By Pelle Braendgaard, CEO, Notabene
Last week at Stablecon in Amsterdam, I was on a panel called “Killing the Fiat Stablecoin Sandwich” with Simon Taylor (Tempo), Tyler Sherwin (BVNK), and Tedd Huff (Fintech Confidential).
We had a good debate about the pros and cons of the current implementation of the stablecoin sandwich. But I came away thinking the whole framing, mine included, was off.
The stablecoin sandwich isn’t the real problem. The word “stablecoin” is.
The day prior to the panel I had a call with the digital assets GM at a major European bank. He said something that stuck:
“From our perspective, a stablecoin is just a settlement mechanism between fiat accounts. The enterprise instructs us to move money. Whether it goes via Swift or stablecoin rails, it lands as fiat on the other side.”
That’s it. He’s right. And once you accept that, the whole “sandwich” debate looks different.
The “Stablecoin” Name is Doing a Lot of Damage
“Stablecoin” sounds like a crypto asset that happens to be price-stable. Something exotic. Something you need to convert into and out of. That framing comes from crypto, from a world where on/off ramps are real because you’re genuinely leaving fiat when you buy Bitcoin.
But USDC is just dollars. EURC is just euros. When you “on-ramp” to USDC, you never left fiat. You just changed the form factor. There is no ramp. There’s no sandwich. There’s just fiat sitting in a different kind of account.
It’s All Just Money
M0, M1, and M2 are all fiat.
Physical cash, checking accounts, savings accounts: different properties, different forms, same underlying asset. We don’t call a savings account an “M2coin.” We don’t build conversion infrastructure between your checking account and your money market fund and call it a sandwich.
Tokenized money market funds are basically M2. Tokenized deposits are M1 or M2 depending on the form. Stablecoins don’t fit neatly into the existing categories, but they belong in the same family. They’re a new form of fiat with slightly different properties that they share with their other tokenized money cousins: programmable, blockchain-settled, 24/7. Not a foreign asset.
So Why Does the Sandwich Exist?
Because we borrowed crypto infrastructure (tokenization, blockchains, wallets) for a fiat asset, but kept the crypto mental model around it.
The result is two conversion events that don’t need to exist, a PSP sitting in the middle taking margin, and correspondent banking rebuilt at higher cost with extra steps.
The current batch of stablecoin orchestrators (as they came to be known) built the Wise model for stablecoins. That’s useful. It works. But it’s a stepping stone, not the destination. This PSP model exists because banks aren’t plugged into stablecoin rails natively. Once they are, the on/off ramps dissolve.
One of the things we did discuss on stage at Stablecon is that this model, just like Wise recreates all the bad parts of correspondent banking. Not because of any specific properties of stablecoins, but because they still rely on pre-funded accounts and bilateral agreements to operate (aka correspondent banking).
The End State is Simpler Than the Sandwich
It’s account-to-account transfers on open, programmable rails. The stablecoin is the settlement layer, invisible to the enterprise, just like ACH or SWIFT is invisible today. The bank’s treasury team picks the right stablecoin for the corridor. The CFO sees euros leave and euros arrive.
No Sandwich. Just Payments.
I argued at Stablecon that the sandwich scales badly:
That’s still true.
But the deeper point is that we’ve been debating how to improve the sandwich when we should be asking why we’re making sandwiches with fiat in the first place.
Stablecoins are just fiat. The sooner we name them that way, the better the infrastructure we’ll build around them.
Stay tuned to BitKE on stablecoin developments globally.
Join our WhatsApp channel here.
Follow us on X for the latest posts and updates
Join and interact with our Telegram community
___________________________________________


