Fiat access, relative pricing, and quote-market recovery
This paper analyzes Binance.US's 2023–2025 fiat access interruption and recovery, finding that while restoring bank rails and adjusting relative pricing (specifically selective fee advantages) partially revived USD trading, the platform's USD market share never recovered to pre-interruption levels as traders remained heavily anchored to USDT-quoted venues.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the world of digital finance, money exists in two distinct forms that often look identical but behave very differently. One form is the traditional dollar, which lives in bank accounts and moves through the established banking system, much like a physical bill passing from hand to hand. The other is a "stablecoin," a digital token designed to hold a steady value equal to one dollar but which travels over computer networks called blockchains. For people trading cryptocurrencies, these two options serve as the primary way to buy and sell digital assets. The choice between them is not just about the currency itself, but about the path the money takes: the bank route offers direct access to real-world banking, while the blockchain route offers speed and the ability to move funds instantly between different trading platforms without needing a bank's permission. Understanding how traders choose between these two paths is crucial because it reveals how trust, convenience, and cost shape the flow of money in a rapidly changing financial landscape.
Researchers set out to understand what happens when a major trading platform loses access to the traditional banking route and then tries to get it back. The story centers on Binance.US, a large cryptocurrency exchange that, in June 2023, suddenly lost its connection to the US banking system. This event cut off the ability for customers to deposit or withdraw dollars directly from their bank accounts. In the weeks that followed, the platform was forced to rely almost entirely on the digital token version of the dollar, known as USDT, for trading. The researchers watched closely as the platform eventually began to rebuild its banking connections in stages, starting in early 2025. They wanted to see if simply opening the bank door again would cause traders to return to using dollars, or if the habits formed during the disruption would stick. They also examined how the platform changed its fees—essentially the price of doing business—to see if lowering costs could win back the lost customers.
The findings reveal that simply making a service available again does not guarantee that people will use it the way they did before. When the banking connection was first severed, the share of trading done in dollars dropped sharply, even before the platform completely removed the dollar trading options. As the platform slowly restored its banking services over the next two years, the dollar trading share did increase, but it remained far below its original levels. The researchers found that the most significant recovery in dollar usage did not happen when the banking access was fully restored, but rather when the platform introduced a specific fee advantage for dollar trades. For a period in late 2025, the platform charged zero fees for certain dollar trading pairs, while the digital token pairs still carried a small cost. During this time, the share of trading done in dollars jumped significantly, suggesting that price is a powerful driver of behavior. However, once the platform lowered fees for all trading pairs, not just the dollar ones, that advantage disappeared, and the dollar share slipped back down.
This study highlights a critical distinction between having a choice and actually using it. By the end of the observation period, the dollar trading books were open and active every day, yet the total amount of money moving through them was only a tiny fraction of what it had been before the banking disruption. The platform had successfully restored the option to trade in dollars, but the market itself had changed. Traders had shifted their activity to the digital token, which offered a different kind of convenience, and they did not fully return even when the original option was back on the table. The researchers conclude that for financial services, the recovery of a market is not just about fixing the broken pipes; it is about whether the price and convenience of the restored service can compete with the alternatives that emerged in its absence. The data shows that while availability is necessary, it is not sufficient to restore a market to its former size or composition.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.