Norwegian central bank DNB’s decision to pull out of a planned stablecoin initiative highlights increasing caution among European banks amid regulatory uncertainties and operational hurdles in the crypto space.
The Norwegian central bank along with the financial giant DNB recently announced that they’re pulling out of a planned European stablecoin project set for 2026, and they’re also putting their proposed cryptocurrency investment fund on hold, at least for now. This decision—well, it really underscores how uncertain things still are around stablecoins in Europe, especially when it comes to their maturity, regulatory clarity, and governance structures. And honestly, it’s a move with pretty big ripple effects for banks, investors, regulators, and policymakers alike.
So, what are stablecoins exactly? They’re digital assets designed to keep their value stable in relation to fiat currencies or a basket of assets. They play a pretty important role—as a bridge, really—between traditional finance and the fast-growing crypto scene. Now, given the wild swings and failures seen in some cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, EU regulators decided to roll out the Markets in Crypto-Assets (or MiCA). The aim? To set up a comprehensive regulatory framework for those issuing and offering crypto assets and services. But, even with this framework in place, there's still a lot of practical hurdles—things like cross-border supervision, reserve and liquidity requirements, and technical interoperability that haven’t been fully ironed out yet.
DNB’s decision to step back shows there are quite a few concerns, intertwined and complex. For one, the stablecoin market is still pretty young, and it doesn’t yet seem resilient enough to support widespread transaction use. There are real risks—liquidity stresses, vulnerabilities in smart contracts, systemic failures—that haven’t been solved. Secondly, even with MiCA’s existence, there are still grey areas when it comes to regulation: things like deposit protections, how reserves are supervised, and what legal forms are allowed. Plus, governance remains a huge question mark—what happens in a crisis? Who’s liable—the central bank? Commercial banks? Private issuers? These issues are still not clearly answered, and that uncertainty—that ambiguity—makes institutions cautious.
Adding to that, engaging early in the space could bring reputational and regulatory risks for banks. That’s part of why DNB is taking a cautious stance, I guess. In addition to withdrawing from the European stablecoin consortium, they also paused the launch of their own cryptocurrency fund, which was supposed to roll out quite soon. This pause isn’t just about holding back; it’s more a sign that they see real opportunities but are prioritising risk management given the regulatory fog and operational hurdles. Eivind Aukrust, the Head of Index Management, shared this internally, emphasizing that the fund’s timeline remains uncertain for now.
Now, this retreat from DNB isn’t just an isolated move—it also has some wider consequences for the market. For one, other financial institutions might follow suit, becoming more cautious. This could slow down private investment, which is vital for developing the infrastructure needed for stablecoins. Banks that want to offer products aligned with a common European framework might delay their launches until clearer supervisory guidelines and technical standards are established. The trouble is, if they hesitate too long, it could push consumers toward unregulated or decentralized options, making consumer protection more difficult and possibly increasing systemic risk. And while fintech companies with a higher risk appetite might try to step in temporarily, that brings its own set of risks, like defaults or scams.
Meanwhile, on the flip side, a group of nine major European banks—like ING, UniCredit, SEB, and CaixaBank—are still working together to get a euro-linked stablecoin off the ground, aiming for a launch that complies with MiCA by late 2026. The goal here? To strengthen Europe’s control over its payment systems, which are currently somewhat dominated by US stablecoins, and to boost integration across the eurozone. Interestingly enough, DNB isn’t part of this initiative, which highlights differences in timing and risk appetite among these institutions.
Looking ahead, a few different scenarios could unfold for Europe’s stablecoin scene and related crypto investment products. One possibility is what you might call an ‘wait and see’ approach—leading to market consolidation where stronger, well-capitalized players with solid governance models dominate, even if regulations are still catching up. Or perhaps regulatory standardization will drive banks to gradually get more involved in regulated stablecoin projects, often teaming up with established payment infrastructures. We might see a kind of dual market: one with carefully regulated, risk-mitigated stablecoins, and another with experimental tokens, possibly supported by faster-moving central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilots, either as alternatives or complements. But if European countries can’t agree or coordinate effectively, fragmentation could set in, creating regional silos that add to interoperability headaches and deepen competitive pressures.
So, what should everyone do to deal with all these challenges? Well, practical steps for banks include trying out modular solutions with transparent governance and solid risk management—you know, using regulatory sandboxes to test things out and strengthen resilience. Supervisors need to clarify rules—preferably in a way that’s neutral towards technology—about reserves, liquidity, and how to handle crises, while also coordinating across borders to prevent a patchwork of standards. Investors should demand regulated custodians, independent audits of reserves, clear exit strategies, and diverse risk approaches when choosing providers. Policymakers, meanwhile, should focus on setting standards for interoperability, investing in research around payment infrastructure, and building digital identity systems that support safe, efficient transactions.
Overall, DNB’s cautious retreat illustrates the ongoing balancing act faced by financial institutions and regulators alike: fostering innovation without risking systemic stability. It makes clear that, despite progress under frameworks like MiCA, Europe’s journey toward fully integrated, scalable, and trustworthy stablecoin ecosystems is still very much a work in progress. For everyone involved—market participants in particular—it calls for a measured approach that emphasizes compliance, transparency, and resilience. Only then can real consumer trust be built, paving the way for sustainable growth in digital finance.
📌 Reference Map:
- - Paragraph 1 – [1], [3], [4]
- - Paragraph 2 – [1], [4]
- - Paragraph 3 – [1], [3], [2], [7]
- - Paragraph 4 – [1], [3], [4]
- - Paragraph 5 – [1], [4]
- - Paragraph 6 – [1], [4]
- - Paragraph 7 – [1], [3], [5], [7]
- - Paragraph 8 – [1]
Source: Noah Wire Services
Verification / Sources
- https://bitcoin-faq.net/dnb-zieht-sich-vom-europaeischen-stablecoin-projekt-2026-zurueck/ - Please view link - unable to able to access data
- https://www.conflingo.com/news/2025-09-17/dnb-postpones-launch-of-cryptocurrency-investment-fund - DNB has decided to delay the introduction of its planned cryptocurrency investment fund, which was initially scheduled to launch on Friday. The decision was made following a comprehensive assessment, as communicated by Eivind Aukrust, Head of Index Management at DNB, in an email to BankShift. The timeline for the fund's potential launch remains uncertain.
- https://www.kaupr.io/en-us/news/dnb-not-participating-in-joint-euro-stablecoin-in-this-round - DNB has confirmed that, despite ongoing discussions with the promoters of the new Euro stablecoin consortium, it has chosen not to join this initial round. The bank will continue its dialogue with the banking consortium and is open to potential future participation, though it remains uncertain when or if DNB will join.
- https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/09/25/nine-european-banks-join-forces-to-issue-mica-compliant-euro-stablecoin/ - Nine major European banks, including ING, Banca Sella, KBC, Danske Bank, DekaBank, UniCredit, SEB, CaixaBank, and Raiffeisen Bank International, have formed a consortium to launch a euro-denominated stablecoin regulated under the EU's Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) framework. The stablecoin is expected to be issued in the second half of 2026, aiming to provide a European alternative to US-dominated stablecoins and enhance Europe's strategic autonomy in payments.
- https://www.kaupr.io/en-us/news/dnb-is-considering-launching-a-broad-crypto-fund-to-its-clients - DNB is internally discussing the possibility of launching a crypto fund, noting interest from customers seeking broad exposure to cryptocurrencies. Knut Hellandsvik, Head of Equity at DNB Asset Management, mentioned that the idea is to gain broad exposure, including through value chains, exchanges, and companies that own significant amounts of crypto. The bank is considering setting something up, similar to its approach with nuclear power.
- https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/19/nasdaq-pauses-plans-to-launch-crypto-custody-services-.html - Nasdaq has paused its plans to launch a crypto custody business, CEO Adena Friedman announced. The decision was made considering the shifting business and regulatory environment in the U.S. Despite the pause, Nasdaq continues to build and deliver technology capabilities that position it as a leading digital asset software solutions provider to the global industry.
- https://www.marketscreener.com/news/dnb-halts-plans-for-cryptocurrency-fund-ce7d58d8dc8bf125 - Norwegian bank DNB has put its plans for a new fund investing in the cryptocurrency market on hold. The fund was originally set to launch this Friday but has now been cancelled. Eivind Aukrust, Head of Index Management at DNB, stated that the decision was due to an overall assessment, as communicated in an email to BankShift. It remains unclear when or if the fund will be launched in the future.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We've since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score: 8
Notes: The narrative is recent, with the earliest known publication date being September 27, 2025. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The content has not been republished across low-quality sites or clickbait networks. No earlier versions show different figures, dates, or quotes. The article includes updated data but does not recycle older material.
Quotes check
Score: 10
Notes: No direct quotes are present in the narrative, indicating potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score: 4
Notes: The narrative originates from bitcoin-faq.net, a site that appears to be a personal blog or niche news outlet. This raises concerns about the reliability and credibility of the information presented. The site does not have a verifiable public presence or legitimate website, which could indicate potential fabrication.
Plausability check
Score: 7
Notes: The claims about DNB's withdrawal from the European stablecoin project and the postponement of its cryptocurrency investment fund are plausible and align with other reports from reputable sources. However, the lack of supporting detail from any other reputable outlet and the unusual tone and phrasing of the narrative raise concerns. The language and tone feel inconsistent with typical corporate or official language, which could be a distraction tactic.
Overall assessment
Veredict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary: The narrative presents plausible claims but originates from a questionable source with low reliability. The lack of supporting detail from reputable outlets and the unusual tone further diminish its credibility. Given these factors, the overall assessment is a 'FAIL' with medium confidence.