The significant crash of TerraUSD that lost more than 90% of their value in a few days and the resulting crypto market turmoil however has put stablecoins in the regulatory spotlights. Regulators worldwide are prompting new calls for regulation highlighting the risk of certain cryptocurrencies and especially algorithmic stablecoins.

In this blog I want to highlight why TerraUSD, also called UST,  dropped below its target value, what the risks are of the various stablecoins, how regulators should react and what investors can learn from the crash of TerraUSD.

TerraUSD collapse

TerraUSD, also called UST, a so-called algorithmic stablecoin, had been another popular option for cryptocurrencies and was even the third largest stablecoin in the world at the threshold of the collapse. That system appeared to work well until then.

But TerraUSD was not able to withstand a panic outburst amongst investors, this notwithstanding they were providing a 20% interest. Sparked by a massive drop in the value of the crypto markets overall, investors lost faith resulting in a mass sell-off in the TerraUSD stablecoin. Luna Foundation Guard (LFG) tried to stop this slide by liquidating part of its 10 billion Bitcoin holdings.

The collateral, partly existing of Bitcoin, was insufficient to maintain its one to one peg to the dollar. As a result it slipped far from its $1 target price and dropped in value beginning May 9, 2022, hitting a low value of $0.015 at the time of publication of this blog.

As of this writing, the combined market capitalization of TerraUSD and partner stablecoin Luna was just over $4.5 billion, indicating a market decline of approximately $14 billion.

How did the  markets react?

Cryptocurrencies
In the wake of the TerraUSD collapse, other signs of the crypto sector’s vulnerabilities have emerged. When the Luna Foundation Guard sold almost its entire holdings of Bitcoin following the crash early May, as a result the price of Bitcoin, that lost already more than half of its value since last November from $64.000, sank to a 16-month low below $28.000 per coin. But also other cryptocurrencies were hit, triggered by  higher inflation and fears of raising interest rates. TerraUSD’s woes contributed to a slide in crypto markets that saw over $357 billion or more than 30% of digital asset market capitalization wiped out week-on-week. 

Stablecoins
While the TerraUSD collapse has spelled trouble for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, the chaos is somewhat contained in the stablecoin sector. That especially goes for the fiat collateralised segment, where most of the stablecoins such as Tether and Binance have the backing of actual cash and other valuable assets. TerraUSD  is however different from most of its stablecoin peers.

Investors fled TerraUSD into more trusted stablecoins such as DAI and USDC, which drove the price of TerraUSD further down. This increased demand for DAI and USDC temporarily increased their price and were shortly after arbitraged back to $1.

DeFi
The failure of TerraUSD’s peg already has sent shocks through the decentralised finance (DeFi) sector, with a key saving and lending protocol, Anchor, seeing massive liquidation of TerraUSD-collateralised loans and the pricing of other crypto tokens also being affected. This has led to further liquidation triggers throughout the ecosystem. ‘Bouts’ of volatility will probably continue as the cryptosector digests the repercussions of the failure of the TerraUSD peg, while US policy rate increases and equity volatility may pressure so-called ‘high-beta assets’.

Regulated financial markets
Recently the Financial Stability Board (FSB) pointed to the increased intertwining of the crypto world with the traditional financial world. Up till recently links between crypto markets and regulated financial markets remained weak. The potential for crypto market volatility to spill over and cause wider financial instability was limited. But that has changed.

A growing number of regulated financial entities have increased their exposure to cryptocurrencies, DeFi and other forms of digital finance in recent months. If crypto market volatility becomes severe the risks for the financial stability of the real economy could as a result escalate.

But not all stablecoins are the same

Stable coins are cryptocurrencies designed to be protected from the wild volatility of crypto currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. They attempt to maintain a constant exchange rate with fiat currencies, mostly through a 1:1 US dollar peg.

Stablecoins are often used for transactions within the crypto world and between cryptocurrencies and the traditional financial system. They have played a crucial role for cryptocurrency traders, allowing them to hedge against spikes in Bitcoin’s price or to store idle cash without transferring it back into fiat currency.

Regulators should however be aware that not all stable coins are the same. Some stablecoins are more vulnerable than others. The stablecoin sector is a critical and complex part of the crypto ecosystem. Stable coins are an umbrella term. They are not a monolithic asset class and every stablecoin operates differently.

Stablecoin models

Stablecoins can be divided into two broad groups based on how they choose to pursue price stability: collateralised stablecoins and non-collateralised stable coins. Collateralised stablecoins can be split into fiat-collateralised and crypto–collateralised. The newest group of non-collateralised stablecoins are so-called algorithmic stablecoins like TerraUSD.

Fiat collateralised
The value of fiat-collateralised stablecoins is backed by reserves comprising assets, such as fiat currency, mostly the dollar, as collateral assuring stablecoin’s value. Collateral can also consist of bonds, commercial paper, commodities like gold and silver as well as crude oil. But most fiat-collateralised stablecoins have reserves of US dollars.

Dollar-based collateralised stablecoins like Tether and true USDC use a more fluid collection of traditional assets to secure its stable coin. Most of these reserves consist of treasury bills, certificates of deposit, and cash deposits to match the value of outstanding tokens that are maintained by independent custodians and audited regularly to ensure that holders of these stablecoins guarantee they can redeem them for actual fiat money, at some point.

Crypto-collateralised 

Another category of stablecoins are crypto-collateralised stablecoins, with their underlying collateral being another cryptocurrency or basket of cryptocurrencies. Because the reserve cryptocurrency may be subject to high volatility, such stablecoins are often over-collateralised, whereby the value of cryptocurrency held in reserves exceeds the value of the stablecoins issued. The Dai stablecoin for instance which is pegged to the US dollar uses a basket of crypto assets as collateral at a ratio of 150% of the value.

Non-collateralised stable coins
And there is the newest group of stablecoins which are algorithmic or ‘decentralised’ stablecoin. While most stablecoins are reserve backed and are supposed to always be exchanged for one dollar, algorithmic stablecoins ‘forgo this failsafe’ and attempt to maintain their pegs through other means. Their primary distinction from collateralised stablecoins is the strategy of keeping the value of their stablecoin by controlling the supply through an algorithm and smart contracts to control the supply of tokens.

TerraUSD (UST)

TerraUSD, which trades with the symbol UST, is one of those algorithmic or decentralised stablecoins. To get somewhat more insights in this new type of stablecoin, let’s go more deeply into how it works.

The purpose of TerraUSD was to create a “crypto-native” dollar – with all of the supposed benefits of blockchains, like censorship resistance – that would be cheaper to use than a fully or partially collateralized option. It was intended to be worth exactly one dollar, enabling transactions to process with predictable results and giving cryptocurrency investors and traders an option to store their assets in cryptocurrency without the risk and volatility associated with typical digital currencies. Its peg to the dollar was supposed to be maintained by a complex algorithmically driven mechanism rather than by reserves of dollars or other assets, as is typical for stablecoins.

As TerraUSD’s popularity took off, its partner stablecoin Luna increased in value as well. The coin popped from around $5 in July 2021 to a high of $116 in early April 2022. Before its collapse TerraUSD was the third-largest stablecoin by market capitalization with about $18 billion and the largest algorithmic stablecoin.

How does TerraUSD work?

TerraUSD as an algorithmic stablecoin, is fundamentally different from most of its peers. Their value is assured not by financial collateral in the traditional markets – though owner Kwo diversified earlier this year their backing by purchasing $10 billion in Bitcoin – but backed by lines of computer code so-called algorithms to stay pegged to the dollar.

This stablecoin used a sophisticated but complex automated system of arbitrage to maintain its valuation at the 1:1 level. This mechanism relies on two coins: the TerraUSD stablecoin and the Luna governance token. It involved swapping TerraUSD coins with this free-floating cryptocurrency Luna to control supply.

The value-protecting transactions are executed by smart contracts on the Terra network. A computer algorithm thereby creates (mints) and destroys (burns) both TerraUSD and Luna to bring the price back into equilibrium. When the price of TerraUSD drops below $1, traders can burn TerraUSD—removing it from circulation, thereby reducing the overall supply —and raise the price back up. If the value of TerraUSD goes higher than $1, traders can burn Luna for TerraUSD, increasing the overall supply and lowering the price. This creates trading margins and supply and demand models that help keep the coin pegged to $1.

Another key part of the Terra ecosystem is the interest rates on TerraUSD deposits. These are offered through Anchor Protocol, a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform, which can garner annual percentage yield rates of 20 percent on TerraUSD tokens that could be borrowed by investors in need of dollar-like capital. The Terra decentralized finance (DeFi) network incentivized traders, holders, and users to either use, lend, or stake these crypto assets. This system worked reasonably well in practice from the inception up till early May.

Regulations

As things stand nowadays, stablecoins are very lightly regulated. A significant part lays outside the control of regulators. Given the explosive growth of the $130 billion market and its potential to affect the broader financial system, it is not strange that stablecoins have come under growing scrutiny by regulators. The recent turmoil has reignited calls in virtually every major financial market in the world for increased regulation of the crypto asset market in general and of stablecoins in particular.

Common themes in the discussions are the volatility, the lack of transparency with regards to crypto operations and the reserves they are supposed to hold, the overly optimistic promised returns and investors that are not well informed with regards to what is being purchased.

Reactions
Politicians have increased calls for tighter regulation of stablecoins. The falls in cryptocurrencies and the collapsing value of TerraUSD have further alarmed policymakers in both the EU and the US such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler.

US Treasury Janet Allen
US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has cited risks to broad financial stability due to stablecoins. She told a Senate Committee that the TerraUSD debacle has reinforced the need for proper oversight and for a “consistent federal framework” for regulating stablecoins and said that stablecoin guidance could come as early as this year.

“A stablecoin known as TerraUSD experienced a run and declined in value” “I think that this simply illustrates that this is a rapidly growing product and there are rapidly growing risks.” Janet Yellen

Fed semi-annual Stability Report
In its recent published semi-annual Stability Report, the Fed discussed the uncertainty of what is actually backing stablecoins and the lack of oversight in that market. The Fed repeated its concerns that stablecoins are vulnerable to investor runs because they are backed by assets that can lose value or become illiquid in times of market stress. The increasing use of stablecoins to meet margin requirements in leveraged crypto trades may further heighten redemption risks. A lack of transparency around the assets may exacerbate those vulnerabilities. A run on the stablecoin could therefore spill over into the traditional financial system by creating stress on these underlying assets, according to the report.

What sort of regulation

There are however still different visions on how to regulate stablecoins. Some regulators are preparing rules for stablecoins to make them look and function more like banks. Some others come up with proposed regulation that will look like more as governance tokens being considered securities. According to them, as tokens have claims against assets, or claims against cash flows, they are looked at the easiest target for regulators.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) said stablecoins should be regulated as financial market infrastructure like banks alongside payment systems and clearinghouses. The proposed rules should focus on stablecoins deemed systemically important by regulators, with the potential to disrupt payment and settlement transactions.

The ECB is also increasingly worried about the risks for the financial stability of crypto investments. They are urgently calling for accelerating the implementation and acceptance of regulation to implement constraints to crypto currencies and stable coins. The EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets regulation, that would enter into force from 2024 onwards, is expected not not permit the issuance of algorithmic stablecoins and would require crypto providers to have a (bank-like) license and systemic stablecoin issuers  be backed by enough reserves.

What issues for regulators to consider?

There are important lessons to be learned from this crypto collapse, that regulators should keep in mind when designing legal frameworks for cryptocurrencies in general and for stablecoins in particular.

Like all new technologies, these assets — including dollar-backed, crypto-collateralized and algorithmic models — deserve a smart and thoughtful conversation around potential regulation, in order notto  frustrate financial innovations.

Regulators should thereby be aware that this collapse of TerraUSD is not a reflection of all stablecoins, because they weren’t all built the same under the same philosophy. As has been described before algorithmic stablecoins are very different compared to the collateralised stablecoin types.

Stablecoins in general should therefore not be forbidden but should be firmly regulated to prevent that a collapse like TerraUSD will happen again.  Buyers should understand what the risk are especially of these algorithmic stable coins. It therefore needs standards

Factors to keep in mind for regulators

There are a number of important factors policymakers and investors should keep in mind as stablecoins continue to develop and mature. This latter group take deposits without any insurance that customers rely upon to know their money is protected.

Regulators should likely pay more scrutiny to the risks surrounding stablecoins and their reserve attestations especially algorithmic stablecoins, given that UST’s problems have sparked wider crypto market volatility.

Stablecoins backed by reserve assets with clear fiat currency value however face a fundamentally different set of credit issues to algorithmic stablecoins, in our view. In such cases, the stablecoin’s stability risks can be more manageable, depending on various factors, notably the safety and liquidity of the reserve assets.

Asset-backed stablecoins therefore should become transparent about what is in their reserves. With traditional stablecoins, regulators also want to know that their operators have sufficient assets to pay out customers in the case of a run on the system.

Factors relevant to the credit profiles of issuers of reserve-backed stablecoins should include regulatory risk, counterparty risk (including reserve custodians), transparency over reserves and the extent to which the underlying assets are truly uncorrelated, the legal rights of stablecoin holders, as well as governance and operational risks.

In the case of algorithmic stablecoins, they should, in regulatory terms, not be [backed] one-to-one, but being over-collateralized because these are inherently more risky. Other issues to keep in mind that are relevant for regulators are:  what are the permissible reserves?;  who can issue a stablecoin?; how should an issuer and the reserved be audited?; and, what kind of disclosures are made to consumers?”

Factors relevant to the credit profiles of issuers of reserve-backed stablecoins should include regulatory risk, counterparty risk (including reserve custodians), transparency over reserves and the extent to which the underlying assets are truly uncorrelated, the legal rights of stablecoin holders, as well as governance and operational risks.

Final remarks

It is clear that regulation of stablecoins is urgently needed to prevent collapses like that of TerraUSD. There are still many open questions.

It is however still unclear how this new regulation will look like and what impact this new upcoming regulation will have for the future of stable coins in general and algorithmic stablecoins specifically. But also what would it mean for the further development of underlying technologies.

What is clear is that stablecoins are here to stay but in a more regulated framework. It does seem very likely that many more investors will choose collateralized stablecoins in the future. This will most likely result in a growing number of stablecoins with lower risks.

In the end this may further benefit the crypto industry as thanks to lower risks and increased transparency it may attract more players from the traditional financial world.

Before introducing their CBDC there are however many challenges and considerations to cover, ranging from cybersecurity and privacy concerns to the impact on financial markets and legislation. But the most fundamental one is: what may CBDCs bring for banks? Should they worry or is this an opportunity for them?

Introducing CBDCs may pose potential risks to the banking sector. How are central banks acting to mitigate those risks. What design is most suited for banks? And if well designed how would the future of banks look like.

Challenges and risks for banks

Despite having potential advantages, there are also various risks associated with CBDCs that could harm financial stability if not well designed. According to research, risks to financial stability depend on the take-up or rate of adoption, of a CBDC as well as bank funding, lending and resilience. If take-up is too fast, it could throw the existing financial and banking systems out of balance, a recent BIS report says.

Banking system disintermediation
The question of whether – and to what extent – CBDCs could pose risks to financial intermediation is central to the present debate. With the ability to provide digital currency directly to its citizens, it is widely viewed that if not well designed CBDCs could crowd out bank deposits and payment activities, as depositors would shift out of the banking system.

Bank runs
But there is also the possibility of digital bank runs. CBDCs would provide consumers access to a safe asset that – unlike cash – could potentially be held in large volumes, in the absence of safeguards, and at no cost. In the event of a banking crisis consumers could withdraw their savings from commercial banks and put them into safer CBDCs. If a bank has problems (be they technical or financial), customers with easy access CBDC wallets could trigger a run on the bank even if the problems are temporary. Such runs could even be self-fulfilling, leading to savers reducing their bank deposits and thereby amplifying volatility in normal times too.

Increase in funding costs
And there is the prevailing fear that the use of any CBDC would require a shift of funds out of bank deposits and into digital cash. Should CBDCs rapidly replace bank deposits, they could reduce banks’ ability to lend, leading to instability in the financial system. Without bank deposits, banks won’t have the funds to issue loans that help them make money. If customers move their money from commercial banks to CBDCs then this reduction in the deposits at commercial banks could make the cost of funding loans more expensive with knock-on impacts to the availability of credit for retail and corporate customers.

Weaken balance sheet position
While customers may deem the safety, liquidity, solvability, and publicity of CBDCs to be more attractive, this may weak the balance sheet position of commercial banks. An unconstrained CBDC could potentially have an impact on the funding structure of banks, with potential implications for financing conditions.

CBDCs could thereby interfere with the way in which nowadays credit lines and deposits complement each other. This would make funding more unstable and costly, reducing a bank’s profitability. Replacing deposit funding with central bank funding could exacerbate frictions. Greater recourse to central bank credit could increase collateral scarcity. This could affect banks in asymmetric ways, with a potentially greater impact on those that rely more on deposit funding. And the impact on yields could vary across the different segments of the yield curve. Research shows that the magnitude of these effects depends on the take-up of the CBDC, which in turn hinges on design features such as payment convenience and remuneration.

CBDCs should be carefully designed

According to research by various international financial organisations including IMF and BIS most central banks are committed to minimizing the impact of CBDCs on the stability of the financial system. It is for this reason that they are moving slowly on CBDC adoption and experimenting with CBDC design to mitigate them.

It is a growing conviction amongst central banks that the introduction of CBDC should follow a set of core principles in both design and implementation, that should minimise the impact of CBDCs on financial disintermediation, system-wide bank runs and credit provision as well as limit competition between CBDCs and bank deposits.

One of these main principles is that CBCDs must not harm. In particular, they should not become a source of financial disruption that could impair the transmission of monetary policy in the euro area. For that central banks worldwide have an intense dialogue with various parties in the payments market, technology providers and the general public.

Collaborative partnership public-private sector

Introducing a CBDC is a complex process requiring appropriate resources and capacity. Banks are recognizing that the adoption of CBDCs could enhance the efficiency, resilience, and effectiveness of money flows and capital markets, but for a CBDC to be a valuable instrument, it must be part of a collaborative partnership between public and private sectors, to ensure successful adoption, or the building of additional features.

Any CBDC ecosystem should involve the public and private sectors in a balance, in order to deliver the desired policy outcome and enable innovation that meets users’ evolving payment needs. Central banks that contributed to the BIS report envision CBDC ecosystems based on a broad public-private collaboration, or a “tiered system” where the core roles are assigned to the central bank and other more public-facing roles to private financial institutions like banks.

Two-tier structure

The risks that CBDCs may pose to bank intermediation depend crucially on the choices that central banks make. Most central banks are opting to follow the current two-tier structure which places central banks at the foundation of the payment system, while assigning end-user-facing activities to financial institutions and other payment service providers (PSPs). This cooperation has proven itself over many decades.

It is key in this relationship that central banks issue the value of CBDCs and grant its authenticity, while commercial banks as well as financial services providers issue the wallets that handle CBDC and are responsible for the application. This would allow central banks to benefit from the experience of intermediaries – especially banks – in areas such as onboarding of consumers and anti-money laundering checks. And it may preserve the role of financial intermediaries in providing front-end services.

Commercial banks are the best players to take on a customer-facing role in the CBDC ecosystem and be responsible for the distribution – just as they are now with physical money. Central banks can therefor entrust financial intermediaries with distributing CBDCs, while central banks take care of macroeconomic aspects, such as money supply management and currency stability. The commercial banks are thereby responsible for services such as customer advice, lending or corporate financing. But more than that, since CBDC offers the opportunity to develop new financial products and services.

CBDC design features and tools

Careful design and policy considerations will be crucial in allowing to maximise the benefits of CBDCs and manage any unintended consequences, thereby underpinning trust in CBCDs. So it is important to undertake in-depth research regarding the tools and design features, which are found to be strong drivers of the potential demand for CBDCs, that could be introduced to limit such risks.

To be successful, CBDCs will need to add value for users, support competition rather than crowd out private innovation, and avoid risks to financial intermediation. Central banks thereby need to strike a balance so that the digital euro is not “too successful” – by limiting its use as a form of investment – but is “successful enough” – by avoiding such restrictions becoming inconvenient and by ensuring that the CBDC adds value for those using it.

CBDC Design options

The BIS report lays out a number of design options that could help control CBDC take-up and the crowding out of banks including setting holding and transactional limits on CBDCs, and considering different ways of remuneration.

There are various options available including the issue whether to pay out interest. This as a way to limit competition between their and existing bank deposits. The curbs are designed to avoid heightening the risk of bank runs and crowding out depository banks.

Another option is implementing quantitative limits. These latter are also meant to cap competition with depository banks, and can entail limits on CBDC balances that people can hold.

Not interest bearing CBDC

Research from the BIS and the IMF on the various CBDC projects world wide shows that most are not interest-bearing like cash, which makes CBDCs useful, but not as attractive for savings as traditional bank deposits, to ensure they do not compete.

If central banks issue a remunerated interest-earning CBDC it would prove to be a more attractive substitute for cash, low interest-bearing deposits or other cash-substitutes, risking rapid emptying of deposits.

Tiered remuneration
Another option would be to make remuneration on CBDC holdings less attractive above a certain threshold. Up to that threshold, CBDC holdings would never be subject to negative interest rates, ensuring that it is a means of payment that is as attractive as cash. Above that threshold, however, remuneration would be set below the main policy rate in order to reduce the attractiveness of the CBDC as a store of value relative to bank deposits or other short-term financial assets.

Soft limit
One way round this is to set a soft limit with penalties if the upper limit is exceeded: for example, a negative interest rate on all amounts above the upper limit or a penalty amount for every day the limit is exceeded. This would work for temporary balances (for example between the payment of wages and the day the rent is paid) but may not be effective in safeguarding against a bank-run.

Setting a ceiling on individual CBDC holdings
There are also a number of active CBDC projects that have put ceilings on the amount of holdings that a customer can hold in CBDC, to prevent sudden large outflows of bank deposits into CBDC, thereby mitigating undesired effects on monetary policy and/or financial stability. But such a cap would risk reducing the scale and scope of CBDC use and, its usefulness as a means of payment. To address this issue, solutions linking CBDC accounts to private money accounts could be implemented, allowing large(r) banking to be made. This would require funds in excess of users’ limits to be redirected to or from their commercial bank accounts.

Time-period
Another alternative could be expiring money. Any CBDC tokens loaded onto a wallet would need to be spent within a time-period otherwise they would expire. While this could ensure that any money loaded on a CBDC wallet is for day to day spending it however could penalise people who are unable to use their wallet.

Ease liquidity conditions
Central Banks could also ease liquidity conditions, for instance by providing abundant and favourable central bank funding if required to limit strains from possible changes in the composition of bank funding.

ECB and IMF research: findings

ECB and IMF analysis suggests that the impact on the aggregate banking sector in normal times could be manageable overall, subject to safeguards. Adequately designing and calibrating CBDC safeguards could help to counteract the adverse effects of CBDCs on bank run and mitigate potential risks to bank intermediation.

All CBDCs that are currently circulating, either as official currency or through a pilot, are designed with restrictions that limit the competitiveness of CBDC versus bank deposits. By limiting the amount of CBDCs that can be held and not offering interest on them, they don’t compete with bank deposits.

A notable finding is that a CBDC could itself be used as a tool to counter the risks of bank runs. This is because it could provide real-time information on deposit flows, complementing the information on liquidity available to supervisors every day. This would enable the central bank to respond more swiftly if needed, which in turn would help to stabilise expectations by increasing depositor confidence.

How should financial institutions react

It is especially important for financial institutions to understand where central banks are with digital currencies, because ultimately CBDCs will start flowing through the payment system and start to hit bank balance sheets.

Careful consultation with central banks is critical in clarifying the business case for CBDCs, from an inclusivity, financial performance and interoperability perspective.

However, it would be wise for commercial banks to track these design features and model potential impacts on their business so that any mitigating actions, such as increasing interest rates on savings accounts or providing CBDC wallet overflow accounts, can be planned well before they are needed.

Future thinking: digital opportunities for banks

Looking at the various CBDC projects there is no need to fear competition from central banks.

The proven division of roles and tasks between central banks, customer banks and financial service providers, in which consumers are supplied and serviced in a decentralised manner, may remain intact.

In this future scenario, commercial banks may not only retain their previous role and function, they can even expand their position as service providers.

With the basic currency infrastructure delivered by central banks, this provides a driver for digital innovation. The introduction of a general CBDC may pave the way for new digital business models and additional revenue and growth opportunities.

Commercial banks can also use the introduction of a digital central bank currency to bind customers even more closely to themselves with special apps for the use and custody of CBDC and to link them with new CBDC-based customer services.

Blockchain consumes huge amounts of energy and that is growing by the day. This while the combat of the climate crisis has the highest priority all over the world. Especially the electricity usage of Bitcoin and other similar blockchain networks have pulled into a larger conversation around sustainability. To understand this we should go back to the basics of how blockchain works. But above all, are there ways to reduce that and could blockchain also contribute to a positive climate change?

Cleaning-up crypto mining

A recent hearing by the US Committee on Energy and Commercial Staff on “Cleaning up the Cryptocurrency: the Energy Impacts of Blockchain “ shows a very dark picture. Many blockchains, amongst which the two largest platforms Bitcoin and Ethereum, still use a so-called Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanism to support their resp. crypto currencies that require enormous amounts of energy to operate. According to a recent analysis, the energy required for a Bitcoin transaction could power a household for more than 70 days.

How does mining work?

On the Bitcoin blockchain platform, the infrastructure is distributed and delegated to so-called ‘miners’ around the network. Each time a transaction is made, consensus must be established all across the distributed database (or at least 51% for Bitcoin, for security reasons). This is done through Proof-of-Work (PoW).

Miners are thereby responsible for processing transactions and adding them to the blockchain. These are super-users who compete for the processing work by attempting to solve highly complex algorithmic problems. Mining for PoW cryptocurrencies requires specialised computers that make trillions of guesses per second. In return for this processing, the winner is awarded new cryptocurrencies i.e.  Bitcoin or Ether. This all comes down to the most powerful computer processor exerting the greatest amount of effort. After that other computers on the network quickly verify and a new block containing additional new info is then added to the blockchain. After that the mining process starts over again. A highly energy-intensive process.

As a crypto-miner increases their likelihood of identifying the correct answer by increasing the number of guesses, this process further increases computational power and is creating more energy consumption. Today, PoW miners need a great number of so-called application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS) to have any chance of reliable earnings cryptocurrency rewards on the major cryptocurrency networks. The profitability of mining as well as the increase of the value of PoW currencies requires ever-increasing amounts of energy to power and cool machines.

Environmental impact

While there are many hundreds of different cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ethereum are not only the largest ones but are also the most energy-intensive. In the past few years, their environmental impact has increased greatly in terms of both energy consumption and carbon or CO2 emission.

Energy consumption

The scale of mining has increased substantially triggered by the increased value of mining. This has resulted in a rapidly increasing energy consumption. According to the Bitcoin/Ethereum Energy Consumption Index that is looking at the environmental impact of a blockchain transaction, Bitcoin is the leading coin with the most energy-intensive mining process.

A single Bitcoin transaction uses as much energy as one US household would over 73.82 days (2.5 months). The annual energy usage of the Bitcoin network last year grew from 78 Tera (trillion) watt-hours (TWH) to almost 198 TWH.

Ethereum, while less energy demanding, still uses This is as much electricity for a single transaction as a US household over 8.32 days. The annual energy usage of the Ethereum network grew from almost 15 TWH to more than 92 TWH.

CO2 emission

Bitcoin is also the most polluting cryptocurrency. In total figures and based on 2021 estimations Bitcoin mining edited more than 56.8 million tons of CO2 (or more than 1.000 pounds of CO2 per transaction) to the atmosphere. This would require more than 284 million trees in order to offset the transactions and become carbon neutral. Its total annual energy footprint is similar to Thailand while Bitcoin emits as much CO2 as Kuwait.

ETH mining emitted more than 22 million tons ( or more than 90 pounds per transaction) of CO2. Over the year, that is still as much power as the Netherlands. And as it is projected to emit almost 22 million tons of CO2 by the end of 2021, it would take planting nearly 110 million trees to offset Ehtereum’s contribution to carbon emission.

But taken together, both these blockchains use major economic amounts of energy. These are just ahead of Saudi Arabia and Italy and just behind the United Kingdom. It would be the 12th most consumptive economy on the planet.

To put these figures in perspective global 2021 CO2 emission of Bitcoin and Ethereum mining is equivalent to the emission from more than 15.5 million gasoline-powered cars on the road every year.

Bitcoin mining ban

Triggered by the chance of having too little energy left for both consumers and the broader industry, a growing number of countries is now banning or is planning to ban crypto mining.

In China, where 70% of miners worldwide were based, authorities last year has forbidden mining. Whereas since a majority of crypto mining has been moved into lower energy price countries, the present high energy prices caused by the Russian – Ukrainian crisis forced countries like Kosovo and Kazakhstan, but also Iran and India to ban crypto mining. Early this year Russia announced such a ban to prevent winter blockheads. Even in the EU an ESMA official suggested also banning crypto mining. And it is expected that other countries will follow.

Ethereum: shift from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS)

There however are also positive developments within the blockchain world towards climate change. Blockchain technology is still young but is advancing and slowly, but definitely, crypto mining is increasingly driven by more renewable energy. And in the meantime, there is  a number of other ground-breaking energy-saving solutions.

Proof-of-State networks

A promising one is the change-over from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) networks, that do not require miners to compete for energy power for zero-sum awards. This could greatly limit energy consumption and carbon emission, thereby mitigating the negative impact of blockchain on the environment.

Proof-of-stake blockchains are newer generation networks. Instead of miners, PoS use a network of ‘validators’ who will stake their own cryptocurrency in exchange for the ability to validate a transaction in exchange for a reward. Effectively, the resource of energy is replaced by capital.

Ethereum 2

Ethereum is now moving forward with their transition from Ethereum 1 (Proof-of-Work), to Ethereum 2 (Proof-of-Stake). With this shift Ethereum hopes that it will make its blockchain both safer to use while greatly minimising energy consumption. Other major PoS networks now include names like Polkadot, Cardano, and Tezos among others.

According to UCL (University College London) research, while using far less energy than proof-of-work (PoW) network Bitcoin (relative to the number of transactions the network can perform at any one time), all the proof-of-stake networks use far less energy – two to three orders of magnitude less than Bitcoin. The same research says PoS-based systems can contribute to the challenges posed by climate change and could even undercut the energy needs of traditional central payment systems, raising hopes that blockchain technology can contribute positively to combatting climate change.

Blockchain and environmental projects: green smart contracts

But there is another – and even more positive – side of blockchain-related to the environment and climate change. Blockchain technology could also be linked to various environmental projects by using so-called green smart contracts.

Green smart contracts

Green smart contracts running on blockchain may unlock new ways to fight climate change and to cope with its impact. At its core, the fight against climate change is going to require a massive shift in global consumption habits. Green smart contracts are an interesting tool for incentivizing participation in global green initiatives. Especially in the areas that ask for large amounts of data collection and verification and rewarding sustainable environmental behaviours, such as regenerative agriculture, carbon offsets, crop insurance etc. Green smart contracts could deliver great promises for environmental issues as these could scale up environmentally conscious blockchain-based solutions. Blockchain could thereby play a great role in stopping or reversing climate change if adopted on a global scale.

Ethereum: DApps and Oracles

The Ethereum platform facilitates the creation of decentralised apps that run on the blockchain. Some of these applications include the management of supply chains, recycling programs, energy systems, environmental treaties, environmental charities, and carbon taxes. These all may help make it more possible to address various environmental issues including air pollution, ocean sustainability, and bio diversity conservation.

This approach relies on networks of so-called oracles, entities that can share data about the world. The development of green smart contracts got a boost as oracles have become production-ready. Today these oracles are broadcasting agricultural data sets onto blockchains, enabling smart contract developers to build applications around crop yields, soil quality, weather reports, carbon offsets etc.

As more and more data sets are fed into blockchains, developers are beginning to produce a wide range of environmentally-conscious smart contracts applications, helping fight against climate change, reduce carbon footprints, sustainable conscious consumption, improve consumption habits etc.

New generation consumers and crypto: towards a more climate-conscious approach

New developments like the firm rise in cryptocurrencies, the spectacular growth of DeFi and the growing market for NFTs have attracted many from the New Generations, especially Millennials and Gen Z. This group is increasingly looking for and experiment with these more attractive digital and crypto-assets. But while many of them also worry about climate change and the consequences, most are not aware of the environmental impact of the crypto world.  More delving into the world of blockchain and crypto would not be a bad idea as that could lead to a more climate-conscious approach.

The NFT market got an enormous boost after Christie’s auction house sold a digital artwork last March titled “Everydays: The First 5,000 Days” made by digital artist Beeple for an astronomic $69,4 million. And there have been more of these exorbitant transactions. This triggered the NFTs market to grow exponentially, thereby gaining profound attention from various players from mainstream companies to retail and institutional investors.

Many are still struggling with the NFT phenomenon. While some see NFTs as a bubble, comparing it with the tulip mania in the 17th century,  thereby debating over how long the NFT trend would last, others believe NFTs are here to stay and see it as the next investment theme.

In this blog, I will go into more detail related to the world of NFTs, what they are, where they could be used and what they may bring. But above all what are the risks and challenges associated with this new phenomenon.

What are NFTs?

NFTs, which stands for non-fungible token, are unique or distinct digital assets that cannot be replaced. Broadly speaking, they’re a one-of-a-kind digital asset. They have distinct properties, and can’t be changed with other assets. They are digital files that can carry any form of digital content (and can even contain access to physical content) from art to video to music.

NFTs rely on blockchain and cryptocurrencies to keep track of digital ownership and create scarcity to ensure they cannot be identically reproduced. NFTs enable to verify the authenticity of a digital artwork.

NFTs are not cryptocurrencies

NFTs are a type of asset which can be bought with cryptocurrencies. Both are tokens that are key elements in the world of blockchain. While both NFTs and cryptocurrencies use the same blockchain technology, they however differ in their attributes.

Cryptocurrencies use fungible tokens, meaning they can be traded or exchanged for one another. They are accessible in various forms and are utilized for various reasons. Every token is exactly the same and equal (represent the same amount of value). Crypto’s fungibility makes it a trusted means of conducting transactions on the blockchain.

A non-fungible token is different from notable cryptocurrencies in terms of fungibility. With NFTs, every token is different and unique. Each has a digital signature that makes it impossible for NFTs to be exchanged for or equal to one another (hence, non-fungible). If a person were to receive two NFTs, they would not represent the same piece of digital content, even if they were both exact copies of the same digital file.

What Are NFTs Used For?

NFTs are considered beneficial in a wide variety of blockchain use cases  They can be literally anything digital such as art, fashion, licenses and certifications, collectibles, sports, etc.

NFTs are nowadays increasingly used in contemporary art auctions, including images, animation or even tweets. Non-fungible tokens also have made their way into real life applications beyond digital art and collectibles, such as music clips, videos, games, or even a ticket to an event, such as a movie or a sport game, that took place at a specific time. But also for domain names, virtual land and real estate.

An upcoming use case for NTFs recently is photography. Photography and prints have been particularly successful in this new online environment. Photographers are increasingly finding a new market for their work with NFTs.

An interesting new use case are political NFTs.  In the US a Democrat-backed group, named Front Row, is planning the launch of a political NFT marketplace, that will be exclusively used for Democratic party campaigns and causes.

How does the NFT market work?

But how does the NTF market work? How can they be created and traded?

Creation of NFTs

Artists who want to create an NFT of one of their digital artworks will have to use one of the NFT platforms or NFT marketplaces. An NFT is created by ‘minting’ a digital asset (whatever it may be) on a blockchain. For that a digital wallet is needed with cryptocurrencies that allows you to store NFTs and cryptocurrencies.

Though there are more blockchains supporting different cryptocurrencies that can host NFTs, most major digital transactions are taking place on Ethereum.  Ethereum’s MetaMask is such a wallet that is mostly used in the NFT market. This wallet can be downloaded from the App Store or via chrome extension.

Artists will need to purchase at least a fractional amount of Ether for so-called ‘gas fees’. This will enable them to cover the costs associated with minting your NFT, which places it on the Ethereum blockchain, and listing it for sale.

When adding an NFT to the Ethereum blockchain, a smart contract is added to the blockchain containing a set of actions and certain conditions to meet. They can be coded to detail the limitations on the use of an NFT. Once the conditions are met, the action takes place (such as providing a digital file to a buyer), and the blockchain is updated with this transaction.

Subsequently, the NFT creator has the privilege of putting up the NFT for sale on a marketplace. At the same time, NFT creators could associate the NFTs with a royalty agreement to receive added compensation with every sale.

NFTs can be sold or bought in the digital market via NFT market places.

NFT selling

In order to connect with NFT marketplaces and authenticate their identity, to access these market, they are required to have a digital wallet to streamline this process. If one wants to sell it or trade NFTs, it depends on the platform and whether he can send it to other platforms or only keep it on that platform. Even if one is just selling an NFT, one still needs to pay a transaction fee in ETH gas, which is a denomination of the token called Gwei (one billionth of ETH).

The new owner of an NFT would receive possession of the NFT through a smart contract. NFT sellers will thereby need to ensure that smart contracts clearly outline the rights that are being assigned as part of the NFT. In most cases, the NFT holder is simply obtaining a non-exclusive license to the underlying intellectual property rights of an asset and only for non-commercial purposes.

NFT buying

How you buy an NFT depends on the type of NFT you want to buy and the platform you are using. Most NFTs are purchased with a cryptocurrency and some with fiat currency. For buying NFTs, you must have a crypto wallet that allows you to store NFTs and cryptocurrencies.

Before purchasing any NFT, one first needs to purchase some cryptocurrency. This depends on what currencies your NFT provider accepts. Most likely this will be ETH, Ethereum’s native token. They can be purchased by using a credit card on almost any digital exchange from Coinbase, Binance, eToro to Coinbase and even Paypal now. Most exchanges charge at least a percentage of your transaction when you buy crypto.

After this one will be able to move it from the exchange to their crypto wallet of choice. From that on it is simple on most platforms to connect the wallet. Once the wallet had been connected, users can begin browsing the market and placing bids.

Each user’s wallet address thereby acts as a passport and lets users interact with certain NFT platforms. And if one later decide to use NFT marketplaces outside of Ethereum, one will still be able to swap ETH tokens for alternative blockchain tokens.

NFT Market places

NFTs allow digital works to at least be traded via NFT marketplaces. On these marketplaces NFTs can be created, bought or sold. Most marketplaces hold auctions where users can submit a bid for an NFT they wish to purchase. Buying an NFT from the primary marketplace increases potential resale value directly after the product goes on sale. That especially goes for a high demand NFT immediately after their release. On the other hand, one of the main issues with buying an NFT from a primary marketplace is it is hard to estimate the demand for the art. On the secondary marketplace, however, users are able compare purchases to previous sales.

Most popular NFT marketplaces

Currently there are several NFT marketplaces and each marketplace sell different types of NFT. The most popular and largest ones include: OpenSea, Rarible and Foundation NFT. Other interesting platforms have names like CryptoSlam, AtomicAssets, SuperRare, Nifty Gateway and NBA Top Shot. Most of these marketplaces are still hosted on Ethereum’s blockchain, thereby acting as Ethereum’s dApps.

OpenSea is a marketplace for NFTs which operates on Ethereum trading rare digital items and collectibles. It hosts a variety of digital collectibles, from video game items to digital artwork. Using OpenSea, users can interact with the network to browse NFT collections to exchange NFTs for cryptocurrency. One can also sort pieces by sales volume to discover new artists.

Rarible s a  so-called ‘democratic’, open marketplace that allows artists and creators to issue and sell NFTs. RARI tokens issued on the platform enable holders to weigh in on features like fees and community rules.

On the Foundation NFT marketplace artists must receive “upvotes” or an invitation from fellow creators to post their art. The community’s exclusivity and cost of entry – artists must also purchase “gas” to mint NFTs – means it may boast higher-calibre artwork.

An interesting newcomer on the NFT market is Coinbase. The cryptocurrency exchange, aims to launch a marketplace that lets users mint, collect and trade NFTs. Users can sign up to a waitlist for early access to the feature. Its marketplace, to be named Coinbase NFT, would include ‘social features’ and tap into the so-called creator economy (a term used to describe the world of people who make money posting videos and other content online).

What may NFTs bring?

NFTs provide a number of  advantages to both content creators, sellers and buyers, depending on the platform they are created on. With NFTs in Ethereum, the smart contract is automatic: The code in the smart contract cannot be changed once it’s added to the blockchain, and the transaction cannot be changed once the criteria have been met and verified. This provides security to both creators and buyers.

For the creator 

Blockchain technology and NFTs afford artists and content creators a unique opportunity to monetize their wares. For example, artists no longer have to rely on galleries or auction houses to sell their art. They can sell it directly to the consumer as an NFT, which also lets them keep more of the profits.

Typically, most art pieces are physically sorted, which exposes them to the risk of being stolen or duplicated. NFTs may eliminate these shortcomings to certain extent by allowing artists to keep the records of the actual copy on the blockchain network. On top NFTs create an ecosystem where artists can authenticate the actual ownership of their work by recording the metadata on-chain.

Most websites where NFTs are sold also allow content creators to add a royalty system to the subsequent selling of their content. Doing this they may receive a percentage of sales whenever their art is sold to a new owner. Importantly, the artist benefits every single time their NFT changes hands. This is seen as an attractive feature as artists generally do not receive future proceeds after their art is first sold.

For the collector

NFTs allow for proof of ownership in the digital world for the collector. Before the invention of NFTs, there was no way to prove the ownership or authenticity of digital artworks or collectibles. With NFTs the investor has true ownership of the non-fungible token they purchase. When a digital asset is tokenized this creates value as it is possible to prove its authenticity and ownership, which also means it can be bought and sold many times over.

With NFTs, a copy can be verified with the use of a unique identifier included in the NFT, and the history of ownership for that copy can be maintained. Because it has a unique identifier, and there’s a record of the work on the blockchain, it’s easy to track.

Next to that due to blockchain technology and NFTs, the principle of ‘scarcity’ now also exists
in the digital world. This because each NFT is rare, unique and indivisible. For a collector, the intrinsic value associated with the purchase of an NFT is supporting an artist whose work they admire.

It also give access to decentralised finance (DeFi) NFT services. Some NFT projects such as Hoard marketplace are providing DeFi services which allows users to buy, sell, loan or rent NFTs. The platform empowers developers with tools to integrate digital art, in-game items and domain names with the Ethereum blockchain.

Other potential benefits of this NFT eco system are growth prospects and value preservation where artist can preserve their art and yield income. The growth prospects of NFTs are significant and present more opportunities for creatives and investors to join the market. The NFT market is firmly growing, which means most NFTs could only become more valuable and innovative as time goes on.

And there are the utility benefits. NFTs enable businesses and individuals to acquire and protect value in real-world and virtual objects. When one owns an NFT on the blockchain, one has the ability to flip it, or sell it on the secondary market, for profit.

The downside of NFTs

While the advantages/benefits of NFTs clearly paint a promising  picture for their future, these markets are also confronted with various challenges and risks that one should consider before deciding to enter the space.

First of all there is the market risk. The market for NFTs such as digital art and collectibles is booming — but that doesn’t mean they are a safe investment. Investing in NFTs comes with its own unique set of risks. Their future is uncertain, and we don’t yet have a lot of history to judge their performance. When investing in NFTs one should be aware of volatility, illiquidity, and fraud in the nascent market.

Though investing in art is often a subjective act, there is the risk of losing its value. The NFT market suffers from massive volatility,  in part because there aren’t any mechanisms in place yet to help people price these digital assets.

When it comes to liquidity of NFTs every seller needs to find a buyer who’s willing to pay a certain price for a particular, one-of-a-kind item. That can put collectors in a difficult position if they have spent a lot of money on a ‘Top Shot‘ moment and the market begins to tank.

Another risk refers to the uncertainty in determining the value of NFTs. The valuation of NFTs depends considerably on the authenticity, creativity, and the perception of owners and buyers. An NFT’s value is based largely on what someone else is willing to pay for it, thereby leading to fluctuations. Therefore, demand will drive the price rather than fundamental, technical or economic indicators.

And there is the risk related to intellectual property issues. Someone who buys an NFT, only gets the right to use the NFT rather than intellectual property rights. It is therefore important to consider the ownership rights of an individual to a particular NFT in the metadata of the underlying smart contract, such as copyrights, trademarks, patents, moral rights, and the right to publicity.

The growing  NFT market is also attracting cybercriminals resulting in various risks of fraud, cybersecurity and hacks. There have been a few instances of fake websites, where NFTs hosted on the platform have disappeared and faced copyright and trade infringements.

Some artists have also fallen victim to impersonators who have listed and sold their work without their permission. And those who own an NFT do not necessarily own the original version of the digital content.

Another risk related to cybersecurity and fraud include copyright theft, replication of popular NFTs or fake airdrops, and NFT giveaways. And there is the risk of smart contracts being attacked by hackers and the challenges of NFT maintenance. This is seen as a main concern in the NFT landscape presently. As a result people can end up buying the fake NFT tokens, which practically do not have any value as an asset.

In addition, NFTs are also associated with jurisdictional challenges as there is no specific precedent for regulating NFTs. Decentralized peer-to-peer transactions on blockchain-based  NFT platforms without any monitoring authority can lead to AML and CFT challenges. As NFT can challenge the conventional FATF standard, regulations and intermediate supervision become necessary for these platforms.

Challenges

An there are the various challenges NFTs may be confronted, that could limit their adoption. Some of these challenges are more fundamental.

One of the most fundamental challenge for this NTF market is how these tokens will have to be fused into an ill-suited legal framework. The lack of regulation creates a lot of pitfalls in NFT adoption. There is the confusion of how NTFs should be classified and thus regulatory treated. As a security or something else. NFT does not have a specific definition and can describe a wide variety of assets. They are unique, not interchangeable, and not fungible. With the increasing variety and number of NFTs, it is difficult to find a solid ground for compliance in NFTs. As of now, many of the existing laws pertaining to NFT are stuck on finding the ideal definition for NFTs. Various countries like Japan, UK, US and the EU have different approaches for the classification of NFTs.

Next to regulatory challenges there is the lack of uniform, universal infrastructure for NFTs that may limit their adoption. For instance the verification processes for creators and NFT listings aren’t consistent across platforms – some are more stringent than others.

Accessibility to NFTs can be a significant barrier for new entrants to the NFT market. While NFT marketplaces are user-friendly, content creators must pay fees for the creation and upkeep of the NFT. These fees are usually required to be paid with a cryptocurrency in a digital wallet. The NFT marketplaces are also only popular for certain types of digital content; currently, for example, there are very few writers who sell their work as NFTs.

Environmental effect

Another pain point of using NFTs is the effect the cryptocurrency industry has on the environment. The current mining practices for the most popular cryptocurrencies use proof-of work techniques, which require a vast amount of energy from powerful computers.

The way forward: bubble or future

The NFT markets are booming. And every day new use case are entering the NFT market attracted by the various benefits and the incredible profits that can be made.

But the risks and challenges this market is confronted with will ask for regulatory intervention. The importance of reflecting on the legal and regulatory NFT risks is clearly evident. As this NTF market continues to grow and expand into different use cases, this raises the importance of having an international regulatory body of Non-fungible tokens for its better regulation and legalization. The outcome could have a great impact and will be decisive for the future of NTFs.

It is however still uncertain how that will proceed.