is to regulate libra into oblivion. is that a sentiment you share? the g7 report is not technology - specific and it is not company - specific. there are different stablecoin projects and there will be new ones. we want to set principles that are applicable to all. it ’ s too early in the process to say whether individual projects will meet these principles. there is certainly no judgement that stablecoins shouldn ’ t exist. in the case of europe, neither the commission nor the ecb intend to make europe a no - fly zone for stablecoins. but stablecoins will have to meet the highest regulatory standards and adhere to broader public policy goals. when we talk about people ’ s money, there is no trade - off between innovation and safety. we want to see both, as we do for any payment instrument. depending on the design and the details of each stablecoin initiative, the approval would be contingent on meeting the highest existing standards. it might also require new regulations and be contingent on adherence to broader public - policy goals. the bottom line is that the bar will be very high and it ’ s too early to tell whether it will be reached. are there any projects that might be easier to handle than others? i see substantial differences between projects aimed at retail participants and those confined to the wholesale world. it ’ s more likely in my view that existing regulations would broadly apply to wholesale projects rather than to retail projects. but it ’ s all very tentative and there ’ s no conclusion yet. with libra, we ’ re looking at a player that ’ ll dominate the market. is that a concern you have? in the discussion on fintech regulation we ’ ve been accustomed to discussing small - scale projects. by and large, until recently, we ’ ve taken a sandbox approach to fintech regulation under which we could afford to give projects a chance and see how risks materialise. that ’ s possible when the project is small enough. but now we have an elephant in the sandbox. so that approach doesn ’ t work anymore. 2 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches what happens if the coin reaches a global scale? you have questions relating to the fair use of client data and to possible services that may not be planned initially, but could develop in the ecosystem, like what happens if a deposit - taking or lending activity emerges around the stablecoin, in which case it should be regulated as banking activity. are we then at the

beginning of an historic shift in our approach toward money and payments? the payment universe, both locally and globally, has evolved very rapidly over the past five years. the last wave of technological change in payments was 20 years ago when central banks introduced real - time gross settlement systems ( in our case, target followed by target2 ). the new wave is more focused on retail payments and driven by technology. before passing any judgement, we have to start from the principle that innovation is good because it makes payments cheaper and faster. that ’ s an area where we ’ re learning a great deal from our african and latin american colleagues. there ’ s a lot of leapfrogging toward innovative solutions. in the end, the new landscape will be a mix of public and private solutions. so the key question for the years to come is how to combine core public infrastructures like the ecb ’ s fast payment platform, tips, with private systems, and what impulse central banks can give to make this happen in an integrated way. this is a particular challenge in europe where the retail payment world remains fragmented along national lines. the eurosystem is working on it. we ’ d better act fast here, because we don ’ t want this new world of payments to be dominated solely by us and chinese actors. europe has a particular interest in developing its own approach and standards so it can be safe and efficient at home and attractive as an international reference. how do stablecoins, private and public, fit into this discussion? stablecoins have the potential to leverage technological change to bring new and cheaper services to customers – provided that the long list of risks i highlighted is addressed properly. you ’ re asking me whether a public stablecoin will also fit into this landscape. that ’ s an area where we ’ re treading very carefully because the prospects differ across jurisdictions. central bank digital currencies ( cbdcs ) raise a number of serious questions to which we don ’ t yet have answers. although they might look like an attractive proposition for individuals wishing to reap the benefits of technology while holding a safe store of value, they may have shortcomings of their own : there are many ways to implement cbdcs, which we need to study carefully. if they make bank funding more fragile and more vulnerable to liquidity shocks and bank runs, then they might be bad for financial stability and financial intermediation. central banks shouldn ’ t have their heads in the sand and avoid that