7th June 2026 > > Eco-warriors and stablecoins.
- 17 hours ago
- 4 min read
tl;dr
Where are the eco-warriors when you need them? The Bank of England’s reputation is eviscerated once more, a worrying trend that shows every sign of gathering momentum.
Market Snap
Market Wrap
We cannot ignore that overnight dip below $60k driven by the liquidation of leveraged longs in response to a deteriorating macro environment. The impending mega A.I. IPOs are both an opportunity, and a risk for stock markets.
Occasional Series – Lessons and insights from the tube strike
Every Thursday I go to Covent Garden, normally an easy journey, made somewhat more difficult this week with another tube strike, which makes no sense to me. As there is readily available technology to replace tube drivers tomorrow if we wanted to, why would they take any action that makes their employment prospects more precarious than they already are? I am sure we all have our own opinions on that topic.
The traffic jams were extraordinary. Roads clogged for miles, diesel and petrol emissions going through the roof, and of course the huge hit to productivity for all affected businesses. No-one wins.
It made me recall the old tropes about the supposed environmental damage caused by BTC mining. Those tropes have been totally discredited, for BTC mining is of such great benefit to the environment. The energy usage is easily manipulated to ensure the grid stays stable, a risk that is hugely underestimated but caused Portugal a lot of problems recently. By stabilising the grid, BTC mining encourages the growth and adoption of renewable energy. I was always a little suspicious that those who loudly decried BTC because of fake environmental concerns probably knew those concerns were faked and that their agenda was of a different nature.
I wonder where those anti-BTC eco critics are now? I would have thought given the opprobrium they placed on BTC that they would take offence at the additional dramatic carbon emissions generated by the ever more frequent tube strikes.
Why do they stay quiet?
Curious Cryptos’ Commentary – House of Lords & stablecoins
The House of Lords issued a report this week titled “Stablecoins: waiting for regulation” addressing progress, or lack thereof, in the UK regarding the adoption of the stablecoin revolution. Weighing in at 71 pages, we read it, so you don’t have to:
As a reminder to you all, as if you need one, stablecoins are proving to be one of humankind’s greatest inventions to help alleviate the poverty and the suffering of the world’s poor and dispossessed. It is a moral imperative borne by all of us to encourage and support the growth and development of stablecoins, unless you want your privileged Western hegemony to remain unchallenged.
Naturally, the hapless and hopeless Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, whose only notable achievement has been to be even a greater liability to the UK’s financial wellbeing than his ridiculous predecessor Mark Carney, has not got the memo.
…
The Lords, in their wisdom, have produced a remarkably scathing report into the approach taken by the BoE, implicitly criticising Bailey, though personally I would have named and shamed him. Oh, I just have. I hope that helps to set the record straight.
The key complaint is that the BoE, and the FCA (which used to be run by none other than Bailey who left the organisation in such a state of dysfunctionality it is unlikely to ever recover) are being overly restrictive in pre-emptively regulating every hypothetical risk in advance.
The report highlights some specific examples of this Luddite attitude:
40% unremunerated central bank deposit requirement
Gawd knows where this comes from. Continually audited reserves in cash or cash-like instruments such as short-dated money market funds is the right answer. The Lords, demonstrating a keener grasp of business than any unelected bureaucrat has ever even tried to understand, point out that this requirement “… could significantly damage the business viability and international competitiveness of UK issuers.”
Holding caps
The Bank proposed temporary caps of £20,000 per stablecoin per individual and £10 million per business; the report argues these would “… unnecessarily inhibit the growth of GBP stablecoins.”
Ban on remuneration/interest for holders
It is true that this is in line with MiCA and the GENIUS Act, but what a missed opportunity to gain competitive advantage, another concept alien to our technocratic elite.
Overly complex and fragmented regulation
Dual supervision by the BoE and FCA, with opaque systemic designations, rather smacks of the philosophy embedded in ChokePoint 1.0 and ChokePoint 2.0, two illegal, immoral, and autocratic campaigns by US politicians to inhibit lawful activities of which they did not approve. It matters not whether their disapproval meets with your support – we live in a democracy and banning stuff needs to be subject to democratic consent and the legislative process. Undermining those two principles undermines the whole basis of our liberal society.
…
It was only just recently (https://www.curiouscryptos.com/post/29th-may-2026-aave-labs-sequans-communications) that the CCC research team was moved to laud the UK’s conversion to the crypto cause.
It seems, old habits die hard.
Comments