Stablecoins are no longer only a crypto market instrument. In Europe, they are becoming part of a larger question: who will control the next layer of digital money infrastructure?
That question is especially important for banks. For years, many traditional financial institutions treated digital assets as something to observe, test, or cautiously enter through isolated pilots. Now, the conversation is shifting. Regulation is clearer. Client demand is more concrete. Stablecoins have become one of the main bridges between TradFi and crypto, and tokenized markets are becoming a serious strategic priority.
Qivalis sits directly inside that shift. The company is not a typical crypto-native issuer trying to convince banks to trust stablecoins from the outside. It is a bank-backed stablecoin initiative designed to bring institutional credibility, euro-denominated liquidity, and regulated digital money infrastructure into the same model.
CoinsPaid Media spoke with Vid Hribar, who manages institutional partnerships at Qivalis, about why bank-backed euro stablecoins matter, what institutions actually ask before they commit, why euro stablecoins still face a liquidity gap, and what has to happen before banks treat stablecoins as necessary infrastructure rather than an interesting experiment.
Why Bank-Backed Stablecoins Matter for Institutional Adoption
How does Qivalis’ bank-backed stablecoin model affect institutional trust and integration?
Being bank-backed is definitely one of our primary institutional moats.
We are trying to address the safety gap that often prevents the clients we talk to from getting involved in the digital asset ecosystem. Some might consider being bank-backed a burden. We see it as a prerequisite, especially for institutional stablecoin adoption.
Bringing institutional DNA into these conversations helps us get institutions on board. But we also have to balance that carefully. Being bank-backed could potentially mean slower decision-making.
That is why we designed Qivalis to offer the best of both worlds. On one side, we maintain the core assets of banks: trust, know-how, and large balance sheets. On the other side, we operate as an independent entity to make sure we can move quickly when decisions need to be made.
Is Qivalis a euro stablecoin issuer, a payments utility, or a bridge between banks and digital assets?
Primarily, Qivalis will be a stablecoin issuer. But our mission is broader.
We want to bring banks and other institutions into the digital asset space. It is important to say that a token only gains value through its network. Just issuing a token does not mean that the stablecoin will actually be used.
Adoption requires many more steps. It also requires institutions to start using it and offering it to their clients. This is especially important for euro stablecoins, where market demand depends not only on issuance but also on liquidity, distribution, and real institutional usage.
I often think about Qivalis as a kind of satellite that banks have launched into the digital asset space. It operates at the edge of innovation, sees what is possible in the industry, and then uses that knowledge to help banks enter the digital asset space.
So, we will not just be a vendor. We will act as a bridge, helping institutional partners enter the digital asset market.
Does a banking consortium make stablecoin adoption easier or slow commercial decisions down?
I see it more as an advantage because institutional backing definitely signals credibility.
The way we designed Qivalis combines institutional governance and institutional DNA with crypto speed. On one side, bank backing brings potential distribution channels across multiple banks. That means banks could offer stablecoins, including our stablecoin, to their clients in the future. This is a very powerful engine and something very hard to achieve, especially for existing stablecoin issuers.
On the other side, we wanted to avoid being slowed down by banking alignment and decision-making processes. That is why Qivalis was incorporated as an independent entity with an independent board and a partially independent supervisory board.
We are not bound by all the decisions and alignments that you would usually see in similar banking consortia.
We have seen other banking consortia in the past struggle with governance, incentives, and decision-making. We took those lessons and tried to do it differently. Incorporating Qivalis as an independent entity is a very important pillar of our governance process and an important factor for building a scalable bank-backed stablecoin model.
As a result, do institutional partners see Qivalis as a stablecoin issuer or as a bank-led digital asset initiative?
Primarily, we will be an issuer, with all the benefits that banks bring.
At the same time, many partner conversations also move toward how we plan to bring banks on board. For us, bringing banks on board means creating a new distribution channel. It also means more liquidity for the ecosystem, and this is something many partners are looking for.
Achieving liquidity is very hard. On the euro side, none of the existing stablecoins have managed to do that at a meaningful scale.
That is why, when we talk to partners, they also see Qivalis as a potential way to make euro stablecoins liquid and onboard more institutions.
At the end of the day, we see ourselves as bridging the gap between traditional finance and digital assets. By enabling institutions to enter this space, we are also growing the pie. It not only benefits us but also the banks. It benefits the whole ecosystem and supports broader institutional adoption of digital assets.
Euro Stablecoins and the Shift From Strategy to Commercial Use
What makes a bank-backed euro stablecoin commercially relevant for institutions?
We are moving from a conversation about strategic necessity toward commercial necessity by focusing on the trillion-euro gap in on-chain liquidity.
Liquidity is very important. The theoretical benefits of stablecoins, such as faster, cheaper, and 24/7 payments, only become commercially relevant when they are integrated into infrastructure and when institutions are on board.
Of course, we already have cases where stablecoins are used for cross-border payments, and stablecoin payment volumes have been growing as institutional and retail users move toward on-chain solutions. But compared with traditional finance volumes, those volumes are still very small.
We believe what is needed is integration into traditional financial infrastructure and institutional adoption. That is why we want to bridge this gap by creating a euro stablecoin that is trusted and liquid enough.
What would show early commercial success for Qivalis and euro stablecoin adoption?
We are starting with the crypto and on-chain market use case because we believe the volumes are currently there and that there is an immediate need we can fill.
At the same time, we see this as a strategic step. We believe financial markets will run on blockchain in the future and will become increasingly on-chain. We want to position ourselves as a cornerstone of those on-chain markets.
In terms of early commercial signals on the crypto side, we can talk about market capitalization, transaction volumes, and unique user addresses.
Later, as we move into other use cases such as payments and on-chain capital markets, the signals will be different. This fits into the broader institutional tokenization trend, where major financial players are building infrastructure for tokenized funds, deposits, and stablecoins. Then, the question becomes: who are we integrating with? What partnerships do we have? How many partners are on board? And how are we growing the broader ecosystem?
Do institutions need euro stablecoins today, or are they preparing for a market shift?
We see demand as twofold.
On one side, it is driven by an immediate need for economic risk management, especially among European crypto traders. For example, they might earn an 8% yield on a U.S. dollar stablecoin. But if they lose 12% on dollar depreciation, that is not economically viable.
On the other side, we see a more mid- to long-term need for European monetary autonomy.
We receive feedback from many corporate and institutional partners that preserving the role of the euro is also an important mission for them, and they want to contribute to it.
So, I would say the demand is partly driven by the immediate need of crypto traders who want a European stablecoin, and partly by the mid- to long-term need for European digital autonomy.
The Euro Stablecoin Liquidity Gap in Digital Asset Markets
Why does euro-denominated on-chain liquidity matter if USD stablecoins dominate the market?
We are addressing a big market disconnect.
If you look at traditional euro flows, they represent around 20% to 25% of global fiat flows. But only around 0.2% of the stablecoin market is euro-denominated. We see this gap as a big commercial opportunity for those who can provide a trusted and liquid euro stablecoin on-chain.
Most current market participants are forced to use U.S. dollar stablecoins because they offer better on-chain liquidity. But we believe this is because there is no trusted and liquid euro alternative yet.
Also, a robust, widely used euro stablecoin is a pillar of European strategic autonomy. If blockchain rails become dominant and the euro lacks a credible on-chain presence, the risk is gradual digital dollarization. That is what we want to provide with Qivalis.
So, we are not necessarily creating a new need. We are fulfilling a massive pre-existing demand that comes from this gap and that nobody has managed to meet so far.
What is harder: convincing European banks to adopt stablecoins or global players to support euro liquidity?
MiCA already provides a green light, especially for European institutions. The EU stablecoin market has already started to reorganize around MiCA-compliant issuers and tokens, which makes the regulatory side of the conversation more concrete than it was a few years ago.
The harder thing is building a deep liquidity ecosystem for global partners, but also for European partners.
Regulation is the first step. It gets institutions to the table. But the depth of liquidity is what makes them stay there and actually use and trade euro stablecoins.
Global players definitely show interest. But they also require sufficient liquidity in lending markets and on-chain markets, which current euro stablecoins do not have.
We are moving from being compliant to becoming the most liquid and trusted euro stablecoin.
Can euro stablecoins become important without global trading and settlement flows?
The real ceiling depends on liquidity and usage.
A euro stablecoin can be strategically important from a European perspective. But if it does not become part of trading, settlement, payments, and broader institutional flows, then its ceiling is limited.
That is why liquidity is so important. It is not enough to issue a compliant stablecoin. It needs to be usable across markets and trusted by the institutions that move real volume.
What Institutions Need Before Adopting Stablecoin Infrastructure
What do institutions ask before integrating a euro stablecoin?
When we talk about serious institutional commitment, the first conversation is usually about how we will ensure liquidity and redemption.
No treasurer would move into a position if they cannot rely on converting instantly and at par. Trust in the exit is what creates confidence in the entry.
Of course, partners also ask about robust reserve management. How do we ensure that everything is backed one-to-one? How do we report this? How are we supervised? Under MiCA, issuers of asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens are subject to specific authorization, liquidity, reserve, governance, and supervisory requirements.
Many of these things are already prescribed by MiCA, so there is not much room to do things differently.
A lot of conversations are also about governance. How do we make sure decision-making is not slowed down? How do we make sure we are not influenced by certain banks?
Here, we always emphasize that Qivalis is an independent entity that makes decisions on its own.
But most of the conversations are definitely around liquidity and how we enable it. That is why I often emphasize that liquidity is one of the most important things we need to get right.
How does MiCA affect stablecoin licensing and institutional adoption across Europe?
MiCA is a regulation, which means it does not require country-by-country implementation in the same way a directive would. It is directly enforceable.
That said, there are parts of MiCA that can be handled differently from country to country. But this does not apply as much to stablecoins or stablecoin issuers.
Our headquarters are in the Netherlands, and we have applied for an EMI license there. The rules prescribed by DNB, the local regulator, will apply. From this perspective, we should be able to pass our product to other countries.
Many of the differences between countries are more relevant to the licensing process for crypto-asset service providers. For example, you may see differences between Austrian, French, or Maltese authorities.
But when it comes to stablecoin issuers and the actual product, we can passport it across different countries. So, within Europe, we do not see very different requirements from country to country.
Outside Europe, it is a different story. We see countries such as the UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and the U.S. implementing their own regulatory frameworks.
These frameworks may be different from MiCA, but generally, they follow a similar pattern. I think that in the next few years, we will see more harmonization and more global standards being adopted.
Poland is an interesting case here because it is one of the largest and fastest-growing markets in Central and Eastern Europe, but its local MiCA implementation and licensing process have been less clear than in some other EU jurisdictions. How are Polish institutions approaching MiCA licensing and digital asset adoption?
From several conversations with Polish parties, they say that they did not apply for a MiCA license in Poland. Instead, they applied for a license somewhere else and then passported into Poland.
From what I understand, the Polish authority still has not created the process for applying for the license in Poland. This makes things harder for Polish entities that want to engage with digital assets, especially banks. I hope this gets fixed quite soon.
Poland is a big and fast-growing market. There are many good companies there, and it is a pity if they have to go somewhere else to get licensed and then operate in the Polish market from another jurisdiction.
Qivalis just recently announced the expansion of the consortium, and we are very happy to also welcome a Polish bank, Bank Pekao, to the consortium.
What separates real institutional readiness from polite interest in stablecoins?
You can often identify whether a partner is ready by looking at whether their internal infrastructure is ready.
Readiness means more than curiosity. It means having a clear digital asset strategy. It means having the technical digital asset infrastructure. It also means having the necessary licenses, whether that is a CASP license, an e-money institution license, or a banking license.
We are all aware that it takes a long time to prepare an organization internally. It requires alignment not only with strategy and business teams, but also with compliance, risk, operations, and IT.
It involves the whole organization, and these discussions take time. That is why we try to have more concrete discussions with those who are already ready or close to ready. But in parallel, we of course also want to support our shareholder banks to become ready and use our stablecoin in the future.
What stops banks and institutions from fully integrating stablecoin infrastructure?
The primary challenge is organizational readiness.
That means having all the necessary things in place internally and having all the relevant colleagues on board.
We also see challenges around standards. For example, IFRS accounting standards do not treat stablecoins as cash equivalents. This is still a point of friction, especially for corporate adoption.
We are proactively addressing this by providing documentation and standards, and by doing analysis together with our partners to create clarity for banks and their clients. There are organizational and accounting challenges. But we also hear a lot from corporate customers that they would like stablecoins to be integrated into their banking infrastructure.
They want banks to abstract away the complexity. From their perspective, they want to see a euro account. They do not necessarily want to know whether it is stablecoins, commercial bank deposits, tokenized deposits, or another form of money.
At the end of the day, they just want to transfer and operate with euros.
When will banks treat euro stablecoins as necessary financial infrastructure?
Even with the rising market cap and transaction volumes of stablecoins, the volumes are still relatively small in comparison to the volumes that are being transferred in the financial system. Stablecoins are not yet reaching the biggest volumes and the biggest institutions.
This is where Qivalis wants to bridge the gap. We want to provide a trusted solution and a liquid stablecoin that can address not just retail demand, but also institutional demand.
Banks are sitting somewhere in the middle. On one side, they provide solutions to their clients. On the other side, they can also take the solution from Qivalis and use the stablecoin themselves.
They still need to identify the first use cases where stablecoin adoption makes sense from a business case perspective.
Closing Thoughts
The Qivalis story shows that the euro stablecoin question is no longer only about whether Europe needs a digital version of the euro for blockchain markets. Strategically, the answer is already clear. The harder question is whether a euro stablecoin can become liquid, trusted, and useful enough to move beyond policy logic and into real commercial flows.
Hribar’s answers point to the same tension again and again. Institutions are interested, but interest is not the same as readiness. Banks want regulated infrastructure, but regulation alone does not create liquidity. Corporate users may want the benefits of stablecoins, but they do not necessarily want to touch the complexity directly. Global players may see the euro opportunity, but they still need trading depth, redemption confidence, and integration paths that justify support.
For now, euro stablecoins remain underrepresented in on-chain liquidity compared with the euro’s role in traditional finance. If Qivalis can help close that gap, the project could become part of a larger shift in how banks participate in digital asset markets: not by watching from the sidelines, and not only by protecting their existing position, but by building the infrastructure they may eventually need to compete in tokenized finance.
