The battle for payment sovereignty intensifies: Why are central bank digital currencies starting to "clash head-on"? The true confrontation between stablecoins and digital renminbi

Digital Renminbi just announced the implementation of an interest accrual mechanism, and JPMorgan Chase is accelerating the development of the JPMD USD stablecoin’s native issuance on privacy networks. While these actions seem like two parallel tracks, they actually reflect the most core payment transformation at the start of 2026: Sovereign digital currencies and cross-border stablecoins are moving from narrative to institutional confrontation.

Stablecoin Market Cap Holds Steady at $300 Billion, “Real Transactions” Shrinking in Proportion

As of January 8, 2026, the total market cap of the stablecoin ecosystem remains around $308 billion, with a weekly increase of 0.3%. This figure appears moderate, but the underlying structural changes are more noteworthy.

On-chain transfer volume seems enormous—over $6.53 trillion accumulated in the past 30 days, fluctuating daily between $137 billion and $279.7 billion. However, OSL Research found that after removing noise trades such as market makers, self-trades, and bots, effective trading volume is only about one-fifth of the total—roughly $280 billion to $320 billion over the past 7 days.

This paradox reflects the true dilemma of the stablecoin ecosystem: scale is expanding, but growth in genuine payment demand is limited. Large trading volumes do not necessarily equate to high payment activity.

Infrastructure Trilogy: Clearing, Interoperability, and Institutional Systematization

This week’s stablecoin ecosystem news points in the same direction—transitioning from fragmented on-chain tools to scalable payment infrastructure.

First Layer: Standardization of the Clearing Layer

Barclays invested in the stablecoin clearing company Ubyx, with a straightforward goal—establish a unified reconciliation and settlement interface among tokens issued by different entities. This investment reveals the real consideration of traditional financial institutions: as the number of stablecoins increases, running them on a single chain is inefficient; the key is to use a clearing layer to transform multi-issuer tokens into “scalable cash tools.”

This logic is similar to traditional ACH payment systems—ACH is essentially a clearing and settlement infrastructure between banks, enabling customers of different banks to transfer funds via a unified interface. The stablecoin ecosystem is rebuilding similar capabilities: a universal clearing engine that incorporates different stablecoins into the same reconciliation and audit process.

Second Layer: Interoperability and Compliance Privacy in Parallel

JPMorgan Chase and Digital Asset announced the native integration of JPM Coin (JPMD) into the Canton Network—a privacy-focused network emphasizing near real-time issuance, transfer, and redemption in multi-asset scenarios. Depositing tokens into a privacy network means that: institutions can achieve 24/7 on-chain settlement while protecting counterparty information and position privacy.

This breaks the previous binary choice for stablecoins—either fully transparent or not used at all.

Third Layer: Institutional Backend Systematization

Fireblocks acquired TRES Finance, aiming to integrate “on-chain operations” with “financial audit reports” into a unified institutional system. For many enterprises, transfers are trivial; the real challenge lies in the backend: how to reconcile accounts, handle accounting, and retain audit trail evidence. Once these issues are addressed, stablecoin payments can be scaled and replicated like traditional financial operations.

Central Bank Response: From Interest Accrual to Institutional Design

Starting January 1, Digital Renminbi real-name wallets began accruing interest, and are incorporated into more regulated financial infrastructure and oversight frameworks. This change is much deeper than it appears on the surface.

The significance of interest accrual is not just about returns: it repositions the digital renminbi from a “payment medium” to a “retained account balance.” Once interest can be earned, users have a reason to hold it, merchants are willing to deposit funds, and the entire payment chain shifts from “rapid circulation” to “time-bound cash management tools.”

Compared to USD stablecoins, the differences are clear. USD stablecoins excel in “liquidity available at any time,” but lack “regulatory and compliance anchors within the native currency system.” Digital Renminbi, through interest accrual and regulatory upgrades, offers a new answer to the question of “who is the default payment tool.”

South Korea’s progress in stablecoin legislation also confirms this point. Amid the tug-of-war over the issuer qualification of the Korean won stablecoin, the central bank favors requiring issuers to be controlled by regulated banks. The underlying logic is: Payment sovereignty is not just a technical issue but an institutional one. Whoever controls the payment network controls the presence of the “default currency” in daily transactions.

New Layered Coexistence Pattern

Looking ahead, the payment ecosystem will exhibit a clear layered structure:

• Cross-border and open internet scenarios: USD stablecoins still dominate. Corporate cross-border settlements and platform-based collections heavily depend on “liquid USD balances available at any time.” In these areas, stablecoins’ competitive advantages are unlikely to be short-term replaced.

• Retail and public service scenarios: Sovereign digital currencies are more conducive to deep adoption, as they are backed by tax, fiscal, and regulatory organizational capabilities, naturally fitting applications like salary payments, public fees, and merchant fund collection.

• Inter-institutional settlement: a three-way split will emerge—cross-border transactions primarily using USD stablecoins, domestic currency settlements mainly with digital renminbi or digital euro, and multi-asset scenarios utilizing deposit tokens and compliant privacy networks.

Fundamental Question: Code or Institution?

The real contest is not about “whose technology is faster,” but “who can define the finality of clearing and the responsible entities”.

USD stablecoins follow an open internet logic: rules are determined by code, and market forces drive proliferation. Central bank digital currencies follow an institutional sovereignty logic: laws define boundaries, and infrastructure ensures governance.

The former wins in speed; the latter wins in certainty. When enterprises need answers like “who is responsible if something goes wrong with this money,” code alone is insufficient. When regulators seek transparency on “where are the risks in this payment chain and who bears them,” fully decentralized solutions have no clear answer.

The 2026 payment landscape fundamentally addresses a question: In the digital age, are monetary boundaries determined by code or by institutions and infrastructure? Based on a series of central bank initiatives, the answer is already quite clear.