The future of transatlantic money
August 2026
On 14 July 2026, the UK and US released a joint statement on stablecoins’ place within the future of institutional money. Matthew Challis explores the implications of a transatlantic alliance and how it could lay the groundwork for the asset class to transition from a speculative crypto workaround to a conduit of modern payment rails
Image: bohdana/stock.adobe.com
According to the US government, Washington has had a “durable” allyship of “prosperity and security” with the UK since the end of the American Revolution in 1783 and the subsequent formation of diplomatic relations in 1785.
In international terms, the countries are often referred to as ‘cousins’, with a mostly shared language and historically similar outlook.
It comes as little surprise, therefore, that within the new age of digital finance, on 14 July 2026, the pair set out a joint framework that charted their outlook on stablecoins and how the currency could and will shape the future of transatlantic money. The announcement emphasised that stablecoins possess the potential to promote efficiency, modernise market infrastructure, and improve cross-border payments, all while establishing that the digital financial infrastructure has its place at the core of institutional financial policy.
But despite the clear diplomatic enthusiasm for the asset class, there lies an operational reality of great complexity; the statement, while representing shared policy goals and political intent, is far from a binding treaty or passporting agreement. While it serves as a key signal that institutions will not face multi-jurisdictional regulatory adversaries, there is still a fine line between what can be interpreted as high-level policy signalling for use in forthcoming product roadmaps, and what the local legislative reality actually may be.
How did we get here?
The statement raises an interesting set of questions. Is the fact that GENIUS Act-related rules are subject to fewer “burdensome constraints” — and less of the rigid, prescriptive oversight of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime — really the driving force behind this alliance? Or, had this announcement happened pre-Brexit, would the UK have chosen to align with its closest European neighbours, irrespective of what it thought of the regulatory framework?
Perhaps, it is a bit of both. Or perhaps not. Either way, the ramifications of the UK’s post-EU status have added a layer of complexity to financial relations and, since the 2016 referendum, the US has remained one of the state’s most significant trading partners, with European counterparts falling by the wayside.
Structurally, the market consensus is that the UK lags far behind its transatlantic counterpart. If, as timelines suggest, rules finalise by the end of 2026 and regulated pound sterling stablecoins go live in 2027 the EU’s regime will have been fully functioning for approximately three years. But even then, finalisations are dependent on HM Treasury's systemic designation and the Bank of England (BoE) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) joint processes.
Miguel Zapatero, head counsel at digital asset developer platform and infrastructure provider Crossmint, highlights the fact that firms still require FCA authorisation before they can operate under the new regime, and the application window “does not even open until September 2026”, placing a burdensome operational load on institutions seeking to establish a UK stablecoin footing.
Despite this, Zapatero believes that the prospect of the US and UK eventually being the foundation “for what workable cross-jurisdiction interoperability looks like” is an enticing one.
“The EU already built a reference for a consistent single-market framework with MiCA,” he says. “The real prize is connecting these regimes to each other.”
“Whoever solves that first sets the standard everyone else builds on.”
Onshore vs offshore
Crypto, for most of its relatively short history, has been structured around a stark geographic imbalance: liquidity pooling offshore in light-touch supervisory jurisdictions, while regulated onshore entities have remained smaller and incompatible with one another due to differing rulesets. To help address this liquidity disparity, regulatory frameworks, like MiCA, have made cross-border interoperability a key priority.
Ben El-Baz, managing director at HashKey Group, believes that the passporting model is “crucial for the growth of digital assets”.
He argues that the market should be defined not by a “single global regulator”, but “jurisdictions collaborative in approach and empowered in scope and enforcement”. Moreover, he understands the UK-US statement to clearly signal “that regulated liquidity can start pulling back onshore instead of defaulting to unregulated pools”.
For institutions to stop viewing stablecoins under the guise of offshore-related caution, the joint transatlantic statement offers a level of mutual recognition that can help the asset class transition from an informal workaround for US dollar exposure to operational-ready, legitimate settlement instruments, backed by defined reserves, real custody protections, and clear legal claims if an issuer were to fail.
El-Baz believes that stablecoins, without these facets, are too often labelled as merely “efficient” instead of “credible as money”.
Robb Layfield, managing director, head of digital assets at Customers Bank, highlights the fact that, without a global utilisation framework for stablecoin interoperability, the market risks becoming more fragmented with issuers maintaining “separate reserve pools, operating entities, and compliance structures in each country”.
He warns that costs will increase, liquidity will be diverted, and “many of the efficiencies stablecoins are intended to create are lost”.
“Fortunately,” Layfield says, “alignment does not require identical rules”.
Instead, what he values as most essential are mirroring explicit intentions and protections, and, at an institutional level, certainty can certainly shorten due diligence and product development cycles, normalising the concept of integrating stablecoins into treasury, payment, and settlement workflows, instead of the current pilot-dominated model.
Chris Murrer, chief legal officer at WalletConnect, says that “regulatory convergence lowers a real cost”, particularly when a transaction moves across jurisdiction, as harmonised standards for reserve and custody will “reduce the compliance overhead of running parallel stacks”.
It seems clear, then, that for a broader global market structure to be successful, comparable risks must produce comparable regulatory outcomes, and, for institutions, obligations must be defined with clarity when a transaction ventures cross-border.
Money movement
By focusing its resources on joining forces with the US, the UK has positioned itself to be a viable European hub for US dollar-denominated digital assets, becoming a compliant transatlantic bridge by exploiting a gap left by MiCA’s insistence on unification.
But a pressing question on the institutional mind is how, exactly, these frameworks connect at the point where money moves?
What the statement does not tell you, Murrer says, is whether a wallet in London can transact with a New York merchant seamlessly, and without a middleman doing the work manually. For the industry to solve this pressing problem of infrastructure, the market must come together and collaborate on achieving a level of technical interoperability, with Murrer warning that regulatory alignment would not necessarily result in more streamlined stablecoin adoption if “interoperability becomes the binding constraint”.
Moreover, even if compliance rules are harmonised, the joint statement endorses the “co-existence of different forms of digital money”, which itself introduces another significant risk of further market fragmentation.
If, for example, every major bank and jurisdiction were to issue its very own proprietary, chain-specific stablecoin, the global digital financial market would replicate the siloed architectures of TradFi, and neutralise one of digital assets’ most enticing prospects.
Murrer also views the statement as a unique opportunity to reignite the debate surrounding self-custody.
“Right now, much of the policy conversation implicitly treats self-custody as ‘non-compliant by default’,” he says.
But Murrer highlights the contradiction, in that these tools almost never take custody of funds, and “they are software, not financial intermediaries”.
Above all, one thing stands out for Murrer regarding self-custody: if it is treated with suspicion by default, the industry slows innovation and discards tools that “could make anti-money laundering sanctions and know-your-customer compliance better than in traditional banking”.
Building bridges
Ultimately, the UK-US joint stablecoin statement represents a pivotal moment in the maturation of digital finance.
The two governments, and their shared vision, have sent a clear signal that the future of stablecoins will be built on onshore, regulated liquidity, away from the lightly supervised offshore hubs of yesteryear.
If the UK can successfully speed up its legislative timeline, and if the global digital asset market can collaborate effectively in solving the technical bottlenecks related to cross-chain compatibility and non-custodial compliance, this statement may well be remembered as the moment when stablecoins asserted themselves as no longer a speculative crypto workaround, but the undisputed conduit of modern, global institutional money.
However, while the political intent itself is clear, what remains to be seen is how the construction of this transatlantic bridge will commence.
In international terms, the countries are often referred to as ‘cousins’, with a mostly shared language and historically similar outlook.
It comes as little surprise, therefore, that within the new age of digital finance, on 14 July 2026, the pair set out a joint framework that charted their outlook on stablecoins and how the currency could and will shape the future of transatlantic money. The announcement emphasised that stablecoins possess the potential to promote efficiency, modernise market infrastructure, and improve cross-border payments, all while establishing that the digital financial infrastructure has its place at the core of institutional financial policy.
But despite the clear diplomatic enthusiasm for the asset class, there lies an operational reality of great complexity; the statement, while representing shared policy goals and political intent, is far from a binding treaty or passporting agreement. While it serves as a key signal that institutions will not face multi-jurisdictional regulatory adversaries, there is still a fine line between what can be interpreted as high-level policy signalling for use in forthcoming product roadmaps, and what the local legislative reality actually may be.
How did we get here?
The statement raises an interesting set of questions. Is the fact that GENIUS Act-related rules are subject to fewer “burdensome constraints” — and less of the rigid, prescriptive oversight of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime — really the driving force behind this alliance? Or, had this announcement happened pre-Brexit, would the UK have chosen to align with its closest European neighbours, irrespective of what it thought of the regulatory framework?
Perhaps, it is a bit of both. Or perhaps not. Either way, the ramifications of the UK’s post-EU status have added a layer of complexity to financial relations and, since the 2016 referendum, the US has remained one of the state’s most significant trading partners, with European counterparts falling by the wayside.
Structurally, the market consensus is that the UK lags far behind its transatlantic counterpart. If, as timelines suggest, rules finalise by the end of 2026 and regulated pound sterling stablecoins go live in 2027 the EU’s regime will have been fully functioning for approximately three years. But even then, finalisations are dependent on HM Treasury's systemic designation and the Bank of England (BoE) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) joint processes.
Miguel Zapatero, head counsel at digital asset developer platform and infrastructure provider Crossmint, highlights the fact that firms still require FCA authorisation before they can operate under the new regime, and the application window “does not even open until September 2026”, placing a burdensome operational load on institutions seeking to establish a UK stablecoin footing.
Despite this, Zapatero believes that the prospect of the US and UK eventually being the foundation “for what workable cross-jurisdiction interoperability looks like” is an enticing one.
“The EU already built a reference for a consistent single-market framework with MiCA,” he says. “The real prize is connecting these regimes to each other.”
“Whoever solves that first sets the standard everyone else builds on.”
Onshore vs offshore
Crypto, for most of its relatively short history, has been structured around a stark geographic imbalance: liquidity pooling offshore in light-touch supervisory jurisdictions, while regulated onshore entities have remained smaller and incompatible with one another due to differing rulesets. To help address this liquidity disparity, regulatory frameworks, like MiCA, have made cross-border interoperability a key priority.
Ben El-Baz, managing director at HashKey Group, believes that the passporting model is “crucial for the growth of digital assets”.
He argues that the market should be defined not by a “single global regulator”, but “jurisdictions collaborative in approach and empowered in scope and enforcement”. Moreover, he understands the UK-US statement to clearly signal “that regulated liquidity can start pulling back onshore instead of defaulting to unregulated pools”.
For institutions to stop viewing stablecoins under the guise of offshore-related caution, the joint transatlantic statement offers a level of mutual recognition that can help the asset class transition from an informal workaround for US dollar exposure to operational-ready, legitimate settlement instruments, backed by defined reserves, real custody protections, and clear legal claims if an issuer were to fail.
El-Baz believes that stablecoins, without these facets, are too often labelled as merely “efficient” instead of “credible as money”.
Robb Layfield, managing director, head of digital assets at Customers Bank, highlights the fact that, without a global utilisation framework for stablecoin interoperability, the market risks becoming more fragmented with issuers maintaining “separate reserve pools, operating entities, and compliance structures in each country”.
He warns that costs will increase, liquidity will be diverted, and “many of the efficiencies stablecoins are intended to create are lost”.
“Fortunately,” Layfield says, “alignment does not require identical rules”.
Instead, what he values as most essential are mirroring explicit intentions and protections, and, at an institutional level, certainty can certainly shorten due diligence and product development cycles, normalising the concept of integrating stablecoins into treasury, payment, and settlement workflows, instead of the current pilot-dominated model.
Chris Murrer, chief legal officer at WalletConnect, says that “regulatory convergence lowers a real cost”, particularly when a transaction moves across jurisdiction, as harmonised standards for reserve and custody will “reduce the compliance overhead of running parallel stacks”.
It seems clear, then, that for a broader global market structure to be successful, comparable risks must produce comparable regulatory outcomes, and, for institutions, obligations must be defined with clarity when a transaction ventures cross-border.
Money movement
By focusing its resources on joining forces with the US, the UK has positioned itself to be a viable European hub for US dollar-denominated digital assets, becoming a compliant transatlantic bridge by exploiting a gap left by MiCA’s insistence on unification.
But a pressing question on the institutional mind is how, exactly, these frameworks connect at the point where money moves?
What the statement does not tell you, Murrer says, is whether a wallet in London can transact with a New York merchant seamlessly, and without a middleman doing the work manually. For the industry to solve this pressing problem of infrastructure, the market must come together and collaborate on achieving a level of technical interoperability, with Murrer warning that regulatory alignment would not necessarily result in more streamlined stablecoin adoption if “interoperability becomes the binding constraint”.
Moreover, even if compliance rules are harmonised, the joint statement endorses the “co-existence of different forms of digital money”, which itself introduces another significant risk of further market fragmentation.
If, for example, every major bank and jurisdiction were to issue its very own proprietary, chain-specific stablecoin, the global digital financial market would replicate the siloed architectures of TradFi, and neutralise one of digital assets’ most enticing prospects.
Murrer also views the statement as a unique opportunity to reignite the debate surrounding self-custody.
“Right now, much of the policy conversation implicitly treats self-custody as ‘non-compliant by default’,” he says.
But Murrer highlights the contradiction, in that these tools almost never take custody of funds, and “they are software, not financial intermediaries”.
Above all, one thing stands out for Murrer regarding self-custody: if it is treated with suspicion by default, the industry slows innovation and discards tools that “could make anti-money laundering sanctions and know-your-customer compliance better than in traditional banking”.
Building bridges
Ultimately, the UK-US joint stablecoin statement represents a pivotal moment in the maturation of digital finance.
The two governments, and their shared vision, have sent a clear signal that the future of stablecoins will be built on onshore, regulated liquidity, away from the lightly supervised offshore hubs of yesteryear.
If the UK can successfully speed up its legislative timeline, and if the global digital asset market can collaborate effectively in solving the technical bottlenecks related to cross-chain compatibility and non-custodial compliance, this statement may well be remembered as the moment when stablecoins asserted themselves as no longer a speculative crypto workaround, but the undisputed conduit of modern, global institutional money.
However, while the political intent itself is clear, what remains to be seen is how the construction of this transatlantic bridge will commence.
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one digital assets news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to The Digital Assets Edge
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one digital assets news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to The Digital Assets Edge
