The Financial Stability Board (FSB) flagged fresh cross-border risks in the global stablecoin market on October 12, warning that stablecoin rules have never been tested in a severe market crisis. In a new monitoring note, the international standard-setter for financial regulation put the sector’s value at roughly $300 billion, essentially unchanged from a year earlier, with 99% of that value pegged to the US dollar. Its central message is that stablecoins are an inherently cross-border and cross-sectoral issue, and that no single jurisdiction can fully assess or address the vulnerabilities on its own.
The note, published on the FSB’s website , builds on the FSB’s 2023 recommendations for regulating global stablecoin arrangements and a 2025 peer review of their implementation. It examines how vulnerabilities could propagate across borders and what data authorities can actually use to monitor them.
What the FSB Flagged in the New Note
The FSB defines a global stablecoin as one with reach and use across multiple jurisdictions that could become systemically important in one or more of them. As of mid-2026, the market was worth about $300 billion, with 99% of tokens by value pegged to the US dollar, in a landscape the board said “continues to evolve rapidly” even as the overall size has barely moved in a year.
A key difference from traditional finance is circulation. A bank knows its depositors and can manage redemptions against its whole balance sheet. A global stablecoin issuer, by contrast, may not know who holds its liabilities, where those holders are domiciled, or where redemption demand will surface. The FSB said those internationally mobile and partly unobservable liabilities are what make the asset class both potentially useful and harder to supervise.
Why Cross-Border Rules Remain Untested
The report is blunt about the state of the framework. “Global stablecoins and national regulatory frameworks remain untested in severe stress and insolvency,” the FSB wrote, adding that the interaction of regulatory frameworks across borders “remains uncertain or undefined in many jurisdictions,” including how foreign-issued stablecoins are treated.
The board warned that a run on a global stablecoin could spill into traditional finance through reserve-asset fire sales, bank deposit withdrawals to fund redemptions, and foreign-exchange markets where stablecoins are used for cross-border payments. In multi-issuer arrangements, where affiliated issuers share liability for a single token but hold separate reserves, the FSB said redemption demand could concentrate on one entity in the group, with reserve rebalancing potentially breaking down under stress.
What the FSB Wants Authorities to Do Next
The FSB pointed to three areas for continued work: enhancing monitoring of cross-border vulnerabilities, fostering cross-border cooperation and information sharing to support its 2023 recommendations, and gathering information on how authorities plan for the distress or failure of a global stablecoin arrangement. On data, it said authorities still rely mostly on private compilers with proprietary methods, and that blockchain pseudonymity makes it hard to attribute activity to specific uses or geographies.
The note sits alongside wider stablecoin rulemaking. In the United States, the Federal Reserve has proposed stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act , while the Bank of England has eased its own stablecoin rules by scrapping individual holding caps. The FSB’s work is the international layer that sits on top of those national efforts, focused on the gaps that no single regulator can close alone.
What It Means for the Stablecoin Market
The FSB stopped short of calling stablecoins a live threat to financial stability. Instead, it framed the note as monitoring work that could help authorities “assess, identify, and monitor potential financial stability vulnerabilities” tied to global stablecoin arrangements. For issuers and users, the practical signal is that cross-border coordination, information sharing, and crisis planning are moving higher up the international agenda, even as the market’s dollar-dominated makeup stays concentrated around a handful of arrangements.
What remains unsettled is how quickly that coordination arrives. The FSB’s recommendations are not binding, and it acknowledged that jurisdictions are implementing its 2023 framework “in line with their domestic mandates and legal frameworks.” That leaves the cross-border gaps it identified open until individual authorities choose to close them.
