Onigiri Weekend Digest: Institutional Lens #34

🌐 Website | 💼 Linkedln | 📰 Past Editions

Good weekend from Onigiri Capital.

This week’s stablecoin headlines are not about another issuer launch, another payment pilot, or another treasury-backed product. They are about something more structural: where stablecoins are allowed to sit in the financial system. 

Recap this Week's Headliners

SS #99 — Senate Crypto Bill Bans Stablecoin Yield

SS #100 — Bank of England Softens Sterling Stablecoin Rules

In the U.S., the Senate Banking Committee has advanced the CLARITY Act, with stablecoin yield now becoming one of the defining battlegrounds between banks, crypto firms, and regulators. The latest compromise draws a sharper line between payment stablecoins and interest-bearing bank deposits, limiting issuers’ ability to pay yield directly to holders. The committee vote marks a meaningful step forward for federal crypto market structure legislation, although ethics provisions and Democratic support remain unresolved at the Senate floor level.

In the U.K., the Bank of England is moving in the opposite direction: not loosening prudential standards entirely, but acknowledging that its original sterling stablecoin framework may have been too restrictive. Proposed holding caps and the requirement for systemic issuers to keep 40% of reserves at the central bank, interest-free, are now under review after industry pushback.

Taken together, these two developments show the next phase of stablecoin regulation clearly: the debate is no longer whether stablecoins should exist, but how much of the banking system they should be allowed to resemble.

Enjoy the read!

You read and share. We listen and improve. Send us feedback at [email protected].

🍙 Onigiri Take

The stablecoin market is entering a more mature policy phase. Regulators are no longer treating stablecoins as purely crypto-native instruments. They are increasingly treating them as privately issued payment money that may sit adjacent to, but not fully inside, the traditional deposit system.

The U.S. approach is becoming more explicit: stablecoins can be used for payments, settlement, liquidity movement, and programmable finance, but they should not become de facto savings accounts. This is why the stablecoin yield ban matters. It protects the boundary between payment instruments and deposit products, while still allowing stablecoins to compete on speed, programmability, interoperability, and distribution.

The U.K. is facing a different but related problem. If sterling stablecoins are over-regulated before they reach scale, liquidity will simply migrate to dollar-denominated stablecoins. The Bank of England’s original framework may have been prudent from a financial stability perspective, but commercially unattractive for issuers. A 40% non-interest-bearing reserve requirement would materially compress issuer economics, while strict holding caps would limit real-world enterprise usage.

The bigger trend is clear: jurisdictions are now competing to define the default operating model for regulated stablecoins. The U.S. is trying to preserve banking-sector boundaries while exporting dollar stablecoin standards. The U.K. is trying to avoid being too conservative and losing relevance in the next phase of digital money infrastructure.

For institutional investors, this creates a more investable landscape. The winners will not simply be the issuers with the largest float. They will be the companies that can operate across regulatory regimes, provide compliant distribution, manage reserve economics efficiently, and serve banks, corporates, fintechs, and market infrastructure players without triggering deposit-like regulatory treatment.

🍙 Winners & Losers: Institutional Outlook

🍙 Under the Hood: The Stablecoin Rulebook Is Moving From “Reserve Safety” to “Business Model Control”

The two launches highlight a deeper architecture shift in institutional stablecoins.

1. Western Union: stablecoins as settlement infrastructure

Western Union’s USDPT is not merely a branding exercise. The company already has the distribution footprint, agent network, compliance operations, and remittance corridors. What it lacked was a native programmable settlement layer that can operate continuously.

By launching USDPT through Anchorage Digital Bank and using Solana for settlement, Western Union is effectively adding an onchain treasury rail beneath its existing business. This matters because remittance businesses depend heavily on liquidity positioning: funds must be prefunded, reconciled, converted, settled, and distributed across many jurisdictions. A stablecoin layer can reduce friction in agent settlement and partner payouts before it ever becomes a mass-market consumer product.

The Philippines and Bolivia are logical first markets. They represent remittance-heavy, dollar-relevant corridors where faster settlement and access to stable dollar value can be commercially meaningful. But the larger strategy is not about two markets. It is about proving that a legacy remittance network can operate with stablecoins as a backend rail while maintaining a familiar consumer and agent experience.

The risk for Western Union is execution. A stablecoin does not automatically fix compliance, liquidity, foreign exchange, consumer protection, or local payout infrastructure. The company still needs regulated off-ramps, agent readiness, wallet controls, liquidity depth, and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction acceptance. But if it works, Western Union can defend its global relevance against fintechs, crypto-native remittance providers, and bank-led real-time payment networks.

2. State Street and Galaxy: stablecoins as institutional cash balances

SWEEP addresses the next institutional problem: once stablecoins sit on balance sheets or in operating wallets, where do they go when they are idle?

In traditional finance, cash sweep products are standard treasury tools. They help institutions move idle balances into money market funds or similar instruments. SWEEP brings that logic onchain by creating a tokenized private liquidity fund where qualified purchasers can move stablecoin balances into a yield-bearing vehicle. The product launches on Solana and is expected to expand to Stellar and Ethereum, reinforcing a multi-chain institutional distribution strategy.

This is important because stablecoin adoption does not end at payments. Institutional users need the full cash lifecycle:

• Receive stablecoins

• Hold them safely

• Sweep idle balances into yield

• Redeem back into stablecoins

• Use balances for settlement, collateral, or payment

• Report NAV, risk, custody, and audit trails

That is why the SWEEP stack matters. Galaxy provides tokenization infrastructure, Anchorage supports custody, and Chainlink is referenced around NAV and messaging infrastructure. The institutional product is not just a token. It is a coordinated operating stack that mirrors traditional fund workflows while enabling onchain availability.

3. Solana’s institutional moment

Both headlines also place Solana in the center of institutional stablecoin infrastructure. This does not mean Solana has “won” institutional finance, but it does show that major financial institutions are now comfortable experimenting with high-throughput public-chain rails when paired with regulated issuers, custodians, and compliance infrastructure.

The more important point is that institutions are becoming chain-pragmatic. State Street’s planned expansion to Stellar and Ethereum shows that serious products will not be single-chain maximalist. They will deploy where liquidity, counterparties, regulatory comfort, and technical performance justify it.

4. The next battleground: who captures the economics?

Stablecoins generate economics at several layers:

• Issuance and reserve yield

• Transaction and settlement fees

• FX spreads

• Custody and wallet fees

• Treasury sweep yield

• Tokenized fund management fees

• On/off-ramp and payout margins

• Compliance and reporting infrastructure fees

Western Union appears to be moving toward capturing more economics internally rather than outsourcing the stablecoin layer to existing issuers. State Street and Galaxy are building around the yield-management layer. This suggests that the long-term stablecoin market will not be dominated only by the largest issuers. It will be shaped by distribution owners, regulated balance sheet providers, and infrastructure operators that control the institutional workflow.

🍙Stablecoin ≠ Crypto — The Fight Is About Deposit Migration, Not Token Speculation

The stablecoin debate is often framed as part of crypto regulation, but that framing is becoming less accurate.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi tokens, and memecoins raise questions around speculation, market structure, custody, disclosure, and investor protection. Stablecoins raise a different question: who gets to issue digital money-like instruments, and under what constraints?

That is why banks care so much about stablecoin yield. A non-yielding stablecoin is primarily a payment instrument. A yielding stablecoin starts to become a balance-sheet competitor.

For banks, the risk is not that stablecoins replace every bank account overnight. The risk is that stablecoins gradually capture high-velocity transactional balances from fintechs, merchants, cross-border businesses, crypto exchanges, payment processors, and emerging market users. Even without yield, stablecoins can compete with bank deposits on speed, availability, global reach, and programmability.

For stablecoin issuers, the yield ban forces a cleaner institutional positioning. The product cannot be marketed as a better savings account. It must be positioned as a better settlement rail.

That distinction is important. It means the next wave of stablecoin adoption will likely be driven less by retail yield farming and more by institutional use cases:

cross-border settlement, merchant payments, treasury operations, exchange liquidity, remittances, tokenized fund subscriptions, real-time collateral movement, and programmable cash management.

This is also why the Bank of England’s shift matters. If sterling stablecoins are too restricted, they will not become credible payment infrastructure. They will remain a compliance experiment while dollar stablecoins continue to dominate real liquidity.

The strategic question for every jurisdiction is now simple: will local-currency stablecoins become usable money infrastructure, or will dollar stablecoins become the internet’s default settlement layer?

🍙 Institutional Risks & Unknowns

Despite the progress, several open questions remain:

1. Regulatory inconsistency. If the U.S., U.K., EU, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and other markets define stablecoin yield, reserves, redemption, and distribution differently, global issuers will need complex jurisdiction-specific operating models. This favors well-capitalized incumbents and may increase barriers to entry.

2. Indirect yield leakage. Even if issuers cannot pay yield directly, exchanges, wallets, fintechs, DeFi protocols, and affiliated entities may still create reward structures that look economically similar. Regulators will need to decide where payment incentives end and deposit-like products begin.

3. Banking-sector pushback. Banks are unlikely to stop lobbying once issuer-paid yield is banned. They may continue pushing for restrictions around reserve composition, distribution, wallet providers, consumer protection, and affiliate rewards. Stablecoin firms should expect ongoing political pressure.

4. Sterling stablecoin under-adoption. Even if the Bank of England softens its rules, sterling stablecoins still face a liquidity problem. The dollar stablecoin market already benefits from deep exchange adoption, global payment demand, U.S. Treasury reserve economics, and institutional familiarity. A revised U.K. framework must be commercially viable enough to attract issuers and users.

5. Ethics and political headline risk in the U.S. The CLARITY Act may have cleared an important committee hurdle, but unresolved concerns around political conflicts, ethics amendments, AML provisions, and Democratic support could still affect the path to full passage. Reuters reported that although two Democrats supported the committee vote, they may not support the final bill without further negotiations.

6. Economic compression for issuers. If issuers cannot share yield and must comply with strict reserve, custody, audit, and liquidity rules, the business model becomes more scale-dependent. Smaller issuers may struggle unless they own distribution, serve a specific corridor, or operate in a differentiated regulatory niche.

Onigiri Capital (onigiri.vc), a US$50 million blockchain-focused investment fund, launched by Saison Capital, the venture arm of Japan’s Credit Saison. Onigiri Capital is on a mission to chart the next chapter of finance and invest in seed and Series A blockchain startups in stablecoins, payments, RWAs, DeFi and financial infrastructure. The fund’s strategy emphasizes connecting startups to Asia’s growing digital asset markets.

If you'd like to discuss or contribute to the next Institutional Lens, contact us at [email protected]

Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.