Canvas: April 2026

Saturday, 25 April 2026

Encoded Advantage: Stablecoins and the US Dollar's new layer

Disclaimer: This reflects my own perspective. This is me thinking out loud. It does not represent the views of my employer or any other organisation.

Niall Ferguson, in his sweeping history of money The Ascent of Money, makes an important observation

"The evolution of money has been a process of gradual dematerialisation."

From gold coins to paper notes to digital ledger entries. Each step moved money further from a physical thing toward a shared belief. Nowhere is this more relevant today than in the world of fiat currencies, which are themselves moving steadily toward digital form. And stablecoins, and other digital assets, are at the next dimension in this shift. But like every step before them, they carry the assumptions of the world they were born into. My argument is simple: these digital assets, particularly stablecoins, will NOT flatten the existing hierarchy of currencies. They will first clone it, more or less.

Origins:

Lets focus on stablecoins mainly. It is a digital token that lives on a blockchain, but unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, its value is pegged to something stable. Usually a currency, like the US dollar. Focusing on the most dominant ones tells us everything we need to know about where the market consensus has landed. More than 90% of fiat-backed stablecoins are pegged to the US dollar, with Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC together accounting for 93% of the total stablecoin market. That concentration has only deepened with regulatory support — in July 2025, the US passed the GENIUS Act, establishing the first formal federal regulatory framework for stablecoins, which has effectively reinforced dollar-linked stablecoins as the standard. So one USDC, issued by Circle, or one USDT, issued by Tether, is supposed to always be worth one dollar. The issuer holds reserves — cash, treasury bills etc — to back that promise. And it is worth noting: Circle and Tether are private enterprises, not governments or central banks.

Why stablecoins exist at all

Stepping back a little, why did stablecoins come to exist at all? It was not because someone thought "let's make global payments better." That is something that has now been discovered as a benefit. The reason stablecoins emerged was because of a more immediate reason than that. Crypto markets were trading around the clock, 24 hours, 7 days a week, and whenever people wanted to take profits or reduce risk, they needed somewhere to park it and that was not volatile. But moving money in and out of bank accounts is slow. The banking system runs on business hours. The crypto market doesn't. So people needed a stable asset that could move on a crypto network, any time, without going through a bank. Stablecoins solved that.

Over time however, stablecoins stopped being just a workaround for crypto traders. They became genuinely useful for moving money across borders, faster and more cheaply than traditional bank transfers. Today, a SWIFT transfer between countries can take two to five days and carry fees that make small transfers impractical. A stablecoin transfer takes minutes and costs almost nothing. That is a meaningful improvement and banks, institutions and government are waking up to the potential.

This dynamic has precedent in history.

A financial instrument created to solve one problem and then becoming infrastructure for something much bigger, has of course happened before. In 17th century Amsterdam, merchants trading across long distances faced a version of the same challenge. Economic historian Jan de Vries, writing about the commercial revolution of early modern Europe, describes how merchants needed instruments that could move faster than coins could physically travel. They created bills of exchange: IOUs between trusted parties that circulated as a kind of proxy money. Not officially issued by any state. But accepted widely enough to do the job.

What is similar about the Amsterdam example is how these bills evolved. They started as a simple workaround for slow settlement between trading partners. But over time, as historian Herman Van der Wee noted in his research on Antwerp and Amsterdam's financial markets, the bills of exchange became the circulatory system of European trade, moving value across cities and countries in ways that the underlying coin-based system never could have managed at that speed or scale.

Stablecoins are following a similar arc. Started as workaround, but now taking on other roles.

Why trust always concentrates

The Amsterdam bills of exchange reached for the most trusted thing available when it came to collateral. The bills clustered around the most accepted currencies of their day. But why did trust concentrate the way it did? Tommaso Contarini, Governor of Verona in 1541, observed in his proposal to the Venetian senate that the Antwerp market succeeded precisely because of an abundance of trust and a scarcity of fraud — so much so that it obviated the need for public records altogether. Trust, in other words, was the table stakes, as it is in banking and finances today. Finance afterall is always playing at the intersection of trust and technology.

That trust eventually found its most durable form in Amsterdam. Herman Van der Wee, in The History of European Banking, describes how the private merchant system that preceded the Bank of Amsterdam already understood this:

"...the foundation of the deposit bank in Amsterdam had been preceded by private initiatives of merchants who deposited full-bodied coins... Lenders were protected from repayment in debased coin, for the bankers undertook to pay back the deposits in the same high-quality coins as they had received."

The merchants were building and operating for convenience, but on the back of a promise — that what you put in is what you get back, undiluted. When the Bank of Amsterdam formalised this, it institutionalised something that trust had already made possible. As Stephen Quinn and William Roberds write in their study of the Bank's rise in the American Economic Review:

"The Bank [of Amsterdam] provided a uniform and secure money (bank money) for the settlement of large-value transactions... By providing a stable unit of account and a secure means of payment, the Bank reduced the transaction costs and risks associated with the use of a variety of circulating coins."

Private merchants built trust informally. But backed by a stable value surrogate. Because it was reliable.

And that brings us back to the dollar — and why 90% of stablecoins are pegged to it

Stablecoins went straight to the dollar for the same reason. Because when we need something everyone will accept, we reach for what already works. The dollar was, and remains, that thing.

Even at the beginning, the dollar wasn't just a convenient choice.

The shift:

Now the digital asset optimists are genuinely excited, and not without reason. Stablecoins are growing exponentially. And so are other digital assets. CBDCs are being piloted across dozens of countries. Banks are beginning to tokenise deposits and other assets. The infrastructure is expanding rapidly, and there is real momentum behind the idea that digital money will eventually work the way the internet works — open, interoperable, borderless.

But it is worth noting that there are many structural issues which can slow things down, especially for local-currency stablecoins. Apart from the fact that crypto settlement is one of the key uses of stablecoins, and for the other cases to truly matter there are a few hurdles.

The interoperability argument

In fact, one of the livelier debates in the stablecoin world right now is about interoperability: whether different stablecoins, different blockchains, and different digital currency systems will eventually be able to talk to each other seamlessly. If that happens, the argument goes, then using a euro stablecoin or a Singapore dollar stablecoin would be just as easy as using a dollar one. The friction is reduced.

That is a reasonable. But I think it misses something important about why people choose one currency over another in the first place. Interoperability solves a plumbing problem, but not the trust problem.

The trust problem

Think about what happens when someone in a country with serious inflation gets access to a digital asset like a stablecoin for the first time. What do they want? They want to get out of their local currency. They want something that holds its value and is accepted widely. A stablecoin in their local currency gives them none of that. It's a digital version of exactly the thing they are trying to get away from. Making a weak currency digital doesn't make it attractive.

There's also a trust problem that goes beyond inflation. To trust a local currency stablecoin, you have to trust the currency itself, the company issuing it, whatever they are holding as reserves, the local regulator, the legal system around it. That's a lot of trust to stack up. A dollar stablecoin only asks you to trust the issuer and the dollar. And the dollar has been earning that trust for a long time.

Dollar stablecoins also already won the early race. The so called first mover advantage is staggering. They have depth with lots of buyers and sellers, lots of places to use them, and institutional adoption. For a non-USD stablecoin to actually scale, it must do more than just exist. It has to be genuinely better for a specific reason in a specific context.

The government problem

Governments make this more complicated too. The optimistic narrative assumes that local stablecoins will grow because regulation enables them. But why would a government that cares about controlling its own currency allow a private stablecoin to compete with it? The more likely outcome is a government-run digital currency as the many CBDC experiments are showing.

The EU is experimenting with a digital euro, but that's a government project. China's digital yuan exists precisely because the government wants control. These are not yet stories about market demand for local currency stablecoins. They are stories about governments trying to hold onto something.

The local currency case — and its limits

Now, there are genuine cases for local currency stablecoins, and private issuers will find value of this. For purely domestic activity, like doingg local payments, paying salaries, paying suppliers in the same market, holding savings in a familiar currency, a local currency stablecoin makes intuitive sense. And there will be businesses and contexts where this is genuinely useful.

But here is the thing. In most markets, local banking infrastructure for domestic transactions already works reasonably well. Moving money within a country, paying staff, settling with local vendors, these are not the broken parts of the system. Even in countries where digital banking systems are not yet there, and could encourage them to leapfrog to a stablecoin based system, the potential has a ceiling. In fact they can leapfrog to the dollar even in those cases.

The parts that are slow, expensive, and genuinely painful are cross-border transactions. That is where stablecoins have made their most compelling case: faster than SWIFT, cheaper than correspondent banking, available at any hour.

And cross-border is exactly where local currency stablecoins run into trouble. The moment it becomes about moving money across borders, it is back to the same questions of trust, reserves and acceptance. Who holds this currency at the other end? How easily can it be converted? A Singapore dollar stablecoin moving from Singapore to a supplier in Brazil reintroduces all the friction that a dollar stablecoin was designed to remove. The very problem stablecoins solve — cross-border speed and simplicity — tends to resolve in favour of the currency that everyone already accepts.

So where does this leave us

Three things that I see:

First, the expansion of digital money infrastructure does not automatically translate into demand for more currencies offered in digital forms, however attractive it is. It translates into faster, cheaper movement of whichever currencies people already trust.

Second, the trust and depth that dollar stablecoins have already built creates a gap that is genuinely hard to close — not impossible, but harder than the optimistic narrative suggests.

Third, the strongest case for local currency stablecoins is domestic, but domestic is also where the problem is least acute. The real prize, cross-border transactions. keeps pointing back to the dollar.

The edge:

Every few decades, a new layer of financial infrastructure gets built. And each time, the question that follows is the same: will this new layer change the balance of power, or will it simply make the existing hegemonies faster and more efficient?

Here there are some counter to expected sense trends at play. The internet did not make every language proliferate equally. It amplified those which were already large. English accounts for nearly 64% of all websites, despite being spoken natively by only 16% of the world's population. And now AI is making this more entrenched, not less. The large language models powering the next layer of the internet are trained predominantly on English data — and MIT researchers have found that even when these models process inputs in other languages, their internal representations default to English as a kind of central processing hub. The technology literally thinks in English. Cable television didn't create new cultural centres either. It extended the reach of existing ones — Hollywood didn't shrink as the world got more screens, it grew. There is a pattern here that the stablecoin conversation can learn from. When a new network expands, the things already flowing most powerfully through it tend to flow even more powerfully. Not because the network is designed that way, but because that is what networks do.

Stablecoins are a new network. And the thing flowing most powerfully through them, from the very beginning, has been the dollar.

"Stablecoins are more likely to reproduce the existing hierarchy of currencies than to flatten it."

So here we are — and here is where I think this goes. The following seem likely.

First, dollar stablecoin dominance will deepen, not dilute. The dollar goes more digital, spreads further, embeds deeper. Digital dollarisation, not digital cuurency diversity.

Second, local currency stablecoins will grow selectively and slowly and well be hoisted by regulation and regional necessity rather than genuine user preference. The euro, Singapore dollar, Hong Kong dollar, renminbi will each find their contexts. But there is a difference between existing and mattering at scale, and that difference will take much longer.

"What if stablecoins are actually how dollar dominance gets written into the new layer of global finance, faster and more embedded than before?"

A word of caution:

I am not saying local currency stablecoins won't exist or won't find their footing. They will. But the burden of proof has to reckon with the fundamental human motivations of what provides trust.

And on top of trust, a local currency stablecoin has to solve a problem that the dollar stablecoin doesn't already solve.

As one economist, David Lubin, put it at a Chatham House discussion on dollar dominance

“the dollar is the QWERTY keyboard of the international monetary system.”

A final thought:

And then there is the question nobody is quite asking yet. When things become digital, costs tend toward zero. That's true for music, for communication, for software. Is that true for money too? And if the cost of moving money approaches zero, does that change anything about which money people want? Or does it just make it easier to want what they already wanted?

I don't have a clean answer to that. But I think it matters. Because if moving money becomes essentially free, the question of which money you move becomes the only question left.

Origins & Edges is an essay series written as thinking-in-public. Structured but not settled.

References

Note: All images were imagined and created with help of Claude (for image prompts), ChatGPT and Gemini.

Tuesday, 7 April 2026

Informational Gravity: AI and the B2B buying journey

Disclaimer: This reflects my own perspective. This is me thinking out loud. It does not represent the views of my employer or any other organisation.

In their groundbreaking work The Trusted Advisor, the authors offer what I think is one of the most underrated principles for anyone in marketing and sales.

“The most effective selling technique is to not sell, but to commence the service process.”

Of course this is not a new idea. Chanakya, the great Indian war and governance strategist of lore, famously wrote in Arthashastra that

"The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity to defeat the enemy."

While he was not writing about the modern-day sales funnel, Chanakya’s wisdom offers an interesting parable for modern day and it is this: “By the time you're in the room, the buying decision has already been made.”

Origins: The idea of a trusted advisor helping clients succeed was central to the early days of modern banking. In Rainer Liedtke’s research paper titled “Agents for the Rothschilds: A Nineteenth-Century Information Network” he talks about how “The gathering, transfer and utilisation of information happened through people who were constantly crossing borders, sometimes physically but more often culturally.” In essence, the merchant banks of the 19th century, the Rothschilds, the Barings, and the Morgans were not only the bankers, but they operated more like private councils for their clients. They did not just arrange capital, they were the intelligence network that helped the clients transact, but more importantly offer their clients information and counsel. They had correspondents in every major city. Information often travelled through them. By controlling the asymmetry of information, they kept both the institution and client ahead.

The modern 20th century avatar of the merchant corporate bank brought in these agents and correspondents as full time employees. Or as we call them Relationship Managers today. The Relationship Manager (RM)-led model remains the dominant approach in corporate and investment banking until today, because of the asymmetry of information advantages provided by that model. As investment banking institutionalised through the 20th century, the RM became the designated carrier of institutional knowledge. About markets, about deals, about what competitors were doing. The coverage sales model was literally designed around the assumption that the client needed a human conduit to make sense of complexity – both of market and product.

The shift: The advent of the information age and the internet shifted this slightly. The Cambrian explosion of information democratization that the age of the internet unleashed has already dented that asymmetry. Google’s initial founding principle was perhaps the best way to articulate that dent - “Provide all the world’s information to all the peoples of the world.”

However, age old institutions don’t crumble so soon. Democratisation of information led to the deluge of information. The new advantage was not about the volume of information, but about the curation of it. It became the oligarchy of the curators of information. The financial agents were successfully able to ride the digital revolution to become the smart curators of information to help clients not get drowned in data and find the signal in the noise. Research now became the moat. Sell-side research — the analyst, the morning note, the sector call — was the bank's way of formalising that asymmetry. Clients read the Bank’s research which shaped their worldview. That was the deal. And for decades, it worked, because there was no other way to get that quality of synthesis at that speed.

But the internet did more than democratise information. I like to call what happened next a shift in "informational gravity." Far more important than the volume of information available was what it made possible — independent judgement. Yes, algorithmic curation has introduced its own distortions and filter bubbles. But even accounting for that, the average person today commands more information to form their own view than the most powerful industrialists of a century ago ever could.

The edge: But more recently, the next evolution of the digital explosion is likely to upend this or at least change it in a much more significant way. We are in the early days of the AI revolution, but the changes that it has already brought about portend a significant upheaval. Decision making is changing – from relationship led to informed consensus. The coalface of this new path is showing up in the way AI infused information curation is changing the B2B corporate buying cycle and cracking the centuries-old RM led model in corporate banking.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a fan of the doomsayers who seem to think every new digital trick heralds the death of the time-tested models. But there is something deeper afoot. The tension is not just that "buyers are more informed." It is that AI has changed what counts as a credible source, and that the traditional marketing and sales models have only partially registered this threat.

Let me rely on some stats to describe this.

Writing in October 2025, McKinsey noted that “About 50% of Google searches already have AI summaries, a figure expected to rise to more than 75% by 2028, according to trend analysis.” More recently in March 2026, WSJ noted that “For two decades, companies have relied on search-engine optimization, or SEO, to battle for customer attention online—tuning keywords and backlinks to climb Google’s rankings. Now, as AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude increasingly answer questions directly, visibility depends less on ranking first and more on being the source those systems trust.”

But that's only half the story. A change in channel — where people source information — is significant. What's more important, and what has gotten less attention, is that AI has changed what counts as a credible source in the first place.

McKinsey’s analysis of Google AI results shows that “In industries such as financial services, more than 65% of sources across AI-powered searches are publishers (magazines and microsites), user-generated content, and affiliate sites.”

Why is this important? Back to the age-old truth. Edelman’s research shows that “Most deals are not won or lost in the boardroom. They are defined by corridor chats, Teams conversations, Slack threads, AI-driven search, word-of-mouth, and quiet vetoes you never saw coming. With much of the B2B buying journey increasingly self-guided, the people you meet in sales conversations or in the pitch room have already decided what they think about your company and its capabilities.” The key insight here is that hidden buyers have more influence than previously expected. The B2B Institute reports that 40% of B2B deals are abandoned because the buying group cannot reach a consensus.

And where are these hidden buyers forming their opinions? Increasingly the answer is AI led curation. Edelman writing in June 2025 continues “The use of Generative AI is growing faster than the adoption of the computer or internet, with Gartner predicting that brands’ organic search traffic will plummet by 50% by 2028 as B2B decision makers switch to Large Language Models (LLMs) to help them evaluate companies and potential service providers.”

So here we are. The century-old model, built on information asymmetry is being challenged by a slow and structural shift in where trust is formed and is eroding from the outside in.

Three things are happening simultaneously which combined makes this moment different from previous disruptions.

First, AI-led curation has delivered the next significant increment in breaking information asymmetry. Clients no longer rely on the RM banker as much to curate complexity. They arrive with a view already formed.

Second, decision making has shifted from relationship-led to consensus-led. The buying group, including hidden influencers the RM has never met are shaping outcomes before the pitch room is ever booked.

Third, and most critically, AI does not summarise the web evenly. It makes editorial decisions about which sources are worth absorbing and which can be safely ignored. And in financial services, the bank is largely not in those sources. As Kantar puts it — AI doesn't index your brand. It interprets it.

Therefore:

So, what does this all mean? I am going to focus on the implications for the role marketing can play as the sales cycle shifts.

B2B marketing must rethink its key channels to adapt to the changing role and step up to being the function that shapes the room before anyone enters it. If the relationship-manager is no longer the primary intelligence layer, marketing must become it. Deliberately and structurally, before the first conversation happens.

Marketing in B2B banking must stop acting like a support function for sales and start acting like the pre-sales intelligence layer. Its role in shaping the client's AI-curated worldview — before they even write the RFP — will become the difference between being considered and being invisible.

Content is no longer collateral. It is the thing that determines whether your brand exists in the client's considered set before the conversation even begins.

But the nature of that content has to change fundamentally. Generic thought-leadership won't make it through the AI filters. Neither will product advertising, or anything that doesn't offer specific insight into specific problems. AI is a demanding curator — it trusts sources that are structurally useful, not ones that are merely present.

That means marketing teams have to start differently. Not with a content calendar. With a diagnosis — of what clients are actually asking, what problems they are trying to solve, and what questions they are putting to AI before they put them to a banker.

Events will need to be more than broadcast moments. They should provide clients an opportunity to network with others, and crucially as validation forums for decisions already in motion. Therefore, the value of events may lie not just in who attends, but in whether they help clients build conviction—through comparison, peer signals, and real-world validation.

A word of caution:

An important question sits underneath all of this that many are asking. Is this just another wave that institutions will absorb and ride out, the way they did with the internet? Perhaps. The history of banking is also a history of adaptation. And there is no shortage of AI-generated noise (or slop) that would give even the most enthusiastic observer pause.

But the direction of travel feels different this time. Not because AI is infallible. It most definitely is not. But because the quality of reasoning it offers is improving faster than any previous technology, and because it is already changing behaviour at the edges where buying decisions begin. The signal is getting stronger, even if the noise hasn't gone away.

Now what:

But the information gravity has indeed shifted. And when gravity shifts, there are two ways to lose your footing. You become too heavy to move with it and get stuck. Or you become so weightless you drift away from it entirely.

Bain research captures the common lament among CMOs and sales head at B2B firms plainly when they quote "Our customers have gotten way ahead of our sales efforts. Too often, we're not even getting invited to the dance." And yet, Gartner's research shows that fully digital, rep-free buying journeys frequently end in purchase regret. Buyers increasingly have AI provided independence, but they still need a moment of human conviction before they commit.

And therein lies the opportunity for the relationship manager’s new role.

The antidote is not more technology. It is the right human, in the right moment. The RM doesn't disappear. In fact, their job description intensifies in one area.

"They're no longer the carrier of insight. They are the closer of a journey that started without them."

Origins & Edges is an essay series written as thinking-in-public. Structured but not settled.