencies could replace fiat money.

Orr said they were “critically concerned” about people relying too heavily on stablecoins, bitcoin, and other “purported alternatives” to central bank money. 

“Concepts such as bitcoin; it’s neither a means of exchange, it's not a store of value, and it's not a unit of account. Yet people try to use it as that,” he told the committee. 

While there were other purposes for cryptocurrencies, they were not a “substitute for, or even a compliment to” fiat money backed by a central bank. 

So-called stablecoins were an “oxymoron” as they were only as strong as the balance sheet of whoever is offering the coin, and their willingness to maintain it throughout time.

Orr said fiat currencies, such as the New Zealand dollar, had backing from Parliament and the RBNZ, who together could ensure the credibility of the currency across generations. 

Stablecoins are backed by a specified asset or basket of assets used to maintain a stable value against that asset. This is usually a fiat currency, such as the US dollar. This makes stablecoins different from cryptoassets/cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, which tend not to have assets as backing and so, are more volatile. Stablecoins are often used for buying or selling cryptoassets, and making cross-border payments. 

Stablecoin providers may take fiat money in exchange for a crypto coin and reap a return by parking that cash in interest earning investments. 

Mainstream banks and other financial institutions are subject to heavy regulations and disclosure requirements that help to protect consumers from losses. Stablecoin operators tend to be unregulated and much less transparent about their balance sheets. 

The two largest stable coins are Tether and USDC with US$96 billion and US$28 billion in circulation, according to CoinMarketCap. The total value of Bitcoin is almost US$1 trillion.

Last year, New Zealand firm EasyCrypto launched its own NZ dollar denominated stablecoin which is backed “1-for-1” by fiat dollars in a local bank and will be audited by E&Y “once fully operational. 

A research paper issued by the Bank for International Settlements, the central banks' bank, late last year found of 68 stablecoins 'pegged' to the value of a specific asset, none had been able to maintain parity with their pegs at all times.

EasyCrypto shoots back 

In a recent blog post, Janine Grainger, founder of Easy Crypto, hit back at stablecoin critics such as Sam Stubbs’ article in The Post. 

“As is typical of any new innovation, stablecoins have found themselves under the scrutiny of well-known commentators, with some questioning their legitimacy and value,” she wrote. 

Grainger said the finance industry was “on the brink of a seismic shift” as assets, transactions, and financial instruments turned digital. 

Stablecoins were at the forefront of this transformation and were acting as a bridge between traditional currencies and the emerging digital realm. 

“They have gained popularity for their ability to combine the features of crypto—rapid transaction processing, security and efficiency—with the trust and reliability of an underlying ‘real world’ asset”. 

Central bank digital currencies could play this role in the future but are still some years away from implementation.

Grainger said it was a “myth” that stablecoins weren’t regulated. Many reputable projects had regular audits to verify the digital assets were backed by fiat ones.

However, stablecoins are not subject to the same formal regulations as retail banks and other deposit taking institutions.  

Grainger said the use of stablecoins and decentralised finance in general was still in its infancy.

“Dismissing stablecoins outright is an obvious mistake given their potential within the evolving global financial landscape”. 

Cash is king

The RBNZ is working on a central bank digital currency, which would be intended to use some of the technological advantages of digital currencies without the risks.

The RBNZ expects to have a high level design ready by the end of 2024 and will then decide whether to proceed with the project. Even if it did go ahead, the new form of cash would be “several years” away from being introduced in New Zealand. 

Meanwhile, the RBNZ is working to ensure physical cash remains available and easy to access across the country, even as its use in transactions continues to decline. 

Orr told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that it would always play an important role in society and the economy. 

“Physical cash is being used less and less. So, we are going to have less cash but not be cashless,” he said. 

The importance of physical cash was demonstrated during Cyclone Gabrielle when electronic systems were knocked offline and banknotes became the only means of exchange. 

Other reasons for keeping cash could be their use in cultural practices, and for maintaining privacy in some transactions. 

Orr said the central bank was working on “more efficient and effective ways of circulating cash” as its use declined and retail banks stopped supplying cash to some communities. 

The central bank has enlisted some small towns, which have been “debanked” for a cash circulation trial which aims to keep cash available even in remote communities.

 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

62 Comments

So CBDCs are digital currencies "without the risks"? That level of duplicity is what is driving people away from fiat.

 

 

Up
5

No duplicity at all, CBDCs are backed by the same thing as Fiat Currency.. the backing of the nation issuing them.  

Up
3

And issuing, and issuing and issuining, thus eroding your purchasing power and quality of life.

Up
6

In my understanding, its the citizens and economy participants of the country that are issuing currency by borrowing from the banking system. This is largely a private activity. Government borrowing is merely taking this privately created money (via debt) and redistributing it via various programmes.

Up
2

Quality of life is ultimately a mindset/ego/emotional issue and has no basis in money.

As for the issuing, issuing, issuing - we enable this by our own fear - you know the more money for houses.

FIAT is practically a digital currency.

Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies do not solve the issues especially when created from the same energy of fear.  CBDC's are just another fear based design.

Up
0

In a country with only a CBDC as legal tender, here are some risks:

- zero financial privacy

- complete ability for the govt to exclude whomever they want from the economic system

- complete ability for the state to immediately confiscate whatever it wants from your account

- single point of failure IT risk if the system goes down

- 100% transmission between monetary policy and money supply leading to likely larger swings in purchasing power 

Up
8

In a country with only a CBDC as legal tender, 

Not being proposed, so go put your boogey man away.

Up
1

Your kidding right...?

Up
3

Adrian Orr is trying to keep cash in circulation. His successor will likely be the one to cull and chop cash from existence.

Up
0

At least CBDC will not be created out of thin air. We are pretty much there anyway, hardly use physical cash and transactions are already digital. Holders of Bitcoin will be shitting themselves when this happens, watch the bridge between Bitcoin and CBDC disappear, Bitcoin will have to stand on its own two feet and will no longer be backed by fiat.

Up
0

Bitcoin/crypto also has to become a currency and not another "asset/investment" class.

It's distorted by the "what is money?" - is it a medium of exchange or a store of value?

Up
0

I'm sorry, but you really don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of what Bitcoin is at all.

No one who understands it fears a CBDC in the slightest.

A CBDC is 100% still a fiat currency, with all the same issues, and even more downsides.

Up
4

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/notes-and-coi…

Their own research paper does not fill me with confidence! Good summary line: "NZ has choices to make about the future of cash"

Up
2

Stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies cannot be used as a substitute for central bank money and are primarily speculative investments, according to Reserve Bank (RBNZ) Governor Adrian Orr.

Spot on !

Up
2

I know it takes many hours of research to properly understand money , its history etc, but come on people. 

https://youtu.be/1Ms7ql_S63A?si=odGGSkJyxRRSK0mk

Up
0

His entire premise is based around fear of loss... some loss of value and pain.  

What is Money?  Is it a medium of exchange or a store of value?  He doesn't answer it.  The question was asked a long time ago and someone decided it was first and foremost a store of value.  There was no data, no evidence, no science that it's true.  It's simply a belief and the experiment since then would suggest it doesn't ring true.  It requires a number of external factors to manipulate the "store of value" hypothesis.  There is no inherent or intrinsic value in money.  The value is all outside of money.

Money can ideally only be a medium of exchange and must flow, not be dammed up.  Attempting to store it the way we do only creates the need for more debt.  It's ultimately a zero sum game for the collective, for society, for humanity and Earth.  Everything playing out around us the past decade plus - the environmental issues, the conflicts, politics, the division, the financial system, economics, BAU - it's all tied in together with the value of money as the highest priority.

It literally highlights humanity's prevailing existential crisis - fear, scarcity, loss, power, control, blame, freedom, values.

 

Up
0

That's why your assorted influencers, tricksters and desperate people love it so much!!! :-)

The reality it seems to me is that if central banks came up with a crypto currency themselves, it would be a new one, rendering Bitcoin and all the others worthless - do people really think they say "ok we give up, everyone should use Bitcoin, or any of the other thousands of derivations'.....

Up
2

The reality it seems to me is that if central banks came up with a crypto currency themselves, it would be a new one, rendering Bitcoin and all the others worthless

Such a normie thing to say. Bitcoin doesn't compete with CBDCs. They're completely different animals. And it's entirely possible for central banks to create their own Bitcoin fork. Question is 'who would use it and why?'

Up
3

Maybe answer that for the Bitcoin of today?

Up
0

Well he would say that ...(as he pockets his 1 million dollar salary)

Up
2

Central bankers are not interested in any ‘stablecoin’.  They want to be able to control the money supply (& the economy) and they won’t want to lose that ability.

Josiah Stamp, the director of the Bank of England in 1928:

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. … Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again.

“Take this great power away from them and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in.

“But, if you want to continue to be a slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

Up
2

We could of course go back to a gold or other commodity-based standard. That would stop the money printing overnight.

Let's see if the BRICs nations lead the democracies on doing what needs to be done. 34 trillion in debt largely from funding wars in other people's countries should be all the motivation, and justification they need.

The world is going to melt financially because of fiat and the way it lets central banks do as they please. 

 

Up
2

jim,

"Let's see if the BRICs nations".......so, you think that countries like, Brazil, Russia, South Africa have anything useful to offer the world? If so, what? China is rapidly becoming ever more of a dictatorship and its economic miracle is becoming more tarnished and that leaves India. 

Up
3

They can use a system of shiny pebbles trading amongst themselves if they like......

Up
0

Or a paper currency backed by shiny pebbles. Has to better than one backed by nothing.

Up
1

Pebbles themselves sound better - paper currency boring.....

Up
0

Agreed, but isnt that the irony of it. They are talking of potential solutions while the mighty west is really the one using its financial power to peddle death and destruction. We need change and it is not coming from the fed.

Up
3

We could stop the money printing overnight if we stopped borrowing and weren't so obsessed with the price of houses and assets needing to inflate so we can believe we're creating/building wealth.

Up
2

The BRICS nations...you gotta be kidding. A bunch of failed states, tyrants and dictators. Next you'll be telling me we should be buying gold. 

Up
0

One need only take two minutes and look at https://register.app/ to realise Adrian is talking outside the sphere of his understanding, not just on stablecoins but on the potential of flatcoins too.

If the retail banks were to issue NZD onchain, DeFi would naturally index these currencies to safeguard against any one bank failing. Throw in the fact this index dollar could be deterministically insured and voila, you've got yourself an NZD that's stabler than the status quo.

I get that it's hard to get past the common narratives and one's own assumptions to entertain novel ideas, but c'mon, these guys can and should be at the forefront of financial innovation. They should be asking questions and experimenting.

Up
3

Bravo. An enlightened and informed perspective. 

Up
1

Must be nice to be able to throw out more duplicitous statements without any context. Dollar backed Stablecoins do de-peg, but on the secondary market. Not at the issuer... and [this is the important bit], most of those depegs have been caused when sell side supply has been constrained by access to the banking system. Like with SVB collapsed for instance, however the issuer (USDC in this case) was still redeeming 1:1.   These depegs are driven by pure, unencumbered market forces where the technology is ahead of the legacy banking system.   

 

Up
2

I can't believe I am wasting my time on this... but surely if the market uses bitcoin to store value and as a unit of account then it's a store of value and unit of account, no?

 

Up
3

That's how I see it. If the market sets the price on those properties, then so be it. Don't forget its primary function to enable trustless P2P exchange. We shouldn't lose sight of that. Stablecoins are also capable of that. 

Up
1

No amount of logic will sway some of the "normies" on this site, and hats off those who have tried to educate them.

Up
2

Be gentle. And I'm sure you understand that each path is different. However cultish that may sound.

I look on the philosophical side. People like Adrian Orr have no issue with adopting the spiritual to promulgate their views. 

Up
3

How do you prove that an asset is a store of value? It's not good enough to say "if the market uses bitcoin as a store of value, then it's a store of value." The test surely needs to be based on purchasing power, for example of real estate. So has history shown bitcoin as a reliable store of value for purchasing real estate? I think not.

Up
1

As I made the above reply I realised using real estate as an example was stupid, given the fluctuations in the value of real estate. Sub in something that shouldn't have changed value significantly, a new car? A loaf of bread?

Up
0

Got $1.225m in Bitcoin? This could be the house for you

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/got-1-225m-in-bitcoin-this-could-be-the-…

When did you last buy a loaf of bread with some gold pebbles?

Up
1

No I don't (interesting that you used $).

And I have never bought a loaf of bread with some gold pebbles. 

I can't tie this back to whether bitcoin is a store of value. 

Up
0

I answered your original question but see you pivoted quickly 

Up
0

If you bought bitcoin as a vehicle to save for a house in 2014 would you be closer or further away to owning a house today? Now do the same for every other year but for a few months in 2021. 

Have you considered bitcoin as a store of value for those with less stable currencies? Ever seen a bitcoin chart priced in Argentinian Pesos? I suggest you have a look and tell me whether or not it would be a good store of value for Argentinians. 

 

Up
3

I think you are deliberately missing the point. Bitcoin has not been a good store of value, despite some lucky people buying at the right time. Comparing it to the Argentinian peso was funny though. Good one.

Up
0

"Bitcoin has not been a good store of value"

- B-Rocker c.2024

Up
2

That's correct. It hasn't been. It's been a wild rollercoaster, where some people have won and some people have lost. In other words, completely unstable. If you disagree, then just communicate that with words. 

Up
0

That is uncorrect. There are only approximately 155 days in the past 15 years, that BTC has been worth more (in dollars) than it is today. Less than 3% of that time. The overwhelming majority of people who have held BTC as a long term investment have won. In a very significant way.

Not a single person who has brought and held Bitcoin for a 4 year halving cycle has lost money.

Those who attempt to trade in and out generally lose, no different to people who try to day trade stocks or other currencies.

And to answer your other question. Every car, every house, every asset you and I own, is losing value against Bitcoin over time.

Up
2

"Those who attempt to trade in and out generally lose" 

This supports my argument that it is not a good store of value. Also, by describing it as a commodity to be traded in and out of using dollars, shows that you agree with Adrian Orr's other argument that it is not a means of exchange.

Up
0

. It's been a wild rollercoaster, where some people have won and some people have lost. 

But that doesn't mean it's not a store of value. Let's think about it. Assume we look at the price pattern in fiat currency - 3 years up, 1 year down for simplicity's sake.

If the fiat price of BTC1 doesn't follow some kind of positive logarithmic pattern, then I would agree with you that it's unstable. If you look at the ratio of BTC needed to purchase the median Nu Zillun house over time, I can assure that the relationship is negative. 

Also, in practical terms, if someone started buying BTC at its highest price (Nov 2021) and then bought it daily, weekly, monthly in equivalent amounts, they would be ahead. Here's the numbers for you:

Daily-73%

Weekly-55%

Monthly-55%  

Up
1

You are just describing the BTC as an investment that has increased its value over time compared to dollars and houses, much like buying shares in Fisher and Paykel Healthcare. And yes I agree that dollar-cost-averaging is a sensible investment strategy.

This is not the same as saying the FPH share value is stable. Stability of a currency/asset means that you have a high level of certainty how much a basket of goods is going to cost from one week/month to the next. We quibble that we see inflation of over 3% for a whole year using NZD, while with BTC, there's been massive deflation and inflation in a matter of days.

Up
1

You are just describing the BTC as an investment that has increased its value over time compared to dollars and houses, much like buying shares in Fisher and Paykel Healthcare

No. BTC's value has changed in fiat currency terms. It's held its value in terms of purchasing power. It's not like not ownership of a business that produces goods and services. 

 Stability of a currency/asset means that you have a high level of certainty how much a basket of goods is going to cost from one week/month to the next.

Sure. If you want to hold NZD, AUD, USD because it gives you certainly over the short term as a means of exchange, that is understandable. And sure, if volatility is not your cup of tea, don't own BTC. 

Up
1

For the first part: If it has been volatile (which you agree with) in terms of fiat currency, then I'm not sure how it has been stable against any other item. I understand it is not a business that produces goods and services; in fact it is like a commodity - my point is that you are viewing it as an investment that has increased over the long-term against money and houses. That is not the point of a currency at all.

For the second part: This is the entirety of the argument (that I presented), and it seems we agree. That is what store of value means. Adrian Orr's point was that BTC is neither a store of value, nor a means of exchange, which seems obvious. Other people above have been arguing against that.

You might argue that due to inflation, fiat currency has not been a good store of value of late. I won't argue against facts. But this beats BTC hands down even in recent years. Not even close. 

Up
1

I'm not sure how it has been stable against any other item.

OK. Can you give me the best example of an asset that is a 'stable store of value'? Gold perhaps? If you say land, I partly agree. But considering land prices are fundamentally a product of credit creation, you need to take this into account. The fiat price of BTC is also impacted by expanding the money supply.  

This is the entirety of the argument (that I presented), and it seems we agree. That is what store of value means.

Short-term purchasing power might be what SoV means to you and Adrian Orr. But it doesn't mean that to me. And many other people. 

So why would our perception be incorrect?  

. But this beats BTC hands down even in recent years.

Fair enough. Not sure how you get to that conclusion, but I respect your right to hold that belief. 

Up
1

Pretty sure my wife's bitcoin shares have crumbled since buying as she curses and waves her hand when I mention them.

Up
0

“Concepts such as bitcoin; it’s neither a means of exchange, it's not a store of value”

Adrian needs to get the inflation under control first, before he can make any statements people would listen to.

Remind me how many percent was the cumulative inflation in the last 3 years ???

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflatio…

18.9%

 

Bitcoin was 19K back in 2020 Q4 and US$50K now.

 

Up
3

Bang on. Maybe an easier way for people to understand what is happening, is not to say it is going up in price. Rather it is the dolllar that is losing value (purchasing power) against other assets. The pace of that loss has just accelerated to the point where the man on the street has started to notice. The better the quality of the asset, the more pronounced the loss.

Up
2

Orr is trying to gaslight the readers. How can you propose that the NZD is a store of value, but not address the fact that nearly 20% of its value has been knocked off in 3 years, largely as a result of government policy, and then say your new shiny CBDC will have no risks?

Up
1

"It's a great business to be in, Central Banking, where you print money and people believe it" - Adrian Orr 

Clip: https://twitter.com/jamesviggy/status/1757268115879235960

 

Up
1

This clip has now been viewed over 500k times.
The world is shocked to see the Central Bank and the Government laughing at the expense of the people and lining their own pockets (Orr's salary is almost $1m). Printing money out of thin air is "at the expense of the people" because it dilutes the value of all the dollars already in circulation, making each dollar worth less and making each purchase require more dollars. Central Bank money printing is the primary cause of inflation.

source: screenshots of all the reposted clips https://x.com/jamesviggy/status/1757483175214035033?s=20

Up
2

Err Pragmatist - it says high level design by end of 2024 so is likely being proposed.

Or did you mean CBDC only is not being proposed?

Unless you mean the properties of CDBC, in which case it could have those properties and more. From what seems to be proposed by the WEF the CDBC's will be linked to personal digital ID's where your carbon usage and social credit score will be tracked, so they can decide not to let you spend your digital currency on a second plane ride this year and if you say too much about the things you disagree with your social credit will drop and they will automatically fine you by taking some CBDC from your account. The point of a CBDC is it's programable by them and they can take complete control.

It does seem far fetched and I hope it is, I also think they would do slowly rather than just cut over all at once.

Tony Blair is currently trying to convince anyone who will listen a digital ID is needed, so I guess we watch the global uptake.

* Edit - reread comment and toned down my response :-)

Up
1

Check Orr out paving the way for digital currencies.  When he says it is a new form of cash, he really means it is a new form of control.  We are being  nudged to use less cash... recall the limit on cash purchases for certain items last year as a starter for 10. ....Start or keep using cash peeps.

Up
1

If bitcoin was the global currency then just a few guys who were around when the crypto currency was created would have to themselves as individuals over half of the Earth's total finance. 

Up
0