This was also where I initially landed after finding out that the custom stablecoin could not leave my Bridge instance.

I think the role that crypto plays in enabling this is as a neutral, credible storage layer on which this token can be held, that is not my Postgres database as (eg.) Bridge - these tokens still are actual ERC-20s/etc that are present on-chain, as are the wallets that hold them -- but yeah, I'm:

- not sure how instrumental that actually is here

- not sure if that's just incidentally the easiest structure for Bridge, whose primary business revolves around facilitating payments via stablecoin (now, as a part of Stripe)

Blockchain guarantees there is no double spend while not having one controlling entity. Legal requirements are there to do exactly the same thing - not let managers mess with other people money.

But there are 2 separate controlling entities in this scenario. The hypothetical company that wants to issue the stablecoin and Bridge. They have complete and full control over the money anyway, blockchain or not.