On April 17, 2026, French Finance Minister Roland Lescure publicly expressed support for on-chain tokens pegged to the euro and tokenized deposits, specifically endorsing the Qivalis Alliance formed by 12 European banks and its plan to launch an euro-pegged token later in the second half of 2026. This statement contrasts sharply with France's long-standing tough and conservative stance towards privately issued euro-pegged tokens. Lescure bluntly stated that the current size of euro-pegged tokens is "far smaller than dollar products and is unsatisfactory," reflecting anxiety over the dollar's comprehensive leadership in on-chain finance. France's shift from "firm defense" to "conditional release" puts euro sovereignty and on-chain innovation on the same table, raising the real question: can the eurozone find a middle ground that safeguards monetary sovereignty while catching up with on-chain financial infrastructure without losing control?

From Blockade to Release: A Major Shift in Paris's Attitude

Before Lescure took over, French fiscal policy was long shaped by former Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, who consistently resisted privately issued euro-pegged tokens, with core concerns focused on one issue: the "privatization" and "platformization" of monetary credit from the state and central bank system. This echoed the consistent warnings from the French central bank — Paris has long emphasized the systemic risks of “monetary privatization,” arguing that allowing tech companies or large platforms to control payment and settlement entry points would undermine the central bank's last line of defense in monetary and financial stability.

Along this line, France's regulatory thinking has leaned towards "prevention before experimentation": Prior to the implementation of frameworks like MiCA, the priority was to suppress the expansion of euro-pegged tokens with high thresholds and a cautious attitude, focusing attention on central bank digital currency and strictly regulated pilot projects. In contrast, Lescure's public support for euro-pegged tokens and tokenized deposits, along with backing the bank-led Qivalis Alliance, clearly shifts the rhetoric from "preventing the spread of private tokens" to "bringing the euro onto the chain within a controllable framework."

This shift is not a complete break but rather rewrites the original narrative of "opposing monetary privatization" to “opposing non-regulated entities monopolizing monetary functions.” The underlying motivation is clear: on one hand, the euro's international status has been under continuous pressure in recent years, while the dollar’s advantages in both traditional finance and on-chain finance have been solidified; on the other hand, dollar-pegged tokens have already established a de facto settlement standard across multiple public chains, and if France continues to insist on "blocking," it amounts to handing over the next generation of financial infrastructure to transatlantic competitors.

The Euro's Diminishing On-Chain Landscape Compared to the Dollar

Lescure's remark that "the current scale of euro-pegged tokens is far smaller than dollar products and is unsatisfactory" brings to light the euro's vulnerable position in the landscape of on-chain assets. Even without citing precise market value data, any participant familiar with the on-chain ecosystem can feel that, whether on Ethereum or other mainstream public chains, mainstream tokens pegged to the dollar have become the main characters in trading pairs, collateral, and cross-chain liquidity, while products pegged to the euro are much more marginal.

For readers, it is immediately evident when comparing asset lists commonly seen on exchanges and DeFi protocols: most of the depth and liquidity is built around dollar-denominated top-tier tokens, while euro-related tokens often remain in a "limited presence" long tail range. This is not only a question of scale but also directly reflects a lack of usage scenarios and network effects — key modules such as settlement, lending, yield aggregation, and cross-chain bridging are rarely designed with the euro as a standard unit.

When the euro's share in on-chain settlement is persistently low, it actually indicates two layers of concern: first, the weakening of the discourse power in settlement and pricing, making enterprises and institutions increasingly accustomed to configuring and managing risks around dollar assets during cross-border and cross-chain capital flows; second, the rising risk of outsourcing financial infrastructure — the “underlying routing” of on-chain clearing, collateral, and payments is increasingly controlled within the domain that dollar assets and the US regulatory framework can influence. Lescure's complaints about the scale imbalance are rooted in this latent anxiety of “missing the next generation of financial infrastructure entry”: if the euro remains absent in the new technological stack for too long, even if it tries to catch up in the future, it can only passively integrate into frameworks established by others.

The Qivalis Alliance Emerges: An Euro Experiment Starting from Banks

Against this backdrop, the Qivalis Alliance that Lescure chose to support is a collaborative group composed of several European banks (according to a single source), planning to launch an on-chain euro-pegged token product in the second half of 2026 (according to a single source). Although current public information has not disclosed the alliance's specific operational mechanics and technical details, the basic outline of “bank alliance + euro-pegged tokens” already reveals regulatory intentions: to let traditional regulated entities hold the entry point, while advancing on-chain settlement experiments within a controllable radius.

Why adopt a bank-led alliance model? On one hand, this can facilitate risk sharing and responsibility clarification within the framework of “existing licenses + prudent regulation,” allowing regulators to deal with familiar entities rather than anonymous development teams or cross-border tech platforms; on the other hand, collaboration among multiple banks also leaves room for future interconnected interfaces in cross-border clearing, inter-institutional liquidity pools, and compliant custody, effectively outlining a regulatory enclave for euro on-chain finance.

The boundary and collaborative space between bank-related euro-pegged tokens and traditional deposits or tokenized deposits will be the most noteworthy design point moving forward. One possible path is: traditional deposits remain within the bank's balance sheet, while tokenized deposits circulate on-chain as a technical extension, with euro-pegged tokens existing in broader public scenarios as a medium of settlement. The penetrative compliance, redemption mechanisms, and liquidity management among the three will determine whether the alliance's products can be both regulatory compliant and genuinely utilized in the market.

Monetary Sovereignty and Innovation Race: The Regulatory Middle Path

In terms of rhetoric, the French regulatory authority now has to hold two bowls of water simultaneously: on one hand, it continues to emphasize "opposing monetary privatization," while on the other hand, it is now also encouraging innovation in euro-pegged tokens and tokenized deposits, which has been added to the new script. How to place these two seemingly contradictory narratives on the same table? The answer is to rewrite the question from "should there be private tokens" to "who is qualified to issue them and within what boundaries can they be used."

This corresponds to a typical “enclosure innovation” approach: in institutional design, only regulated banks and compliant financial institutions are encouraged or prioritized to issue euro-pegged tokens, locking technological innovation within the license system. This emphasizes monetary sovereignty once again — monetary functions cannot be eroded by unregulated entities — and also provides limited recognition of on-chain innovation — allowing the exploration of new clearing and payment technology stacks within a compliant “fenced” environment.

The problem is whether this compromise path can achieve both goals: stopping tech giants from monopolizing future settlement entry points using user scale and technological capabilities while not offering unregulated gray projects a space for arbitrage. Overly narrow experimental grounds may produce “visible but unusable” bank-based tokens that find it difficult to connect with the already highly modular and open DeFi ecosystem; overly wide openings could lead to regulators being left to play catch-up, repeating the mistakes of early internet platforms.

Once core member states like France choose to soften their stance or even turn supportive, the pressure for synergy on digital currency policy from other eurozone member states and the European Central Bank will also escalate. Whether it’s prudent recognition of projects like Qivalis or promoting unified rules for tokenized deposits and euro integration at the EU level, will be forced to accelerate due to Paris's shifting direction. For the eurozone, the real competition is not just with domestic fintech companies but also with the layouts that the dollar has already accomplished in the on-chain world.

Opportunities and Traps for Crypto Market Players

From the perspective of the crypto market, if compliant euro-pegged tokens begin to scale up in the future, it could indeed bring a wave of structural increments for exchanges, DeFi, and on-chain payments. Exchanges can expand more spot and derivative trading pairs priced in euros, reducing exchange rate friction for European users; DeFi protocols will have the opportunity to introduce euro assets in lending, yield aggregation, and stable return products, providing new combinations for institutions with varying risk preferences; while on-chain payments and cross-border salary settlement scenarios can explore stable circulation “in euros” within a compliant framework.

However, at the same time, if the "bank-backed euro token" successfully lands and receives policy support, it is likely to compress the living space and risk premium of existing non-bank issued products. On one hand, the credit and compliance attributes of licensed banks will naturally steer institutional users towards alliance products; on the other hand, regulators will also have stronger motivations to gradually direct liquidity to “visible pockets” through capital requirements and usage scenario restrictions. For early euro-pegged products that have grown up in gray areas, this represents both competitive pressure and a potential signal for compliance withdrawal.

A more realistic constraint comes from regulatory uncertainty: whether it concerns product forms, underlying asset composition, or on-chain usage boundaries, and cross-border compliance connection details, clarity is still far from being achieved. In such a phase, market participants find it difficult to simply "mindlessly go long on euro assets," with a more reasonable strategy being to observe the rhythm and direction of rule implementation and then evaluate which tracks (such as compliant custody, compliant bridging, and on-chain KYC infrastructure) truly benefit.

In the medium to long term, moving the euro on-chain can essentially be viewed as a general direction: as long as the euro remains one of the major global reserve and settlement currencies, it cannot long afford to be absent from new financial technology stacks. However, this does not mean that all participants will equally share the dividends; the likelihood of winning will mostly concentrate in compliant institutions and builders of cross-border clearing infrastructures. For entrepreneurs and investors, what is really worth betting on may be the new layer of services and tools built around "compliant euro liquidity," rather than merely focusing on any specific token.

The Euro On-Chain Gamble: Slow Step or Slow Beat

Returning to France itself, this shift from a resolute defense to a choice to release euro-pegged tokens within a controllable framework marks a clear strategic turning point. In the past few years, Paris has sought to curb the development space of private tokens using “monetary privatization” risks; now it instead supports bank alliances and tokenized deposits, placing the question of “who issues and who regulates” at the center, trying to balance risk prevention and opportunity capture.

However, a horizontal comparison reveals gaps: the dollar side has already established a preemptive advantage in the realms of on-chain settlement and dollar-pegged tokens, forming a fully operational on-chain dollar system from public chain infrastructure to compliant channels, from institutional access to derivative ecosystems. The euro, as of now, is only beginning to tentatively advance through projects like Qivalis, with both its start time and ecosystem maturity clearly lagging.

Moving forward, the key variable determining whether the euro can halt its decline and rebound primarily depends on the speed of rule coordination at the EU level — MiCA is just the first step; the more granular rules for tokenized deposits, the standards for the cross-border use of bank-based tokens, and the interface design with central bank digital currencies will truly test the collaboration between politics and technology. Secondly, it will depend on whether bank-based products are willing and able to open interfaces to real on-chain demands rather than remaining within closed experimental zones "self-circulating."

For investors and entrepreneurs, this undoubtedly signals a re-entry into the digital finance landscape in the eurozone, also indicating that new regulatory and infrastructure dividends are brewing. However, we are still quite far from the time when one can be "mindlessly optimistic": what the euro needs to reclaim is not only the technological gap but also the discourse power and network effects that the dollar has preemptively secured. What is truly worth pursuing is to observe the boundaries and direction drawn by regulators during this window period where rules have not yet fully taken shape, finding business and technological paths that can balance compliance and extensibility in the cracks of the system.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。