The double-edged mirror of stablecoins: a tool for livelihood or a channel for sanctions evasion?

【Blockchain Rhythm】 Recently, the turmoil in Iran and Venezuela has once again put stablecoins in the spotlight. This time, it’s not due to price fluctuations, but because these assets are increasingly appearing to be two-faced — saving people on one side and causing trouble on the other.

Let’s look at the positive side first. In countries like Iran, the local currency, the rial, has been depreciating for a long time. Coupled with sanctions and social unrest, ordinary citizens have long lost hope in traditional financial systems. USDT has become their last straw to fight inflation and preserve assets. Similar situations are unfolding in Venezuela. The local currency, the bolívar, has been devaluing steadily, and people no longer trust banks. Stablecoins have instead become a common tool for daily transactions — buying groceries, transferring money, and various small transactions.

But this is where the problem lies. Since 2020, Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA has been settling oil revenues heavily in USDT, with an estimated 80% of income processed through Tether. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent sanctions on settlement restrictions. Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs provides more straightforward data: the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is suspected of transferring over $1 billion in assets via stablecoins through a front company in the UK, aiming to bypass various judicial controls.

Regulators of course cannot sit still. The Iranian government issued a restriction on stablecoins last September — individuals can hold a maximum of $10,000, with annual purchases not exceeding $5,000. Coupled with Tether being blacklisted multiple times and the hacking incident at Iran’s largest exchange in 2025, the promotion of stablecoins in the region has faced setbacks.

The current contradiction is so sharp: in the hands of impoverished civilians, stablecoins are a lifeline; in the hands of illegal entities, they become a money laundering channel. How should regulators handle this? Do nothing, and the sanctions framework becomes ineffective; clamp down too hard, and they risk harming ordinary people who genuinely need stablecoins. This contradiction is unlikely to be resolved in the short term and is expected to remain a core issue in the global regulatory and crypto market battles through 2026.