No, and that's exactly my point. The
opposite problem is something the Fed is concerned about!
Matt Levine wrote a great article explaining how stablecoins could actually be too safe, and that concerns the Fed, possibly to the point of action [0]:
> A less obvious risk of stablecoins is that they might be too stable. A stablecoin is, among other things, a substitute for putting money in a bank. Banks are generally very safe places to put money, but they are not perfectly safe. There can be runs on banks; banks can fail. For most U.S. retail bank accounts this is not a very salient problem, since they are backed by government deposit insurance, but many large institutional pools of money (corporate cash accounts, money-market funds, etc.) park their money in short-term bank instruments and are sensitive to risk. If a bank gets riskier, it will lose deposits. And if a stablecoin is so stable that it is safer than a bank, then banks generally will lose deposits.
> Why is this a risk? Well, banks do useful stuff. Classically, they take people’s deposits and lend them out to other people to start businesses and buy homes. The provision of credit by banks helps the economy grow. More to the point, the withdrawal of credit by banks hurts the economy, and the risk here is wrong-way. If people get nervous about banks and pull out all their money to put it in safer stablecoins, then (1) that will probably happen at a time when the economy is shaky and (2) that will definitely make the economy shakier. The bulk of the response to the 2008 financial crisis involved preventing runs on banks, because those would have made all of the problems of the crisis much worse.
The critics are asking for something that's a little ridiculous and not in line with a) how banking works or b) accurate according to what the definitions of "attestation" and "audit" means in accounting.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/hedge-...