African Regulators Push for Greater Coordination on Stablecoin Rules

African regulators are stepping up discussions on how stablecoins should be supervised across borders as digital-dollar usage, tokenised payments and crypto adoption continue to expand across the continent.

On August 18, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa convened regulators, researchers and industry representatives for a high-level discussion on tokenised money and stablecoins in Africa. Participants included officials from the Bank of Ghana, Uganda’s Capital Markets Authority and Mauritius’ Financial Services Commission, alongside organisations such as Yellow Card, Ripple, CGAP and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

The discussion did not produce a single African stablecoin law.

Instead, it highlighted a growing argument that countries may need greater regulatory alignment, information-sharing and supervisory cooperation, particularly when stablecoins move between jurisdictions.

Africa is not moving toward one universal stablecoin regulator. But regulators are increasingly recognising that purely national rules may be difficult to enforce against assets that can move across borders almost instantly.

Stablecoins Are Becoming a Cross-Border Regulatory Problem

Stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a relatively stable value, usually by tracking a currency such as the US dollar.

For many African users, dollar-backed stablecoins such as USDT and USDC have uses that go beyond crypto trading.

They can be used for:

• cross-border payments;
• remittances;
• international supplier payments;
• dollar-linked savings;
• settlement between businesses; and
• moving value between local currencies.

That makes stablecoins useful.

It also creates a regulatory problem.

A user in Ghana might acquire USDT from an exchange.

The stablecoin could then move to a wallet controlled by someone in Kenya, Nigeria or South Africa within minutes.

The issuer may be based outside Africa entirely.

The exchange may be regulated in another country.

And the wallet receiving the funds may not be connected to any regulated financial institution.

Those characteristics make stablecoins difficult to supervise using frameworks designed primarily around national banking systems.

The ECA discussion specifically identified cross-border payments, regulatory pathways, interoperability and local-currency stablecoins as major areas requiring further coordination.

Regulators From Ghana, Uganda and Mauritius Joined the Discussion

The webinar brought together officials from three African jurisdictions currently taking different approaches to digital assets.

Uganda was represented by Denis Kizito, Director of Market Supervision at the Capital Markets Authority.

Ghana was represented by Tahiru Alhassan, Digital Assets Head at the Bank of Ghana.

Mauritius was represented by Visham Khoosy, Senior Analyst at the Financial Services Commission.

Industry participants included Yellow Card and Ripple, while researchers and policy specialists came from CGAP and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

The diversity of participants is significant because the three countries are at different stages of regulating crypto and stablecoins.

Mauritius has already issued dedicated stablecoin guidance.

Ghana is actively implementing a broader virtual-asset regulatory framework.

Uganda is still developing its approach to digital assets while participating in regional regulatory discussions.

The challenge is therefore not necessarily getting each country to adopt identical rules.

It is ensuring their rules can work together when money crosses borders.

Mauritius Has Already Issued Stablecoin Guidance

Mauritius provides one example of how national regulation is beginning to develop.

On August 13, the Financial Services Commission of Mauritius issued formal Guidance Notes on Stablecoins.

The move places Mauritius among the African jurisdictions developing specific regulatory expectations for stablecoin-related activity rather than treating stablecoins solely as another type of cryptocurrency.

Mauritius has spent years positioning itself as an international financial centre and fintech jurisdiction.

Stablecoins introduce new opportunities for payments and tokenised finance, but they also raise questions around reserves, redemption, liquidity, governance and financial stability.

Having national guidance is one step.

The harder question is what happens when a Mauritius-regulated stablecoin product is used by customers elsewhere in Africa.

That is where regional cooperation becomes relevant.

Ghana Is Moving Quickly on Virtual Assets

Ghana has also accelerated its digital-asset regulatory programme.

On August 21, the Bank of Ghana published its policy position on virtual assets and service providers, saying virtual assets can no longer remain outside the country’s financial regulatory framework. The central bank estimates that Ghana’s virtual-asset ecosystem now includes more than three million users.

The Bank of Ghana has also introduced mandatory registration for Virtual Asset Service Providers.

At the same time, Ghana’s Securities and Exchange Commission is testing different digital-asset businesses through its regulatory sandbox.

On August 19, the SEC published a full list of sandbox participants, including companies testing virtual-asset exchanges, tokenised securities, gold tokenisation, brokerage services and trading platforms.

The list includes:

• Yellow Card Ghana;
• WhiteBIT Ghana;
• Koinkoin Ghana;
• Ghana Commodities Exchange;
• Ghana Gold Board; and
• several local fintech and tokenisation companies.

The SEC says the sandbox is intended to provide regulatory data that will help validate and finalise Ghana’s activity-specific licensing and registration rules.

Ghana Has Also Warned Against Unauthorised Stablecoin Advertising

Regulators are not only creating pathways for legitimate businesses.

They are also beginning to police how crypto and stablecoin services are marketed.

The Bank of Ghana and Securities and Exchange Commission issued a joint warning on unauthorised advertising of virtual-asset and stablecoin products after noticing increased promotion of such products, including large billboards in Accra.

That shows how regulation is moving from broad policy discussions toward practical supervision.

Governments increasingly want to know:

• Who is selling the stablecoin product?
• Who is responsible if customers cannot redeem?
• Where are reserves held?
• Who monitors money-laundering risk?
• And which regulator has jurisdiction?

Those questions become harder when the same stablecoin is marketed and used across multiple African countries.

Ghana Has Created a Virtual Assets Coordinating Committee

The coordination challenge is also visible inside individual countries.

On August 27, Bank of Ghana Governor Johnson Pandit Asiama inaugurated Ghana’s Virtual Assets Coordinating Committee, bringing agencies together to coordinate implementation of the country’s virtual-asset framework. (bog.gov.gh)

That reflects a basic reality of digital-asset regulation:

one regulator often cannot handle everything.

Stablecoins can touch:

• central banking,
• securities regulation,
• payments,
• tax,
• cybersecurity,
• anti-money laundering,
• consumer protection,
• and foreign-exchange policy.

Coordination is therefore needed both within countries and between countries.

The Financial Stability Board Is Also Looking at Stablecoins in Africa

The ECA discussion is not happening in isolation.

In July, the Financial Stability Board’s Regional Consultative Group for Sub-Saharan Africa met in Mauritius.

Senior central-bank and regulatory officials discussed several issues, including global stablecoin arrangements and their implications for Sub-Saharan Africa, cross-border payments and broader financial vulnerabilities.

The meeting was co-chaired by South African Reserve Bank Governor Lesetja Kganyago and Bank of Zambia Governor Denny Kalyalya.

That is important because stablecoins are no longer being discussed only by crypto regulators.

Central banks increasingly view them as part of the broader financial-stability and payments conversation.

Why Central Banks Care About Dollar Stablecoins

Stablecoins can become especially sensitive in countries where people already prefer holding dollars over local currency.

Imagine a country where inflation is high or the local currency is depreciating.

People may decide to convert savings into USDT instead.

If that happens at small scale, it may have little impact.

At very large scale, however, dollar stablecoins could potentially compete with local bank deposits and local currencies.

That raises concerns around what economists sometimes call currency substitution.

Instead of keeping value in the domestic financial system, households and businesses may increasingly store funds in privately issued digital dollars.

For central banks, that can affect:

• monetary-policy transmission,
• foreign-exchange demand,
• bank deposits,
• capital flows,
• and the ability to monitor payments.
• These risks differ significantly between countries.

That is another reason regulators may coordinate principles without necessarily adopting identical restrictions.

Africa’s Fragmented Payment System Makes Stablecoins Attractive

The same features that concern regulators are also what make stablecoins useful.

Africa’s payments landscape remains highly fragmented.

The ECA noted that the continent continues to face high remittance costs and constraints in intra-African trade settlement, despite rapid improvements in digital finance.

Moving money from one African country to another can still involve multiple intermediaries.

A payment might travel from:

• a local bank,
• to an international correspondent bank,
• through a foreign currency,
• into another correspondent bank,
• and finally into the recipient’s local account.

Stablecoins can potentially simplify parts of that process.

A dollar-linked token can move around the clock without requiring each transaction to pass through the conventional correspondent-banking system.

For businesses, that can mean faster settlement.

For individuals, it can mean easier access to cross-border payments.

For regulators, however, it can also mean financial activity moving outside systems they traditionally supervise.

Local-Currency Stablecoins Are Part of the Debate Too

The discussion is not limited to dollar stablecoins.

The ECA event also explicitly addressed local-currency stablecoins.

That creates an interesting alternative.

Instead of Africans relying increasingly on digital dollars, countries could potentially support tokenised versions of their own currencies.

A cedi stablecoin, shilling stablecoin or rand-denominated token could theoretically offer blockchain settlement without encouraging dollarisation.

But local-currency stablecoins introduce their own questions.

Who issues them?

Are reserves held one-for-one?

Can users redeem instantly?

Are commercial banks allowed to issue them?

Are fintech companies allowed?

How would they interact with central-bank digital currencies?

And would people actually choose local-currency tokens when dollar stablecoins are already highly liquid?

Those are still open questions.

Stablecoin Regulation May Eventually Resemble Banking Regulation

As stablecoins become more widely used for payments, regulators increasingly treat them less like speculative tokens and more like financial infrastructure.

That could mean rules covering:

• reserve quality,
• segregation of customer assets,
• liquidity,
• redemption,
• audits,
• governance,
• operational resilience,
• cybersecurity,
• and anti-money-laundering controls.

In other words, issuing a stablecoin may eventually look less like launching a cryptocurrency and more like operating a specialised financial institution.

Mauritius’ move toward dedicated stablecoin guidance is an early indication of that direction.

Cross-Border Supervision Will Be One of the Hardest Problems

Even strong national rules cannot solve everything.

Suppose a stablecoin issuer is licensed in one country.

A crypto exchange in another country lists the token.

A business in a third country uses it to pay a supplier in a fourth.

Which regulator should act if something goes wrong?

What if the reserves are insufficient?

What if the issuer freezes funds?

What if the stablecoin is used for money laundering?

What if the exchange collapses?

This is where supervisory cooperation becomes important.

Regulators may need mechanisms to exchange information quickly and determine who is responsible for what.

That is why the ECA’s focus on regional alignment is more important than it might initially sound.

Regulation Could Also Determine Where Stablecoin Companies Set Up

Africa’s stablecoin industry is growing quickly.

Companies deciding where to establish headquarters, subsidiaries and payment infrastructure will increasingly compare regulatory regimes.

Countries with clear rules may attract more investment.

Countries with unclear or contradictory requirements may push activity offshore.

But there is another risk.

If one country introduces very weak requirements while neighbouring countries regulate stablecoins strictly, businesses could deliberately establish themselves in the easiest jurisdiction while serving customers across the region.

That is commonly known as regulatory arbitrage.

Regional cooperation can help reduce that incentive.

Countries do not necessarily need identical laws.

But companies should not be able to avoid meaningful oversight simply by moving one border away.