Stablecoin Redemption Run and Reserve Liquidity
A U.S. dollar stablecoin issuer reports $5.0bn tokens outstanding. Reserves: $3.0bn in 3-month T-bills, $1.25bn in overnight reverse repo, and $750m in cash deposits at two banks (60% at Bank A, 40% at Bank B). The issuer promises same-day redemption through a licensed payment processor. On a Monday, a large exchange announces it will delist the token in 48 hours; redemption requests reach $900m in 6 hours, 18% of supply. Bank A's online portal is down due to a cyber incident and confirms only that wire instructions will be processed 'when available.' T-bill sales settle T+1; repo matures next morning. The issuer has a $200m committed backup line with a 3-day drawdown. Token price on secondary markets drops to $0.94. The CEO wants to 'temporarily suspend redemptions' and publish a statement that reserves are 'fully backed.'
1. Assess the issuer's liquidity position and run dynamics. Is suspension justified, and what are the legal, regulatory, and market consequences?
Read the worked answer
Liquidity position. Same-day liquid resources are not $5.0bn. Cash is $750m, but 60% ($450m) sits at Bank A, whose portal is down; only $300m at Bank B is clearly accessible. Repo of $1.25bn matures next morning, not today. T-bills settle T+1, so they are not same-day cash unless sold and settled intraday. The backup line is $200m but has a 3-day drawdown. Against $900m of requests in 6 hours, the issuer has a genuine same-day shortfall even though total reserves exceed tokens outstanding.
Is suspension justified? Suspension may be contractually permitted only in defined circumstances, and it must be applied consistently. It can stop a run temporarily, but it also signals that redemption terms are not being met, may accelerate secondary-market selling, and invites regulatory scrutiny. A blanket 'fully backed' statement is misleading if the issue is immediate liquidity, not asset sufficiency. Better options include pro-rata partial redemption, a disclosed gate, drawing the backup line, and using the repo maturity and T-bill sales to meet the queue.
Reasoning. 'Fully backed' addresses solvency; the run is a liquidity event. The CEO's statement conflates the two and could create legal and reputational risk.
2. Recommend a 48-hour liquidity plan and changes to the reserve structure. Include contingency funding, asset haircuts, and bank concentration.
Read the worked answer
48-hour plan. (1) Draw the $200m backup line immediately, since drawdown takes 3 days and the queue is growing. (2) Confirm Bank B balances and move available cash to the payment processor; escalate Bank A to obtain an alternate wire channel. (3) Use the $1.25bn repo maturity next morning to fund redemptions. (4) Sell T-bills with an assumed haircut of 1-2% and arrange private repo against them if settlement can be accelerated. (5) Publish a clear redemption policy: if partial redemption is used, state the pro-rata method and expected timing. (6) Prepare a communication that distinguishes reserve backing from same-day liquidity.
Reserve changes. Reduce bank deposit concentration: set a limit per bank and per counterparty, and hold more overnight repo or same-day cash. Stress test a 25-30% redemption run with one bank inaccessible and T-bill settlement at T+1. Pre-arrange committed liquidity lines that can be drawn same day. The current $200m line is small relative to a $900m run.
Reasoning. The plan must buy time without misrepresenting liquidity. Haircuts and settlement timing are the binding constraints, not the face value of reserves.
3. What governance and disclosure failures does this scenario expose?
Read the worked answer
Governance failures. The issuer has a liquidity mismatch between same-day redemption promises and T+1/T+2 asset settlement; a concentration limit for bank deposits appears absent or ineffective; the contingency funding plan is too small and too slow; and the board has not defined what 'fully backed' means operationally. The CEO's proposed statement suggests a disclosure control weakness: public statements must be reviewed against actual liquidity, not just total reserves.
Disclosure improvements. Publish reserve composition, custodian and bank concentration, redemption terms, and any gates or suspensions in plain language. Distinguish 'reserves exceed tokens' from 'same-day liquidity is available.' Provide timely updates during stress.
Reasoning. Stablecoin runs are confidence events. Ambiguous redemption terms and overstated liquidity claims turn a manageable asset-side problem into a legal and reputational crisis. The board should require independent verification of reserve balances and a tested redemption playbook.