‘Let’s Build Additional Rails’: a Russian Stablecoin

Stablecoins linked to the dollar account for 99% of the total supply of stablecoins in circulation worldwide. The threat of the dollarisation of economies and the risks of stablecoins being used in illegal activities are prompting countries to develop their own digital instruments, such as central bank digital currencies and stablecoins linked to national currencies, and to regulate the circulation of foreign stablecoins in their national markets. Two-thirds of jurisdictions have already either introduced such regulation or are developing it.

Russian legislation does not recognise the concept of ‘stablecoin’ as such, although it does not restrict the issuance and use, for investment purposes and in cross-border settlements, of digital rights with the characteristics of stablecoins for investments or in cross-border settlements. In the consultative report ‘Stablecoins in Russia’, published at the end of June 2026, the Bank of Russia initiated a discussion on the future development of stablecoin regulation in Russia. Whether Russia should follow the example of other countries, and if so, in what form and when, was discussed by the participants in the ‘Ruble-denominated stablecoins – architecture of maximum potential’ session of the Bank of Russia’s Financial Congress. Econs provides excerpts from the discussion.

Why Russia Needs a Stablecoin

Dmitry Vitman, Chief Operating Officer of Alfa-Bank:

– Virtually no one has managed to create an alternative to dollar-linked stablecoins, and this is where the next wave of development lies. Stablecoins pegged to national currencies are being developed, for example, by Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; instruments pegged to the euro may emerge in Europe.

We see this as the currency market of the future: there will be crypto pairs around the world – dollar/dinar, dollar/Hong Kong dollar, dollar/euro, and so on – which will be traded 24/7. There are certain scenarios in which stablecoins are more convenient for international settlements. But the use of stablecoins is not limited to this. There are investment instruments that we can offer on the international market.

The strength of stablecoins lies in their global nature. If we do not create a ruble-linked stablecoin ourselves, Binance, for example, will create one tomorrow; in the crypto world, anyone can do so. And what then? Will anyone need ‘our’ stablecoin? We need to create instruments ourselves that will be in demand, and build fundamental Russian payment infrastructure.

Alexander Zozulya, Director of Global Markets Department, Sberbank:

– A national stablecoin is not a substitute for the national currency, but a new form of it. The digital form has a number of advantages. For example, it is more convenient to trade tokenised shares on the stock market; stablecoin enables programmability and the traceability of money – features that modern fiat currencies lack. At first, people traded paper securities, then switched to electronic ones, and subsequently realised that even electronic securities were inconvenient in the new digital environment – a tool is needed that remains within the blockchain and does not require conversion to fiat. Stablecoins have gone through three stages: as a replacement for fiat on crypto exchanges; as a means of payment; and a new wave has arrived – integration into the tokenised economy, where assets are traded 24/7 and money becomes programmable.

For example, USDT, a dollar stablecoin, has became so popular because it provides access to dollar liquidity anywhere in the world where there is an internet connection. USDT has created huge demand for US Treasury bonds and helps the US to further manage its budget deficit and increase the liquidity of its currency. In other words, it is a very powerful macroeconomic force.

We need to build our own ecosystem in this area, creating instruments that will complement the ruble in its various forms. A stablecoin could also become an alternative instrument for foreign investors to access our market. A stablecoin is like rails that allows goods, payments, and investments to move more efficiently. Let’s build additional rails that will enable the movement of ‘new modes of transport’ which cannot normally travel on other roads.

Igor Egorkin, CEO of the Tokeon digital asset platform:

– We conducted a series of tests using foreign stablecoins (link in Russian) and understand that stablecoins are indeed in high demand by businesses, particularly those involved in foreign economic activities.

It is important to note that this is not about local infrastructure. We are talking about a market with a market capitalisation of $316 billion, where the turnover in stablecoins exceeds the combined turnover of Visa and Mastercard. Stablecoins ensure accessibility and speed of payments, can offer advantages in commodity transactions, and have great potential as a tool for raising capital.

Do Stablecoins Require Separate Regulation?

Gleb Mararenko, advisor to the First Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia:

– We were one of the first jurisdictions in the world to introduce regulations (link in Russian) for digital financial assets (DFA). In our view, it covers the regulation of stablecoins. We do not see any regulatory barriers to the launch of stablecoins at present. In fact, our consultative report raises the question of whether stablecoins need regulation. We have not reached a definitive conclusion and would like to discuss this issue.

Practices vary greatly around the world. There are jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, which allow a limited number of major banks to issue stablecoins and permit their use in domestic and cross-border settlements. India’s experience involves no comprehensive regulation, but strict taxation and a ban on the use of stablecoins in domestic payments.

We are ready to set requirements that will be proportionate to the needs of businesses in developing cross-border settlements. However, we are extremely wary of any payments in the domestic market that are alternatives to the ruble.

Alexander Zozulya:

– The country faced a crossroads: to follow the path of the separate regulation of stablecoins, as in the USA (the GENIUS Act, link in Russian) or the EU (MiCA), or to adopt more general legislation that treats stablecoins as a type of digital asset. We chose the latter path. There is no point now in saying, ‘Let’s first make stablecoins a type of digital asset, and then regulate them further, because everyone else is regulating them.’ Everyone else is taking a slightly different approach. If we retain this ‘essence’ of stablecoins within the framework of digital assets, let it remain there. The existing regulation (link in Russian) is quite sufficient. It is important that the issuer is regulated. If a bank is already regulated, it is strange to impose further restrictions on it. But if the issuer is external and outside the central bank’s perimeter, then it makes sense to impose such requirements so that we do not end up with a fly in the ointment.

Dmitry Vitman:

– First, we need to see how the stablecoin infrastructure develops and how it actually functions, and only then return to the question of regulation. Creating a stablecoin is easy, but creating liquidity around it is an extremely complex and crucial task. None of the Russian players will be able to tackle this challenge on their own. At Alfa, we are open to working in partnership to build a shared tool, developing it on an open basis, and offering it to a wide range of clients and counterparties in Russia and abroad for foreign economic activity and investment. At present, we do not know what the market will actually demand.

If we regulate before trying things out and seeing what works and what doesn’t, there is a risk of creating a regulatory framework that prevents liquidity from being generated. And then we will have to resort to using ‘dollar’, ‘euro’ or another stablecoin.

Igor Egorkin:

– The main thing is not the law itself, but a unified infrastructure that makes all processes transparent. I believe, in itself, our infrastructure is no worse than infrastructure elsewhere. Yes, our situation is more challenging in terms of external rhetoric and sanctions, but we are very strong technologically and will continue to grow.