Anchorage Faces Criticism for Removing Stablecoins Amid Safety Concerns

In a controversial move, Anchorage Digital has opted to discontinue support for three stablecoins, citing "elevated concentration risks" as identified by their newly implemented 'stablecoin safety matrix.' Critics, however, suspect that the matrix may serve less as an impartial risk assessment tool and more as a strategy to diminish competition, favoring certain major stablecoin issuers.

Nathan Mercer

June 29, 2025

In a move that has stirred a fair share of controversy, Anchorage Digital has announced its decision to phase out support for three stablecoins-USDC, Agora USD (AUSD), and Usual USD (USD0). Drawing criticism from Nick van Eck, co-founder and CEO of Agora, the issue at hand isn't just the delisting but the motivations and transparency surrounding it. Van Eck accuses Anchorage of leveraging "factual inaccuracies" to justify a decision that may favor Paxos, another stablecoin issuer, by reducing competition.

What gives this narrative an extra layer of intrigue is the context provided by Anchorage's newly introduced 'stablecoin safety matrix.' This tool, ostensibly designed to assess the viability of stablecoins based on regulatory fit and operational security, has led to the exclusion of USDC, AUSD, and USD0. According to Rachel Anderika, head of global operations at Anchorage, the matrix highlighted "elevated concentration risks associated with their issuer structures." Here, one cannot help but wonder if the matrix is as unbiased as intended, or if it's a sophisticated veneer for a strategy favoring other business interests-a speculative thought, but one worth pondering.

The timing of this matrix and delisting decision neatly coincides with legislative developments. The GENIUS Act, aimed at establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins in the U.S., is moving closer to law. In anticipation, Anchorage’s safety matrix evaluates stablecoins based on criteria including liquidity, depeg history, and concentration risk. While compliance foresight is often a prudent business move, the selective application that sidelines smaller issuers like AUSD and USD0-all while mainlining heavyweights like USDC-does raise eyebrows.

The implications of this delisting extend beyond the immediate ecosystem of issuers and users. For instance, USDC, backed by Circle, represents a significant portion of the stablecoin market with an estimated value of $61 billion. In contrast, the combined value of AUSD and USD0 is a modest $700 million. This disparity in market share underscores a larger issue within the crypto market-major players have the gravitational pull to shape the narrative and, potentially, the regulatory landscape in their favor.

From a compliance standpoint, the move by Anchorage can be viewed through several lenses. On one side, it’s a proactive alignment with anticipated regulatory frameworks, positioning Anchorage as a leader in compliance-first approaches in the volatile world of crypto. On the flip side, as van Eck points out, if the underlying reasons are misrepresented, it could undermine the credibility of Anchorage's framework, reducing it to a tool for competitive manipulation rather than genuine risk management.

Furthermore, this development taps into the broader debate around the role of stablecoins in the financial ecosystem and the appropriate level of regulatory oversight. The U.S. is not alone in this regulatory conundrum. Across the Atlantic, the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation represents a parallel attempt to tame the wilds of cryptocurrency risks, with some issuers like Tether's Paolo Ardoino choosing to opt out due to perceived overreach.

The decisions made by platforms like Anchorage can set precedents for how other entities might navigate the interplay between innovation and regulation. Businesses dealing in crypto, from exchanges to fintech solutions like Radom’s on- and off-ramping services, must navigate these waters with a keen eye on both current legal requirements and the emerging regulatory landscape. The seriousness with which they approach this task could either stabilize the market or lead it into further disarray.

In conclusion, while Anchorage's strategy might be seen as a forward-thinking compliance gesture, it also poses as a stark reminder of how market dynamics and personal interests can paint a complex and sometimes murky picture in the world of stablecoins. For entities like Agora and Usual, and their comparatively smaller offerings, the challenge remains to not only innovate but also navigate through the shadows cast by bigger players.

Sign up to Radom to get started