A weak dollar is a systemic risk for non-key currency economies Losses hit reserves, balance sheets, and trade through dollar pricing Diversify reserves, match contract and debt currencies, and build hedging
One fact stands out.
Deepfake NIL licensing will surge as content costs collapse Schools must use contracts and authenticity tech to protect communities Provenance and consent rebuild trust when faces become licensable assets
Only three in ten UK adults say they feel confident in spotting whether AI made an image, voice clip, or video. This finding from the country's communications regulator highlights a critical gap in public life: the difference between what we see and what we can trust. Meanwhile, the influencer market is projected to reach about $32.6 billion in 2025, with content volume growing and production costs decreasing. Put these two facts together, and a simple truth appears. Deepfake NIL licensing—the paid use of a person’s name, image, and likeness through synthetic media—will grow faster than our defenses unless schools, universities, and education ministries take action. This issue goes beyond celebrity appearances. It affects students, teachers, and institutions that now compete for attention like brands and creators do. Classrooms have become studios, and authenticity is now part of the curriculum.
The reason for this change is technological. In 2025, OpenAI released Sora 2, a model that generates hyper-realistic video with synchronized audio and precise control. OpenAI’s launch materials highlight improved physical realism. Major tech outlets report that typical consumer outputs run for tens of seconds per clip. The app now includes social features designed for quick remixing and cameo-style participation. In short, anyone can create convincing short videos at scale using someone else’s licensed (or unlicensed) face and voice. When credible tools drop the cost of production to near zero, licensing becomes the business model. The market will follow the path of least resistance: pay creators or their agents a fee for permissioned “digital doubles” and then mass-produce content featuring them. This shift is already visible in pilot platforms that let users record a brief head movement and voice sample for cameo use, complete with revocable permissions and embedded watermarks. However, those marks don’t always hold up against determined adversaries.
Policy is progressing, but not quickly enough. The EU’s AI Act mandates that AI-generated or AI-modified media—deepfakes—must be clearly labeled. YouTube now requires creators to disclose realistic synthetic media. Meta and TikTok have introduced labeling and, importantly, support for Content Credentials (the C2PA provenance standard) to ensure that authentic data travels with files across platforms. However, these disclosures rely on adoption, which is inconsistent. Recent studies indicate that fewer than half of creators use adequate watermarking, and deepfake labeling remains uncommon across the ecosystem. This gap—in rules, enforcement, and infrastructure—provides an opportunity for deepfake NIL licensing to thrive in gray areas. At the same time, misuse spreads through the same channels.
The economics are compelling. Goldman Sachs estimates that the broader creator economy could reach $480 billion by 2027. Influencer marketing alone has jumped from $24 billion in 2024 to an estimated $32.55 billion in 2025. As volume increases, brands will treat faces as licensable assets rather than items to juggle. Unions have noticed this trend. The SAG-AFTRA agreements for 2024–2025 set minimum standards for consent, compensation, and control over digital replicas—including voice—creating a framework that education and youth sports can follow. However, the same time period also revealed how fragile these safeguards can be. Investigations and watchdogs have reported extensive non-consensual deepfake pornography, rising synthetic-fraud rates, and the ease with which realistic fakes can bypass naive checks. Deepfake NIL licensing will flourish in this environment.
Education currently sits at a crossroads where NIL, influence, and duty of care intersect. In US college sports, a court-supervised settlement now allows schools to share up to $20.5 million each year directly with athletes for NIL starting in the 2025–26 season. At the same time, the collegiate NIL market itself is often valued at around $1.5 billion, while the broader influencer economy that students engage with is much larger. Many students are already micro-influencers, and many departments now function like media shops. In this climate, deepfake NIL licensing becomes a campus issue because licensing—and mis-licensing—can occur on school accounts, in team agreements, and within courses that require students to create and publish. The ethical guidelines on campus must keep up with the financial realities.
The risk profile is real. Channel 4 News, covered by The Guardian, reported that nearly 4,000 celebrities had been targeted by deepfake porn, which received hundreds of millions of views over just a few months. Teen creators and student-athletes face the same tools and risks, often without protection. Regulators and platforms stress labeling and disclosure, but confidence remains low: only 30% of UK adults feel they can judge whether media was AI-generated. At the same time, surveys in the US show that large majorities want labels because they cannot trust their ability to detect such content. Schools cannot pass this responsibility to platforms. Athletic departments, communications offices, and student services need consent processes, model releases that clearly cover digital doubles, and default provenance tagging on official outputs. This is necessary to protect students who license their likeness as well as those who never intended to do so.
Rules are essential, but infrastructure is crucial. The C2PA “Content Credentials” standard provides media files with a verifiable provenance trail. Major platforms and manufacturers have begun to adopt it, from TikTok’s automatic labeling of credentialed content to camera makers that include credentials in their devices. The Content Authenticity Initiative reports thousands of organizations are now involved. This is significant for education because provenance can be integrated into workflows: a journalism school, a design program, or a district communications team can require Content Credentials during creation and maintain them through editing and publishing. It is not a complete solution; it is a safety measure. Where labels are present, trust can grow. Where they are absent, disclosure rules become optional.
Yet adoption is inconsistent. A 2025 study found that only about 38% of popular image generators use adequate watermarking, and only about 18% employ meaningful deepfake labeling. Meanwhile, platform policies remain fluid. Meta announced labeling in early 2024 and later adjusted its placement and scope. YouTube’s disclosure requirement is now active, and TikTok has expanded auto-labels for media with credentials. Schools should treat these as baselines rather than guarantees. The transparency provisions in the EU AI Act offer a stronger framework and will influence global practices, but institutions cannot wait for uniform enforcement to arrive.
Start with contracts instead of code. Every school involved with student media or athletics should update release forms to include explicit consent, scope, duration, revocation, and compensation for digital replicas, following the principles of transparency, consent, compensation, and control present in recent SAG-AFTRA deals. The form must address voice clones, face swaps, and synthetic narration and specify whether training uses are permitted. For minors, obtain consent from a parent or guardian. For international programs, align forms with the EU AI Act’s disclosure requirements to prevent cross-border confusion. Then support the paperwork with technology: require Content Credentials on all official outputs, enable automatic credential preservation in editing tools, and keep a registry of authorized digital doubles so staff can verify if a “cameo” is licensed.
The curriculum also needs an upgrade. Media and information literacy should make checking provenance and identifying platform-specific labels standard practices. UNESCO warns that two-thirds of creators do not systematically fact-check before posting; PISA materials show how weak digital practices impact learning. Teach students how to interpret a Content Credentials panel, how to disclose synthetic edits, and how to file a takedown when a deepfake targets them. Develop lab exercises around real platform policies on YouTube, Meta, and TikTok. Teach detection skills, but do not base trust solely on visual judgment. The evidence is clear: the public’s ability to identify AI is limited, and in some scenarios, negligible. Trust should come from reliable processes rather than guesswork. Deepfake NIL licensing will hinge on how consent is gathered, how provenance is maintained, and how misuse is managed before it becomes a significant issue.
The existing gap remains a significant concern. Only 30% of adults feel confident identifying AI-generated media, even as the creator and influencer economies fuel the content boom. This serves as the backdrop for deepfake NIL licensing—a system that will monetize faces on a large scale, reward permissioned clones, and entice bad actors to bypass consent. Education cannot remain on the sidelines. It is the place where young creators learn the rules of the attention economy. It is where student-athletes negotiate NIL for the first time. It is where public trust in knowledge is either rebuilt or lost. The call to action is clear: align releases with the realities of digital replicas, require provenance by default, teach disclosure and verification as essential skills, and prepare for the day a viral fake targets your institution. If we do this, schools will not just keep pace with the platforms. They will set the standard for a public space where licensing a face is straightforward—but earning trust remains the goal.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Swiss Institute of Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) or its affiliates.
Adobe. (2024). Authenticity in the age of AI: Growing momentum for Content Credentials across social media platforms and AI companies.
Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). (2025). C2PA technical specification v2.2.
Content Authenticity Initiative. (2025). 5,000 members: Building momentum for a more trustworthy digital world.
European Parliament. (2025, Feb. 19). EU AI Act: First regulation on artificial intelligence.
Freshfields. (2024, Jun. 25). EU AI Act unpacked #8: New rules on deepfakes.
Goldman Sachs. (2023, Apr. 19). The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027.
Influencer Marketing Hub. (2025, Apr. 25). Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report 2025.
Meta. (2024, Feb. 6). Labeling AI-generated images on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Ofcom. (2024, Nov. 27). Four in ten UK adults encounter misinformation; only 30% confident judging AI-generated media.
OpenAI. (2025, Sept. 30). Sora 2 is here.
OpenAI. (2025, Feb. 15). Sora: Creating video from text.
Opendorse. (2025, Jul. 1). NIL at Four: Monetizing the new reality.
Reuters. (2025, Jul. 10). Industry video-game actors pass agreement with studios for AI security.
SAG-AFTRA. (2024–2025). Artificial Intelligence: Contract provisions and member guidance.
The Guardian. (2024, Mar. 21). Nearly 4,000 celebrities found to be victims of deepfake pornography.
TikTok Newsroom. (2024, May 9). Partnering with our industry to advance AI transparency and literacy. https://newsroom.tiktok.com.
YouTube Help. (2024). Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content.
Zhao, A., et al. (2025, Oct. 8). Adoption of watermarking for generative AI systems in the wild. arXiv.
Undersea cable security is now core education infrastructure in Southeast Asia Taiwan’s 2025 cable disruptions show how gray-zone incidents can cut classes, exams, and research ASEAN must build redundancy and protect its seabed links
Stories stick differently: meaning-first vs.
Importers paid first; households pay next Diversified supply chains raise prices and cut choice Use narrow, time-bound tariffs with pro-trade fixes to limit welfare loss
There is one statistic that s
The EU can afford to wait, but China cannot German auto troubles have hardened Europe’s stance Europe now builds leverage through new trade routes and partners
In 2024, the European Union ran a €304.5 billion goods deficit w
U.S.
Export controls can accelerate innovation by forcing substitution China’s AI stack shows rapid adaptation under GPU limits Education must train for constraints, secure compute, and resilient supply chains
Stablecoin banking—not lending apps—now drives the real contest over payment infrastructure Stablecoins move trillions monthly as regulation and instant domestic rails converge Universities should pilot cross-border stablecoin payments and teach the operational playbook
The most critical number in finance that barely makes the evening news is this: in 2025, dollar-pegged stablecoins moved more than $2 trillion per month on public blockchains, with peaks near $4 trillion. That flow is not the same as card purchase volume, and it isn’t all consumer spending. However, it sends a clear signal that value is already moving to new settlement systems globally. The old debate about whether fintech lenders would replace banks missed the mark. The real competition is about settlement infrastructure, and here things have changed. Banks are not being overwhelmed by lending apps. They are adopting the best fintech ideas, modernizing their systems, and connecting to instant networks. Meanwhile, stablecoin banking, which consists of regulated digital dollars with bank-level controls, has emerged as the fastest-growing neutral layer for transferring money across borders and platforms. The question now is not about disruption versus defense. It is whether policy will urgently shape this new structure to benefit learners, institutions, and the broader economy.
Over the past two years, traditional banks have learned to follow the fintech playbook where it counts: speed, data portability, and embedded finance. Fintech continues to grow, but in specific areas. A 2025 global review estimates that fintechs have captured only about 3% of banking and insurance revenues, even as larger players report substantial profits and 21% revenue growth in 2024. Traditional banks hold the upper hand in funding and distribution; fintechs succeed where banks have been slow, uncompetitive, or restricted. Lending platforms now provide assets to private credit funds, bank treasuries handle real-time payments facilitated by instant networks, and payment networks are experimenting with on-chain settlement. The story is no longer “banks versus fintech,” but a race to build a unified system where regulated deposits, instant networks that enable real-time transactions, and tokenized dollars work together.
If lending was the first act, settlement is the next. Consider three facts. First, fintech lending remains small compared to the broader system: about $500 billion in outstanding fintech-originated loans globally, versus $18 trillion in U.S. household debt alone. Second, banks have developed instant payment systems: The Clearing House’s RTP network processed $481 billion in Q2 2025, and the FedNow Service reported over 1,300 participating institutions as of April 2025, with growth continuing through mid-year. Third, the market cap of stablecoins reached a record of around $252 billion in June 2025 as lawmakers began advancing specific regulations. The pattern is clear. Banks maintain their balance sheets and regulatory perimeter, fintechs expand into new areas, and stablecoins and tokenized deposits begin to weave the middle, acting as programmable settlement assets that are accessible across platforms and time zones.
Mainstream payment networks are also normalizing these systems. Visa now supports stablecoin settlements using USDC and continues to expand its support for various chains and assets. Mastercard has extended its partnership with Circle to allow USDC settlements in parts of EEMEA. These are not just crypto experiments. They represent gradual improvements in how payment processors fund and settle transactions, especially across borders and over weekends when traditional correspondent systems can be slow or costly. With each pilot and regional rollout, on-chain dollars gain legitimate off-ramps and risk frameworks. This doesn’t make banks obsolete. Instead, it positions them as gateways and protectors for a more open settlement structure, where stablecoin banking becomes a feature of the system, not a threat to it.
Cross-border fees are a primary policy issue that stablecoin systems can address. The World Bank’s Remittance Prices Worldwide reports the global average remittance fee at about 6.49% in 2025, far above the SDG target of 3%. Stablecoins will not automatically solve compliance issues or foreign exchange spreads, and not every region is ready for change. However, programmable dollars can reduce settlement delays and eliminate gaps on weekends or holidays. They also allow for 24/7 treasury operations that synchronize with instant domestic clearing. As networks enable pre-funded redemptions and improved liquidity management, total costs can decrease in regions where correspondent systems are weakest. For education finance, this could mean lower international tuition fees, faster refunds, and smoother payments to students and researchers living across borders.
Scale and regulation are coming together. Chainalysis estimates that stablecoins account for a majority of on-chain transaction value, with monthly transfers in 2025 consistently exceeding $2 trillion. Meanwhile, the EU’s MiCA regulations applied full reserve and redemption rules to stablecoins starting June 30, 2024. Regulators have been refining liquidity standards throughout 2025. In the U.S., a Senate-passed bill in mid-2025 proposed rules for liquidity-backed reserves and monthly disclosures for issuers.
Additionally, open banking rules—essential for data portability and compliance—are undergoing revisions and legal challenges. The signal is not confusing. It is convergence: the same risks will have the same rules for digital dollars, classified by their function, and tied to bank-level safeguards.
Treat stablecoins as payment tools rather than shadow deposits, which are unregulated and non-bank entities that perform bank-like functions, and regulate them accordingly. Europe’s MiCA places e-money-style responsibilities on fiat-pegged tokens, including authorization, high-quality reserves, redemption at par, and regular disclosures. This model, adapted to local laws, should guide issuance and oversight elsewhere. In practice, this means licensing issuers, enforcing separate reserves in Treasury bills and cash, requiring independent verification, and establishing sensible stress-redemption rules. It also means aligning wallet providers and off-ramps with existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations, ensuring compliance with Travel Rule standards similar to those for wire transfers. If this is done, stablecoin banking can become a safe, straightforward utility that decreases friction while maintaining consumer protection.
Build the interoperable system. On the bank side, establish lasting data-sharing standards so that know-your-customer checks, sanctions screening, and transaction oversight can accompany payments. The CFPB’s open banking rule was finalized in 2024 and is under review in 2025; the outcome should ensure secure API access while balancing costs and liabilities. Regarding payments, synchronize instant payment networks (like RTP and FedNow) with on-chain settlements so that institutions can manage incoming stablecoin receipts in insured deposits in real time and vice versa. On the partnership side, enforce the 2024 U.S. interagency guidance on third-party risk to ensure that bank-fintech collaborations tighten control rather than loosen it. The goal is not about adhering to ideological beliefs. It is about creating a system where each part—deposits, instant networks, and tokenized settlement assets—performs its best function under clear rules.
University CFOs and bursars should focus on practical applications rather than ideology. Cross-border tuition and refunds present an easy opportunity. If a school already accepts wire transfers and credit cards, integrating a stablecoin-to-treasury process through a regulated payment provider can reduce delays and minimize failed transactions for students without access to hard currency accounts. The setup is straightforward: accept USDC or similar regulated tokens, clear anti-money laundering and Travel Rule checks, automatically convert to local currency or transfer to insured deposits, and reconcile through standard ERP processes. This does not involve holding volatile cryptocurrencies. It is about using a programmable, always-available settlement tool at the edge while keeping cash management and reporting at the core. With instant networks, refunds can arrive the same day instead of taking weeks. This is a service improvement students will notice.
For academic leaders, closing the curriculum gap is crucial. Graduates in business, public policy, and computer science will navigate a world where stablecoin banking and tokenized deposits are common. Programs should cover practical realities: how reserves function, what Travel Rule data looks like, how sanctions screening works, why on-chain transfers differ from credit card transactions, what MiCA and U.S. regulations require, and how to analyze the total cost of ownership between on-chain and correspondent systems. Compliance and risk teams should also be trained to this standard. The market will not wait, nor will students who need faster, more affordable financial access across borders. When policies clarify and controls strengthen, institutions that begin pilot programs now will be better positioned to scale smoothly.
The figure that started this column indicates a shift. Trillions in monthly on-chain transfers show that the world has already begun testing a new settlement system. Banks did not lose the lending battle. They adapted, collaborated, and updated. The next decade will depend on how well we govern the connections linking them to the open internet of value. Ensure stablecoins are safe, straightforward, and widely accepted—through licensed issuance, high-quality reserves, instant redemption, supervision for wallets and off-ramps, and open banking data channels—so that “crypto” becomes basic infrastructure. Education leaders should take action: test cross-border tuition and refund systems with regulated providers. Teach students the practical workings of this infrastructure. Urge policymakers to synchronize standards so that instant domestic payments and stablecoin banking support each other instead of competing. If we move forward this way, the trillion-dollar number will be more than just interesting. It will become the foundation of a fairer, faster financial system that serves learners first.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Swiss Institute of Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) or its affiliates.
Adyen. (2025). Fintech you can bank on: How global banking infrastructure sets fintech apart. Retrieved July 2025.
BCG & QED Investors. (2025, June 2). Fintech’s Next Chapter: Scaled Winners and Emerging Disruptors. (Global Fintech 2025).
BIS (Ahmed, R., et al.). (2025). Stablecoins and safe asset prices (BIS Working Paper No. 1270).
Chainalysis. (2025, Jan. 15). 2025 Crypto Crime Trends: Introduction.
Chainalysis. (2025, Sept. 2). 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2024, Oct. 22). CFPB finalizes Personal Financial Data Rights rule.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2025). Personal Financial Data Rights—Reconsideration and updates.
EBA. (2025, Oct. 10). Opinions on MiCA liquidity requirements for reserve assets.
ESMA. (2023–2025). Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) implementation timeline and measures.
FDIC, Federal Reserve, & OCC. (2024, July 25). Joint statement on banks’ arrangements with third parties.
FedNow Service. (2025, Apr. 16). Continues momentum: 1,300+ participating institutions.
Mastercard. (2025, Aug. 26). Expands partnership with Circle to transform digital settlement in EEMEA.
The Clearing House. (2025, July 17). RTP network Q2 2025 value surge to $481B; 107M transactions.
Visa. (2023, Sept. 5). Expands stablecoin settlement to Solana; partners with Worldpay and Nuvei.
Visa. (2025, July 31). Expands stablecoin settlement support: more chains and use-cases.
World Bank. (2025). Remittance Prices Worldwide (Issue 49; global average ~6.49%).
