The $61 Million Question: How Much Control Do Stablecoin Issuers Have Over Your Crypto?
The U.S. government filed a civil forfeiture complaint over about $61 million in cryptocurrency that prosecutors allege came from black market sales of sanctioned Iranian oil, CNBC reported.
According to the Justice Department, two Chinese companies allegedly helped move the proceeds through crypto accounts and the U.S. financial system. The case has made crypto holders wonder how much control stablecoin issuers still have over tokens once they’re stored in a personal wallet. Here's how it breaks down.
Explore More: 4 ETFs That Cover Nearly Everything Investors Need
Don't Miss Out: 7 Low-Risk Accounts Proven To Grow Your Money Up to 13x Faster
How the $61 Million Crypto Seizure Would Work
The $61 million at the center of this case is held in USDT, a stablecoin issued by Tether designed to maintain a value of about $1 per token. According to the complaint, Tether has already frozen the tokens in the targeted crypto addresses, CNBC reported.
Instead of requiring the wallet owners’ private keys, Tether can “burn” those frozen tokens and issue new USDT worth the same amount. The replacement tokens would then transfer to a wallet controlled by the U.S. government.
Joe Lackner, founder of Coin Interest Rate, a website dedicated to tracking crypto rates, described it this way: “No private keys, no cooperation from the wallet owners. The whole seizure happens in the contract.”
This is possible because Tether still has some control over USDT even after the tokens are held in someone else’s wallet.
How Stablecoin Issuers Can Freeze or Control Tokens
Holding stablecoins in your own crypto wallet doesn’t mean the issuer has zero control over them. With centrally controlled stablecoins like USDT and USDC, the companies behind the tokens can build administrative controls into the underlying smart contracts.
“People assume having the private keys to a wallet means you have unrestricted control over every asset inside it,” David Kemmerer, co-founder and CEO of crypto tax software CoinLedger, wrote in an email. “That is true for the wallet, [but] not necessarily for the token.”
According to Kemmerer, an issuer may be able to blacklist an address, prevent transfers involving that address, freeze tokens or make the tokens unusable, depending on the token.
He also noted that this case demonstrates a more extreme version of this capability, but the government isn't necessarily taking control of somebody's private keys. “Instead, the stablecoin issuer can render the original tokens unusable and issue equivalent tokens into an address controlled by law enforcement,” he explained.
What It Means for Stablecoin Holders
You may control the wallet, but a centralized stablecoin issuer still has certain powers over the token.
Mitchell DiRaimondo, crypto expert, lead project manager and founder of SteelWave Digital, described this as a tradeoff rather than a flaw. “I do not necessarily view these controls as a flaw. I view them as a design tradeoff,” he wrote in an email.
Stablecoins can be useful as they’re designed to hold a relatively stable value and can move easily between wallets and exchanges. Their convenience comes with added reliance on the issuer, including its reserves, compliance policies and administrative controls.
Kemmerer added that holders should think about issuer risk, transaction history and jurisdictional risk. In other words, the company behind the stablecoin matters, where the tokens have been can matter and legal orders or sanctions can sometimes affect the asset even when it's held in a self-custody wallet.
Editor’s note on political coverage: MoneyLion is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. This article was provided by MoneyLion.com for informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, legal or tax advice.
More From MoneyLion:
