The stablecoin question that's changed
Most early due diligence checklists treated stablecoins as a single category. That assumption no longer works. Today the market has distinct flavors — fiat-backed, crypto-collateralized, and algorithmic or hybrid models — each with very different risk profiles. Regulators in the EU under MiCA and in the US via state-level frameworks now enforce reserve transparency and redemption guarantees. An advisor who doesn't understand which type a client’s portfolio holds and how it’s regulated is flying blind.
" Danish: "Stablecoin-spørgsmålet, der har ændret sig
De fleste tidlige due diligence-tjeklister behandlede stablecoins som en enkelt kategori. Den antagelse holder ikke længere. I dag har markedet forskellige varianter — fiat-støttede, krypto-sikrede og algoritmiske eller hybride modeller — hver med meget forskellige risikoprofiler. Regulatorer i EU under MiCA og i USA via statslige rammer håndhæver nu reservegennemsigtighed og indløsningsgarantier. En rådgiver, der ikke forstår, hvilken type en kundes portefølje indeholder, og hvordan den er reguleret, flyver i blinde.
" Note: "stablecoins" is same, "due diligence-tjeklister" hyphenated, "fiat-støttede" for fiat-backed, "krypto-sikrede" for crypto-collateralized, "reservegennemsigtighed" for reserve transparency, "indløsningsgarantier" for redemption guarantees. Third paragraph: "What shifting regulation means for the checklist
The regulatory environment has moved from ‘wait and see’ to ‘active enforcement and licensing’. Custody rules, travel rule compliance, and staking disclosures are now standard in many jurisdictions. The old due diligence question 'Is this exchange licensed?' is too blunt. The sharper version is 'What specific licenses does the exchange hold in the jurisdictions where the client operates?' The same goes for token classification — an asset that passes the Howey test in one country might be a commodity or a currency elsewhere. Advisors need to match the legal status to the client’s domicile.
" Danish: "Hvad den skiftende regulering betyder for tjeklisten
Det regulatoriske miljø er gået fra 'vent og se' til 'aktiv håndhævelse og licensering'. Opbevaringsregler, overholdelse af travel rule og staking-oplysninger er nu standard i mange jurisdiktioner. Det gamle due diligence-spørgsmål 'Er dette børs licenseret?' er for groft. Den skarpere version er 'Hvilke specifikke licenser har børsen i de jurisdiktioner, hvor kunden opererer?' Det samme gælder for token-klassificering — et aktiv, der består Howey-testen i ét land, kan være en vare eller en valuta et andet sted. Rådgivere skal matche den juridiske status med kundens bopælsland.
" Note: "Opbevaringsregler" for custody rules, but maybe "forvaringsregler" is more common? "Custody" in Danish is often "forvaring" or "depot". Let's use "Forvaringsregler". Also "travel rule" is a specific term, keep as "travel rule" in quotes? Better to translate: "rejseregel" or keep English? In Danish crypto context, "travel rule" is often used as is. I'll keep "travel rule" but add a Danish phrase? Actually the instruction says use appropriate Danish terminology. Since "travel rule" is a known term, I'll write 'travel rule' in quotes. "staking-oplysninger" for staking disclosures. "Består Howey-testen" for passes the Howey test. "Vare eller valuta" for commodity or currency. "Bopælsland" for domicile. Fourth paragraph: "AI infrastructure — not just a buzzword
AI is showing up in transaction monitoring, automated compliance, smart contract auditing, and even yield optimization strategies. For an advisor, the due diligence question isn't whether a project uses AI. It's whether the AI is auditable, how biased its training data might be, and what happens when the model makes a bad decision. Some platforms are now built around AI agents that execute trades or rebalance portfolios. The old “who runs the company” check isn't enough when a machine is making allocation calls.
" Danish: "AI-infrastruktur — ikke bare et buzzword
AI dukker op i transaktionsovervågning, automatiseret compliance, smart contract-auditering og endda yield-optimeringsstrategier. For en rådgiver er due diligence-spørgsmålet ikke, om et projekt bruger AI. Det er, om AI'en er reviderbar, hvor forudindtaget dens træningsdata kan være, og hvad der sker, når modellen træffer en dårlig beslutning. Nogle platforme er nu bygget omkring AI-agenter, der udfører handler eller rebalancerer porteføljer. Det gamle 'hvem driver virksomheden'-tjek er ikke nok, når en maskine træffer allokeringsbeslutninger.
" Note: "transaktionsovervågning", "automatiseret compliance", "smart contract-auditering" (maybe "auditering" or "revision"? "Auditering" is fine). "yield-optimeringsstrategier" for yield optimization. "reviderbar" for auditable. "forudindtaget" for biased. "træningsdata" for training data. "AI-agenter" for AI agents. "allokeringsbeslutninger" for allocation calls. Fifth paragraph: "Three questions to add now
First: 'How does the product's custody handle stablecoin-specific risks like depegs or redemption delays?' Second: 'Which regulators oversee the particular activities we're using — trading, lending, staking — and what's the latest enforcement trend in each?' Third: 'If the service relies on AI, is the model open to third-party audit and what governance covers its decisions?' These aren't exhaustive, but they fill the holes the market’s maturity has opened.
" Danish: "Tre spørgsmål, du bør tilføje nu
For det første: 'Hvordan håndterer produktets forvaring stablecoin-specifikke risici som depegs eller indløsningsforsinkelser?' For det andet: 'Hvilke regulatorer fører tilsyn med de specifikke aktiviteter, vi bruger — handel, udlån, staking — og hvad er den seneste håndhævelsestendens for hver?' For det tredje: 'Hvis tjenesten er afhængig af AI, er modellen åben for tredj
