The loudest conversations in digital finance have often been the least important. For years, the public drama revolved around speculation, price swings and the familiar spectacle of crypto exuberance followed by collapse. But beneath that noise, a far more consequential shift has been taking shape—one that has less to do with trading than with plumbing, less with ideology than with infrastructure. In the latest episode of Bitcoin, Fiat & Rock’n’Roll, Michael Blaschke argues that stablecoins have become the central question in the next phase of financial architecture.
Speaking alone, without guest or co-host, Blaschke uses the episode to present the findings of a major study published with the FERI Cognitive Finance Institute, co-authored with Dr. Heinz-Werner Rapp. The title, Stablecoins: How Tokenized Money Is Changing the Global Financial Architecture, signals the scope of the argument. This is not a narrow exploration of one product category. It is an attempt to describe the foundations of a new monetary layer now being built in real time.
Why Tokenized Assets Need Tokenized Money
The core insight of the episode is deceptively simple: tokenized assets cannot reach their full potential without tokenized money. A digital bond may be issued on a blockchain. A fund share may move instantly between parties. Real estate claims may be represented on-chain with all the elegance of programmable finance. But if payment still depends on traditional banking rails—correspondent banks, batch settlement, limited operating hours, delayed finality—then the system remains fractured.
Blaschke frames this mismatch as a structural flaw. The asset side has modernized, but the money side often has not. In that gap lies one of the greatest barriers to institutional adoption. Stablecoins, in his telling, are not merely convenient instruments. They are the mechanism that closes the gap between tokenized assets and real settlement. Without them, the promise of atomic, simultaneous exchange remains incomplete.
This is why he insists on a two-pillar view of the token economy. The first pillar is tokenized assets: bonds, funds, securities and other financial claims represented on-chain. The second is tokenized money: the settlement medium that allows these assets to transact as intended. Stablecoins sit squarely in that second pillar, not as a novelty, but as a foundational component.
From Financial Product to Systemic Infrastructure
What makes the argument especially striking is the scale Blaschke attaches to it. Stablecoins, he suggests, have already crossed the line from experimental technology to systemic relevance. Their market capitalization is measured in the hundreds of billions. Their transaction volumes now reach into the trillions. Their activity extends far beyond crypto trading into retail transfers, cross-border payments and always-on settlement. They do not sleep on weekends, and increasingly, neither does the financial logic they support.
In that sense, the story is no longer about digital tokens competing at the margins of finance. It is about a new infrastructure embedding itself into the core mechanics of global markets. Stablecoins are no longer just applications running on blockchains; they are becoming structural participants in the financial system itself.
Blaschke pushes the point further by focusing on reserve composition and market impact. If stablecoin issuers park vast sums in short-dated government securities, they do more than manage liquidity. They shape demand in sovereign debt markets. What once seemed peripheral begins to influence the pricing of the safest assets in the world. In this view, stablecoins have entered the bloodstream of monetary transmission.
Dollar Dominance, Rewritten in Code
The episode becomes most urgent when it turns to geopolitics. Nearly all major stablecoins are denominated in U.S. dollars, a fact Blaschke presents not as a coincidence, but as a sign of deeper strategic momentum. In the digital economy now taking shape, the dollar is not merely retaining its influence; it is finding new channels through which to extend it.
This matters because stablecoins are not neutral vessels. They carry with them standards, compliance systems, legal assumptions and liquidity networks. As more users and institutions adopt dollar-based stablecoins for settlement, the protocols of the dollar become embedded even in places where traditional dollar banking infrastructure has been weak or absent. What emerges is a new kind of monetary reach—one built not only through banks and trade flows, but through software, platforms and programmable financial rails.
For Europe, Blaschke’s message is clear and unsparing. Regulation alone will not secure monetary relevance. MiCA may be the world’s most comprehensive stablecoin framework, but clarity is not the same as competitiveness. Europe has rules; the United States, he suggests, increasingly has momentum. If euro-denominated alternatives do not achieve scale soon, the architecture of tokenized finance may default to dollar-based settlement long before Europe’s own initiatives mature.
Stability Is a Matter of Confidence
Yet the episode is not an advertisement for stablecoins. It is a warning against naive adoption as much as a case for strategic engagement. Blaschke returns repeatedly to a point often obscured in public discussion: a stablecoin’s peg is not guaranteed by magic or branding. It is maintained through confidence, reserve quality, market structure and redemption credibility. Remove trust, and the promise of stability can dissolve with stunning speed.
The collapses and stress episodes of recent years loom behind this analysis. Depegs, reserve concerns, exchange fragility and regulatory intervention have shown that stablecoins can falter precisely when resilience matters most. A tokenized bond does not suddenly cease to be a bond because confidence wavers. A stablecoin, by contrast, lives and dies by faith in its issuer, its reserves and the market’s willingness to treat the instrument as money.
This is why Blaschke draws such a sharp distinction between asset tokenization and money tokenization. The second is not just a technical extension of the first. It is a separate domain with its own risk profile, governance demands and contagion channels. For institutions, that means stablecoins must be treated simultaneously as infrastructure, as risk objects and as compliance challenges.
When Machines Start Using Money
Toward the end of the episode, the horizon expands once more. Stablecoins are not only relevant because humans may prefer faster settlement. They are relevant because machines will. As autonomous systems grow more capable—treasury agents, supply-chain triggers, optimization algorithms — the demand for money that is programmable, machine-readable and permanently available may grow rapidly.
Traditional banking systems were not built for agents transacting at three in the morning on a Saturday. Stablecoins were. That makes them a natural fit for a world in which software increasingly initiates, routes and verifies economic activity. But it also introduces a new kind of danger: feedback loops at machine speed, where automated risk responses can amplify instability rather than contain it.
The episode closes with a sober conclusion. The question is no longer whether stablecoins matter. It is whether institutions, regulators and market participants understand what kind of system they are helping to build. In Blaschke’s account, passive observation is no longer a strategy. The architecture of tokenized money is being defined now, and those who arrive late may find that the most important decisions have already been made for them.
FERI Cognitive Finance Institute press release
Bitcoin, Fiat & Rock’n’Roll Website
Bitcoin, Fiat & Rock’n’Roll Telegram Channel
Brunnermeier & Niepelt (2019) — Referenced for the argument that private and public money can be economically equivalent, but only under specific conditions (equivalence breaks down when trust in the private issuer erodes).
Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj (2020) — Analyzed the stablecoin peg mechanism and compared arbitrageurs to authorized participants in the ETF market.
Gorton & Zhang (Yale) — Compared bond-based stablecoins (Tether, Circle) to the Wildcat Banks of 19th-century America, i.e., private money issuers backed by reserves with historically mixed results.
Ahmed & Aldasoro (BIS working paper, 2026) — „Stablecoins and Safe Asset Prices“ — Empirically demonstrated that stablecoin inflows depress three-month US Treasury bill yields by 2.5 to 3.5 basis points (5 to 8 basis points during tight supply periods).
Diamond & Dybvig (1983) — The classic bank run model showing that coordinated withdrawals can be individually rational even when the institution is fundamentally solvent; applied by Michael to the stablecoin context.
Relai*: Buy Bitcoin with Relai—you can do a one-time purchase or savings plan: Click here. Use the referral code „ROCK“ to reduce transaction fees by 0.1% while supporting Bitcoin, Fiat & Rock’n’Roll.
Value4Value Podcast Streaming: Support our podcast by listening to our episodes on the Fountain Podcast App. This way, if you wish, you can support us „Value4Value“ while listening to the podcast. You can find us on the Fountain Podcast App here: Click here
Disclaimer: The content of this podcast reflects the private opinions of the hosts, serves exclusively for general information purposes and does not constitute investment advice. Always remember: Do your own research—inform yourself before making any investment decisions, such as buying Bitcoin. First try to understand what Bitcoin is and how to store it. This podcast does not provide financial advice. Note that the co-hosts might be invested in crypto assets. Read more on our website: Click here
All links marked with „*“ are affiliate links. If you use these links for purchase, the podcast receives a small share of the revenue without any additional costs to you. On the contrary, affiliate links often include discount promotions, so you can even save money. We would appreciate it if you use these links to support us. Thank you very much!