Ubyx Founder Analyzes That Stablecoins Are Revenue-Generating Tools, Not Banking Threats

By the end of 2025, a former executive from the global financial flagship left his traditional role and founded Ubyx, offering a perspective opposite to the banking industry’s “fear” of stablecoins. Instead of viewing this digital currency as an enemy, Tony McLaughlin sees stablecoins as a huge revenue opportunity if banks manage them correctly.

Key insights about this vision come not from temporary analysts but from someone who has spent 20 years building the infrastructure representing the global financial system.

From a defender of the old system to a revolutionary leader

McLaughlin’s career tells the story of a fundamental change in outlook. He worked at Citigroup for over 20 years, steadily rising to become General Manager of Financial Resources and Trade Solutions, especially in the emerging payments sector.

In this role, McLaughlin played a leading part in designing RLN (Regulated Liability Network), one of the most influential enterprise blockchain concepts of the past five years. This idea proposed a shared debt exchange platform where central banks, commercial banks, and financial institutions could issue regulated instruments on a single platform. It was an effort by the traditional financial system to address the risks posed by public digital currencies.

McLaughlin collaborated with the U.S. Federal Reserve and the UK Financial Conduct Authority to test this concept. His work inspired banks in Singapore, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) adopted RLN, and it was implemented in the Agorá project, involving seven central banks and over 40 financial institutions.

But then McLaughlin resigned and stepped away from this mission. The simple reason: over the years, he tried to prove that private networks had been introduced but failed to deliver. The problem with “private blockchain” ideas is the “chicken-and-egg” issue—you ask big banks worldwide to join a network that doesn’t yet exist, but no one wants to be the first without users.

Public blockchains have solved this problem—they have users, liquidity, and developers. Starting from zero is no longer an obstacle.

The turning point came during the 2024 U.S. election. McLaughlin decided that stablecoin regulation must pass, meaning banks would be authorized to operate stablecoins on public blockchains. The GENIUS law, deeply understood and enacted in July 2025, confirmed his prediction.

Since then, McLaughlin has dedicated himself fully to pushing private licensing solutions aside. He left Citi and founded Ubyx in March 2025.

Why stablecoins are not a threat to bank deposits

On March 3, 2026, President Trump condemned U.S. banks for “destroying” the GENIUS law and tried to “control” his fintech agenda. The controversy centered on profit documents: banks strongly supported opposing yield-bearing stablecoins, arguing they would drain deposits from traditional banking systems. The Bank of England is also considering restrictions on holding stablecoins for the same reason.

This fear has a real basis: the global stablecoin market exceeds $300 billion. If this money leaves the banking system, the impact on credit availability could be severe.

But McLaughlin sees it differently. He uses every opportunity to emphasize one point: stablecoins are not a threat to deposits but a tremendous revenue opportunity.

Misunderstandings stem from how people categorize stablecoins. “If regulators classify stablecoins as ‘digital assets tied to fiat currency,’ I think they’re fundamentally mistaken. I see it as equivalent to saying ‘a check is just paper tied to fiat,’” he explains. Regulators have used technology (cryptographic tokens) to define stablecoins instead of focusing on their core function—an obligation to pay at a certain value. Technology is just an accessory; the promise is the core.

Writing “I owe you $10” on clay, paper, or an ERC-20 token on Ethereum is a legal instrument—an enforceable tool. The method is the same. The key is who makes the promise and whether that promise can be enforced. In McLaughlin’s framework, stablecoins are not new digital products but a return to centuries-old legal instruments: transferable contractual documents.

Payment infrastructure: the missing piece in the stablecoin puzzle

Imagine the journey of a check in 1891 before debit cards, ATMs, and wire transfers. Checks were the main way people carried cash abroad—purchasing from American Express or banks in advance and using them like cash worldwide. Local merchants or banks accepted them at face value because the payment network guaranteed settlement.

The crucial point: checks could be used globally not because the paper had special properties but because American Express, Visa, and Thomas Cook built a payment network that guaranteed payment.

When that network collapsed, checks disappeared almost overnight—not because the instrument was broken, but because the old network was too fragile.

Today, stablecoins are in the same situation. They can cross borders in seconds on public blockchains, but they lack a standardized mechanism to convert back into fiat cash through regulated financial institutions. Issuers must build their own distribution networks; banks accepting stablecoins need to negotiate separately with each issuer. The complexity grows exponentially.

McLaughlin’s favorite example: credit cards. Thousands of banks issue credit cards, yet consumers rarely encounter a merchant saying, “Sorry, we don’t accept your card.” This fragmentation is invisible because Visa and Mastercard sit in the middle, enabling interoperability across all cards.

Stablecoins are fragmented too, but lack a central payment network. This is the gap Ubyx plans to fill.

Billing mechanisms: lessons from natural decision-making

The fundamental difference between Ubyx and typical stablecoin exchanges is: exchanges treat stablecoins as commodities traded at market prices, with no guarantee of redemption at face value. Ubyx uses a billing system—not trading—to enable redemption at face value, similar to depositing a check at a bank.

Ubyx’s process:

• Customers deposit stablecoins (e.g., USDC) into a bank-controlled wallet.
• The bank sends tokens to Ubyx.
• Ubyx forwards them to the issuer (e.g., Circle).
• The issuer verifies the tokens and releases fiat currency from reserves.
• USD is sent back to the receiving bank, and the customer is credited (often in local currency).
• If the issuer cannot pay, the bank returns the tokens to the customer.

The bank bears no risk on its balance sheet during this process. The system operates in three modes: stablecoin → fiat (redemption), fiat → stablecoin (issuance), stablecoin A ↔ stablecoin B (exchange).

The issuers include Paxos, Ripple, Agora, Transfero, Monerium, GMO Trust, BiLira, and over ten others, covering USD, GBP, EUR, and emerging market currencies across multiple blockchains. For banks, the connection costs are minimized.

$36 billion: the profit waiting to be unlocked

McLaughlin’s simple calculation: if the stablecoin market reaches $1 trillion (current $300 billion and growing), and reserves are cut by 0.5% daily, that’s about $1.8 trillion annually. With a 100 basis point fee plus another 100 basis points for cross-border spreads, annual revenue could reach $36 billion.

For non-U.S. financial institutions, this benefit is especially significant. Every stablecoin dollar entering European or Asian banks and converting into local currency generates pure foreign exchange income. FX trading is highly profitable for banks.

Major investors choose Ubyx because they see the future of stablecoins

Ubyx’s investor list tells who believes in this vision. The company raised $10 million in June 2025, led by Galaxy Ventures.

Other investors include: Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Coinbase Ventures, VanEck, LayerZero—liberal Silicon Valley funds, leading stablecoin exchanges, and large traditional asset managers—all betting on stablecoin payment infrastructure.

Most notably, many investors are also users of the network: Paxos and Monerium are both investors and issuers; Payoneer and Boku invest as strategic partners. This “investor = network user” structure was designed by Jaimin Janna, following the model of Visa and Mastercard. Early on, banks using the network owned it.

In January 2026, the Bank of England made a strategic investment—its second-largest bank by market value in the UK—and for the first time in history, invested in a stablecoin company. Ryan Hayward, the bank’s Digital Assets President, said, “Interoperability is key to unlocking the full potential of digital assets.” A month later, AB Xelerate of the Arab Bank also made a strategic investment. Now, startup investors from America, European banks, and Middle Eastern financial infrastructure are all betting in the same direction.

Circle vs. Ubyx: two different paths in stablecoin development

Circle launched its own Circle Payments Network in mid-2025 to build a dedicated infrastructure for USDC payments. It is capable of creating a self-sufficient distribution system. The market question: will it be a single-issuer network (Circle’s path) or a multi-issuer payment system (Ubyx’s path)?

McLaughlin argues that history favors a multi-issuer approach, but Circle’s advantage in entering early and capturing a significant market share is not insignificant.

The unresolved issue: competition between banks and stablecoin companies over exchange mechanisms. The OCC draft rules include yield-bearing stablecoins. If they prohibit yields, banks will relax their concerns because, for cash holders, stablecoins remain less attractive than savings accounts. But this would limit stablecoins to payments only—the market would be small.

If allowed, the stablecoin market could explode—competition for deposits, money market funds, government bonds, and other securities. Banks have a strong incentive to build infrastructure quickly—to protect customers and to profit.

Ubyx plans to use open-source regulatory guidelines and deploy tokens for DAO governance—aligning with a decentralized concept for regulated, bank-dependent financial infrastructure. This remains an unproven model.

Stablecoins as the front line of the future digital finance

McLaughlin’s projects tell a story of choosing a path: initially protecting the paper money system from digital threats, then building private chains for banks, and now recognizing that private chains cannot scale. The entire set may stem from a shift in perspective on global capital: on public blockchains, within wallets, through a set of infrastructure for clearing, making regulated stablecoins as trustworthy as checks.

His key insight: banks can manage stablecoins just like checks. If those with authority say so, the entire banking world will immediately understand what to do next. All that remains is the official announcement.