Amidst the escalating geopolitical fragmentation of the global financial system, divergent stablecoin architectures are emerging. This study employs Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and introduces a formalized ‘Geopolitical Stablecoin’ (GPSC) model to conduct a systematic comparison of three representative cases: A quasi-sovereign asset within a coordinated closed-loop system, a commercial asset with global open-market circulation, and a state-issued asset representing a failed local initiative. Our analysis reveals that in the model implemented as a quasi-sovereign asset, parameters traditionally viewed as vulnerabilities—such as reserve opacity and a high degree of centralization—are functionally reinterpreted as elements ensuring its operational resilience. In contrast, the risks associated with the commercial asset model are emergent properties of its scale and decentralized distribution. The findings highlight the necessity for a differentiated regulatory approach aimed at targeted intervention in key architectural components of the model rather than the use of universal bans.
Vlasov et al. (Thu,) studied this question.