The GDF Global Stablecoin Regulatory Playbook, published in January 2026, set out shared terminology and outcome-based principles for stablecoin regulation across jurisdictions. The subsequent report ‘Global Stablecoin Regulatory Frameworks: Closing the Gap’ drawn from insights at the Point Zero Forum in June 2026 took this work a step further. It mapped where regulators already agree and isolated the one problem that domestic frameworks were never designed to solve: how a stablecoin issued under one jurisdiction's rules can circulate safely under another's.

The report framed two models for scaling beyond domestic rules. The first keeps issuance local while seeking to preserve a unified token, through multiple licensed entities issuing a fungible stablecoin under comparable standards. The second permits a foreign-issued stablecoin to operate through recognition based on comparable, rather than identical, regulatory outcomes. It also recorded differing regulatory perspectives on the perceived risk associated with multi-issuance, particularly correlated redemption pressure and the resilience of a stablecoin’s fungibility under stress.

The roundtable convenes policymakers, global standard-setters and industry leaders to examine how these models could operate in practice. When is multi-issuance necessary to meet host-jurisdiction objectives? When can unilateral or mutual recognition provide sufficient safeguards? Where a combination of the two is appropriate, how should responsibility for reserves, redemption, supervision and crisis management be allocated? The session will focus on the conditions needed to make each approach workable while preserving fungibility and avoiding unnecessary regulatory fragmentation.

Digital public infrastructure is scaling faster than the machinery meant to fix it when it fails. More than 36 countries have committed under the 50-in-5 campaign to design, implement and scale at least one DPI component by 2028, and in countries from Brazil to India, digital payments and digital ID already operate at population scale.

Volume brings problems: more transactions mean more errors, and society-scale systems create new attack surfaces. Instant interoperable payments mean the money is transferred within seconds, but once it leaves an account and reaches another, there is little that can be done. Transfer of funds could take place to the wrong person, through a mistake in the phone number that acts as the alias, or done under duress. The Global Anti-Scam Alliance found in 2025 that 57% of adults worldwide had experienced a scam and 23% lost money as a result. Yet redress has not kept pace. Of a number of DPI grievance mechanisms assessed recently, a minority met a minimum "liveness" threshold — a published policy with acknowledgment and resolution timeframes, an escalation path, at least two working complaint channels, and basic case-capture capacity.

That gap has consequences. Where liability for fraud is unassigned, harm falls between the cracks: the direct cause is an unknown malicious party, even though the system's speed and reach enabled the attack. And as DPIs start to link across borders, none of the existing mechanisms can follow a grievance from one jurisdiction to another.

This roundtable will explore the state of play for trust in DPI solutions, as well as emergent potential solutions being deployed around the world, and what trust frameworks for DPI will look like in the coming years, including the approaches for creating interoperable grievance redressal frameworks.

As money becomes programmable, across central bank digital currencies, tokenized deposits, and stablecoins, a real question is emerging about where compliance should live: embedded directly in the asset as a rule that travels with it, layered on top through richer messaging and real-time screening, or enforced separately by whichever party touches the transaction last.

Players are all building credible but different answers in parallel, and none has converged on how these should interoperate across jurisdictions with different compliance regimes. The stakes are rising on every front — real-time cross-border settlement, tokenized securities, and increasingly, autonomous agents initiating transactions on their own — all of which need a compliance check at the moment value moves, not after. What would each of these approaches to programmable compliance actually need to interoperate, and which rules win when they conflict across borders?

Discussion questions:

1\.         Should compliance logic live in the asset itself, in the messaging/settlement layer, or in a separate real-time screening service, and does the answer change depending on whether it's a CBDC, a tokenized deposit, or a stablecoin?

2\.         When a transaction crosses borders, whose compliance rule actually governs — sender's jurisdiction, receiver's, or the rail's — and what happens when they conflict?

3\.         Retrofitting compliance onto existing settlement infrastructure and building it in from scratch are both live strategies right now — what would each need to prove to become the default, and is convergence between them actually possible?

4\.         As more transactions — including those initiated by autonomous agents — require a compliance check the moment value moves, what are the minimum interoperability standards needed for rules to actually travel with money across rails?