If you think central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and stablecoins are interchangeable, you're missing the point. They're both digital claims on fiat value, but there are big differences in who runs the ledger, who sets the rules, and who can revert your transactions or freeze your funds.
Right now, Europe is moving toward a digital euro pilot, while the United States just enacted the GENIUS Act for payment stablecoins. The European Central Bank (ECB) has said it plans to begin its CBDC pilot by mid-2027, pending legislation, with a potential wider launch around 2029, as reported in its plans to initiate a pilot by 2027. In the U.S., the GENIUS Act signed in July created the first federal framework for stablecoins while making asset issuers subject to Bank Secrecy Act obligations and further know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) rules.
Before comparisons devolve into ideology, it helps to be precise about how CBDCs and stablecoin differ in design and control.
Definitions And The Current Landscape
At a high level, CBDCs are central bank money in digital form, often in a two-tier or hybrid model where private intermediaries handle users, onboarding, and compliance. For example, in Europe, the ECB's CBDC approach specifies that AML checks would be carried out by private payment service providers (PSPs) like banks. The point of a CBDC is to create a traceable economy-scale value storage system that's easy to integrate into existing systems and can mimic all of the properties of cash stored in a bank account, and nearly all of the properties of physical cash, excepting, of course, physicality itself.
CBDCs also should, in theory, be exchangeable for physical cash, or for digitized cash similar to the value stored in bank accounts. There is close to zero chance that a central bank would be incapable of making such an exchange for financial reasons, as it can create new physical cash or digitized cash at will, and destroy any redeemed instances of its CBDC in the same motion.
Several CBDCs exist or are being piloted today.
The Bahamas' Sand Dollar is live and is described as a centralized, regulated CBDC.
Jamaica launched its JAM-DEX in 2022
India's digital rupee pilot has recently expanded with new features like offline functionality.
The ECB is moving from preparation to the next phase for the digital euro project, but it'll be a few years before large pilots initiate. In contrast, in the United States, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has stated that a digital dollar would not launch during his term, which ends in May of 2026.
Regarding stablecoins, in case you aren't familiar, they're privately issued tokens that aim to maintain par with a fiat currency, generally through holding fiat reserves in the form of cash and cash equivalents. Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC dominate the sector, though many new stablecoins are emerging at the moment. Presently, USDT has a market cap of $182.8 billion, and USDC has a market cap of $75.7 billion.
Other notable tokens include DAI at roughly a $4.7 billion market cap and PayPal's PYUSD at approximately a $2.8 billion market cap. It might be technically possible to exchange a stablecoin for physical cash by redeeming it from the issuer, but in practice it isn't done; exchanges of stablecoins for already-digitized value, like what's in bank accounts, is more common.
So, how difficult is it to create an account?
For CBDC: Requires a significant amount of personally-identifiable information that's confirmed before account creation
For stablecoins: Can be held at any size or transferred in any quantity without ever needing to give any personal information to anyone, but may soon be significantly restricted by implementing already-approved legislation
Despite these features, there is not a perfect guarantee of being able to redeem stablecoins for any form of cash.
Asset issuers, though technically now legally obligated in the U.S. to maintain certain levels of reserves, are unlikely to be able to make all stablecoin holders whole if they decide to redeem their tokens at the same moment. So a bank-run style liquidity problem is possible.
Another issue is that during times of market stress and severe volatility, stablecoins can temporarily or, in severe cases, permanently lose their peg to their target fiat currency. In March 2023, USDC briefly fell below its peg after its issuer Circle disclosed about $3.3 billion in reserves at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). This means that $1 stored in a stablecoin token could potentially only be worth $0.90 or even less under certain uncommon (and typically very transient) conditions.
The policy frame is shifting quickly. The E.U.'s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regime began phasing in from late 2024, which will pave the way for the region's CBDC. In the U.S., the GENIUS Act establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins and subjects issuers to high-level obligations under Public Law 119-27 and the related Treasury implementation. As of now, there aren't examples of any of the world's major economies heavily committing to either a CBDC or a stablecoin-based tokenized fiat currency equivalent.
Policy, Onboarding, And Custody
There are a lot of different policy issues to be aware of with both CBDCs and stablecoins, many of which deal with the nature of AML and KYC measures and compliance.
The ECB states that AML checks for a digital euro would be carried out by private PSPs funding and defunding wallets, consistent with current KYC and AML practices. Many CBDC designs are considering offline options and holding limits, and the ECB has also discussed cash-like offline privacy. From a usability standpoint, there's probably not much additional compliance work to do for E.U. banks to conform to CBDC-related policies, as they're already held to the same standards, and would only need to provision for some additional infrastructure rather than actual assets.
On the other hand, stablecoin compliance is tightening, and becoming increasingly burdensome.
The GENIUS Act treats payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions, with bespoke rulemaking anticipated for AML and sanctions screening. Legal analyses outline heightened KYC demand, monitoring, and transaction and wallet blocking duties that go significantly beyond historical expectations. Industry observers have also noted that onboarding to a "stablecoin account" under the new rules can feel more onerous than opening a basic bank account, because asset issuers need to satisfy enhanced identity, sanctions, and transaction-monitoring obligations set out in the GENIUS Act framework. Again, CBDCs, by comparison, would route KYC/AML through existing bank-like intermediaries in the euro area, making the rollout easier.
In both cases, custody is the investor's problem. Neither the central bank nor the private issuer is your wallet recovery service. Wallet loss or theft is functionally irreversible, and while issuers or authorities may freeze funds, it's typically about political control rather than restitution.
Security Differences
Stablecoins and CBDCs both have some important security-related features that are mostly experienced by investors as risks rather than features.
CBDCs concentrate operational power at the sovereign layer. Bureaucrats, law enforcement officials, or politicians with privileged access could be able to freeze or withdraw funds without user consent if governance or controls fail.
Stablecoins, in contrast, distribute power to private issuers. Circle's terms and risk factors authorize blocking or freezing USDC and also reference a blacklisting policy. But, as anyone can create new wallet addresses at will, these policies have limited utility. Tether similarly reserves the right to act against prohibited uses and has frozen addresses related to enforcement actions, including law-enforcement requests around FTX and wallets linked to sanctioned entities, which led even a sanctioned Russian exchange to suspend services after blocks. In many of these cases, government officials leaned on the stablecoin issuers to ensure that the government's preferred course of action was taken. They may not be able to coerce a foreign issuer directly, but real-world practice shows that many issuers tend to cooperate with enforcement.
Operational error is another point of separation between CBDCs and stablecoins. CBDCs will likely inherit the process discipline of central banks and major financial institutions in their countries, but they are still not immune to governance or IT failures. The other side of the coin is that stablecoins run on smart contracts and issuer operations, both of which can fail flamboyantly. In October 2025, Paxos briefly minted and then burned roughly $300 trillion of PYUSD during an internal transfer error, as reported by multiple outlets covering the accidental mint and burn. The incident was corrected within minutes, but it underlined how centralized mint-and-burn authority can misfire tremendously.
The Takeaway
Despite it being the focus of many conversations, the question investors should ask themselves is not whether CBDCs or stablecoins are morally superior. It's which governance model and asset control surface is available, and the best fit for a specific use case.
For cross-border trading venues with heavy crypto flows, private stablecoins dominate today, and they won't be going anywhere because they're already in widespread distribution. The U.S. also has an incentive to encourage USD-denominated stablecoin usage as a way of shoring up the strength of its currency as a global medium of exchange, so expect government action to advance the distribution of stablecoins from here on out. For domestic retail payments and money transfers, governments are exploring CBDC designs that emphasize inclusion, policy transmission, and cash-like features. When some of those CBDCs ultimately launch, people will adopt them and use them if they get value from doing so, or if they are forced to. For many people, CBDCs could provide a digital store of value that's potentially far more reliable than a stablecoin denominated in their native currency; for holders of the U.S. dollar or euro, the introduction of a CBDC might not change much at all.
If you want sovereign guarantees and policy tools such as limits and offline settlement, CBDC pilots are moving in that direction. If you need composability, tokenized settlement on public chains, and deep crypto liquidity, stablecoins deliver that today but carry operational and issuer risk.
Finally, it's important to remember that marketing language can obscure the fact that both models reserve powerful freezing and blocking controls. If you value reversibility in case of theft, you will likely be disappointed in both cases. And if you value privacy, it might well be the same deal -- neither form of money is catered to those who would prefer their activities to be unknown.
To keep up with the latest in blockchain technology and quantum computing, join us on X and subscribe to our newsletter.
