The Privacy Problem Institutions Can’t Ignore in Stablecoins

The internet had native formats for video, audio and files. It did not have one for money. Stablecoins changed that. They represent internet-native dollars that move like MP3s and work on any internet-connected device, worldwide.

But as MP3s and peer-to-peer platforms like Napster proved, accessible new formats also bring new risks and exposures. Public blockchains, the primary infrastructure for stablecoins, are built on radical transparency. Every transaction appears on a shared ledger, visible to anyone with an internet connection. Wallet addresses are pseudonymous, but analytics, counterparties and behavioral patterns often make them traceable.

Retail users and speculative traders often tolerate or even embrace that transparency. For institutions, it can be a non-starter. This privacy gap does more than deter adoption. It can actively fragment liquidity.

Morgan Stanley, for example, on Friday (April 24) launched a new “Stablecoin Reserves Portfolio.” The government money market fund product stores the reserves backing stablecoins. It does not mean the bank itself will use tokenized digital dollars.

See also: Can Crypto’s Open Network Dreams Survive Going Corporate?

Why Institutional Privacy Concerns Are Slowing Stablecoin Adoption

Stablecoins have achieved growth in trading, remittances and decentralized finance. Yet their penetration into core institutional workflows — treasury operations, supply chain finance and cross-border corporate payments — remains limited.

The reasons can tie back to volatility, regulation or infrastructure. But privacy is the primary deterrent to greater adoption.

Corporations operate on controlled disclosure. Payment flows reveal supplier relationships, pricing strategies, inventory cycles and geographic expansion plans. Treasury movements signal liquidity positions and capital allocation decisions. Even seemingly routine transactions can expose competitive intelligence. In traditional financial systems, banks, clearinghouses and regulatory frameworks tightly govern who sees what.

Stablecoins invert that model. They offer settlement speed and global reach, but expose transactional data to a public audience. On public blockchain rails, large stablecoin movements are immediately visible. Market participants monitor flows in real time, using them to anticipate trades, front-run positions or adjust pricing. That creates a feedback loop where visibility increases slippage, which in turn discourages large transactions.

The result is a paradox. Stablecoins promise deep, global liquidity, but their transparency discourages the institutions that could provide it at scale. Instead, liquidity remains concentrated in crypto-native venues, built for speed and speculation rather than stability and discretion.

See also: Stablecoins Meet Real World Commerce, but KYC Keeps Breaking the Experience

How Compliance and Confidentiality Will Shape the Future of Stablecoins

The analogy to early internet media is instructive. MP3s made music portable and shareable, but they also enabled widespread piracy and disrupted existing business models. Napster demonstrated both the power and the risks of a new format.

Stablecoins are at a similar inflection point. They have proven that money can move as seamlessly as data. They have also exposed the vulnerabilities of an open, transparent system. Just as the music industry evolved toward controlled distribution — streaming platforms with rights management and monetization — financial systems are now grappling with how to retain the benefits of digital-native money while managing its risks.

Findings in the March PYMNTS Intelligence report “Stablecoins Gain Ground: Why CFOs See More Promise There Than in Crypto” reveal that while more than 4 in 10 (42%) middle market companies have at least discussed stablecoins, only 13% report actual use.

Nearly half of CFOs say integration with major banks would make stablecoins more relevant to their operations. Additionally, 67% point to regulatory and compliance uncertainty as a key hurdle.

The push for privacy is also reshaping the role of intermediaries. In traditional finance, banks and custodians act as trusted gatekeepers of information. In a fully decentralized system, their role diminishes. As privacy concerns rise, however, a new form of intermediation is emerging.

Institutions are increasingly relying on specialized providers to manage secure transaction layers, compliance checks and confidential execution environments. These entities do not simply replicate traditional banking functions. Instead, they integrate those functions into digital-native infrastructure, offering privacy as a service.

This evolution suggests that the future of stablecoins will not be purely decentralized or fully centralized. Rather, it will involve a reconfiguration of trust, where privacy, compliance and efficiency are distributed across a network of specialized actors.