Skip to main content

21 posts tagged with "cryptocurrency"

View all tags

IBIT, Explained Simply: How BlackRock’s Spot Bitcoin ETF Works in 2025

· 7 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, ticker IBIT, has become one of the most popular ways for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin directly from a standard brokerage account. But what is it, how does it work, and what are the trade-offs?

In short, IBIT is an exchange-traded product (ETP) that holds actual Bitcoin and trades like a stock on the NASDAQ exchange. Investors use it for its convenience, deep liquidity, and access within a regulated market. As of early September 2025, the fund holds approximately $82.6 billion in assets, charges a 0.25% expense ratio, and uses Coinbase Custody Trust as its custodian. This guide breaks down exactly what you need to know.

What You Actually Own with IBIT

When you buy a share of IBIT, you are buying a share of a commodity trust that holds Bitcoin. This structure is more like a gold trust than a traditional mutual fund or ETF governed by the 1940 Act.

The fund’s value is benchmarked against the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate – New York Variant (BRRNY), a once-a-day reference price used to calculate its Net Asset Value (NAV).

The actual Bitcoin is stored with Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, with operational trading handled through Coinbase Prime. The vast majority of the Bitcoin sits in segregated cold storage, referred to as the “Vault Balance.” A smaller portion is kept in a “Trading Balance” to manage the creation and redemption of shares and to pay the fund’s fees.

The Headline Numbers That Matter

  • Expense Ratio: The sponsor fee for IBIT is 0.25%. Any introductory fee waivers have since expired, so this is the current annual cost.
  • Size & Liquidity: With net assets of $82.6 billion as of September 2, 2025, IBIT is a giant in the space. It sees tens of millions of shares traded daily, and its 30-day median bid/ask spread is a tight 0.02%, which helps minimize slippage for traders.
  • Where It Trades: You can find the fund on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol IBIT.

How IBIT Keeps Up with Bitcoin’s Price

The fund’s share price stays close to the value of its underlying Bitcoin through a creation and redemption mechanism involving Authorized Participants (APs), which are large financial institutions.

Unlike many gold ETPs that allow for “in-kind” transfers (where APs can swap a block of shares for actual gold), IBIT was launched with a “cash” creation/redemption model. This means APs deliver cash to the trust, which then buys Bitcoin, or they receive cash after the trust sells Bitcoin.

In practice, this process has been very effective. Thanks to the heavy trading volume and active APs, the premium or discount to the fund’s NAV has generally been minimal. However, these can widen during periods of high volatility or if the creation/redemption process is constrained, so it’s always wise to check the fund’s premium/discount stats before trading.

What IBIT Costs You (Beyond the Headline Fee)

Beyond the 0.25% expense ratio, there are other costs to consider.

First, the sponsor fee is paid by the trust selling small amounts of its Bitcoin holdings. This means that over time, each share of IBIT will represent a slightly smaller amount of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin’s price rises, this effect can be masked; if not, your share’s value will gradually drift downward compared to holding raw BTC.

Second, you’ll encounter real-world trading costs, including the bid/ask spread, any brokerage commissions, and the potential for trading at a premium or discount to NAV. Using limit orders is a good way to maintain control over your execution price.

Finally, trading shares of IBIT involves securities, not the direct holding of cryptocurrency. This simplifies tax reporting with standard brokerage forms but comes with different tax nuances than holding coins directly. It’s important to read the prospectus and consult a tax professional if needed.

IBIT vs. Holding Bitcoin Yourself

Choosing between IBIT and self-custody comes down to your goals.

  • Convenience & Compliance: IBIT offers easy access through a brokerage account, with no need to manage private keys, sign up for crypto exchanges, or handle unfamiliar wallet software. You get standard tax statements and a familiar trading interface.
  • Counterparty Trade-offs: With IBIT, you don't control the coins on-chain. You are relying on the trust and its service providers, including the custodian (Coinbase) and prime broker. It’s crucial to understand these operational and custody risks by reviewing the fund’s filings.
  • Utility: If you want to use Bitcoin for on-chain activities like payments, Lightning Network transactions, or multi-signature security setups, self-custody is the only option. If your goal is simply price exposure in a retirement or taxable brokerage account, IBIT is purpose-built for that.

IBIT vs. Bitcoin Futures ETFs

It’s also important to distinguish spot ETFs from futures-based ones. A futures ETF holds CME futures contracts, not actual Bitcoin. IBIT, as a spot ETF, holds the underlying BTC directly.

This structural difference matters. Futures funds can experience price drift from their underlying asset due to contract roll costs and the futures term structure. Spot funds, on the other hand, tend to track the spot price of Bitcoin more tightly, minus fees. For straightforward Bitcoin exposure in a brokerage account, a spot product like IBIT is generally the simpler instrument.

How to Buy—And What to Check First

You can buy IBIT in any standard taxable or retirement brokerage account under the ticker IBIT. For best execution, liquidity is typically highest near the U.S. stock market's open and close. Always check the bid/ask spread and use limit orders to control your price.

Given Bitcoin’s volatility, many investors treat it as a satellite position in their portfolio—an allocation small enough that they can tolerate a significant drawdown. Always read the risk section of the prospectus before investing.

Advanced Note: Options Exist

For more sophisticated investors, listed options on IBIT are available. Trading began on venues like the Nasdaq ISE in late 2024, enabling hedging or income-generating strategies. Check with your broker about eligibility and the associated risks.

Risks Worth Reading Twice

  • Market Risk: Bitcoin’s price is notoriously volatile and can swing sharply in either direction.
  • Operational Risk: A security breach, key-management failure, or other problem at the custodian or prime broker could negatively impact the trust. The prospectus details the risks associated with both the "Trading Balance" and the "Vault Balance."
  • Premium/Discount Risk: If the arbitrage mechanism becomes impaired for any reason, IBIT shares can deviate significantly from their NAV.
  • Regulatory Risk: The rules governing cryptocurrencies and related financial products are still evolving.

A Quick Checklist Before You Click “Buy”

Before investing, ask yourself these questions:

  • Do I understand that the sponsor fee is paid by selling Bitcoin, which slowly reduces the amount of BTC per share?
  • Have I checked today’s bid/ask spread, recent trading volumes, and any premium or discount to NAV?
  • Is my investment time horizon long enough to withstand crypto’s inherent volatility?
  • Have I made a conscious choice between spot exposure via IBIT and self-custody based on my specific goals?
  • Have I read the latest fund fact sheet or prospectus? It remains the single best source for how the trust truly operates.

This post is for educational purposes only and is not financial or tax advice. Always read official fund documents and consider professional guidance for your situation.

The Great Financial Convergence is Already Here

· 23 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

The question of whether traditional finance is eating DeFi or DeFi is disrupting TradFi has been definitively answered in 2024-2025: neither is consuming the other. Instead, a sophisticated convergence is underway where TradFi institutions are deploying $21.6 billion per quarter into crypto infrastructure while simultaneously DeFi protocols are building institutional-grade compliance layers to accommodate regulated capital. JPMorgan has processed over $1.5 trillion in blockchain transactions, BlackRock's tokenized fund controls $2.1 billion across six public blockchains, and 86% of surveyed institutional investors now have or plan crypto exposure. Yet paradoxically, most of this capital flows through regulated wrappers rather than directly into DeFi protocols, revealing a hybrid "OneFi" model emerging where public blockchains serve as infrastructure with compliance features layered on top.

The five industry leaders examined—Thomas Uhm of Jito, TN of Pendle, Nick van Eck of Agora, Kaledora Kiernan-Linn of Ostium, and David Lu of Drift—present remarkably aligned perspectives despite operating in different segments. They universally reject the binary framing, instead positioning their protocols as bridges enabling bidirectional capital flow. Their insights reveal a nuanced convergence timeline: stablecoins and tokenized treasuries gaining immediate adoption, perpetual markets bridging before tokenization can achieve liquidity, and full institutional DeFi engagement projected for 2027-2030 once legal enforceability concerns are resolved. The infrastructure exists today, the regulatory frameworks are materializing (MiCA implemented December 2024, GENIUS Act signed July 2025), and the capital is mobilizing at unprecedented scale. The financial system isn't experiencing disruption—it's experiencing integration.

Traditional finance has moved beyond pilots to production-scale blockchain deployment

The most decisive evidence of convergence comes from what major banks accomplished in 2024-2025, moving from experimental pilots to operational infrastructure processing trillions in transactions. JPMorgan's transformation is emblematic: the bank rebranded its Onyx blockchain platform to Kinexys in November 2024, having already processed over $1.5 trillion in transactions since inception with daily volumes averaging $2 billion. More significantly, in June 2025, JPMorgan launched JPMD, a deposit token on Coinbase's Base blockchain—marking the first time a commercial bank placed deposit-backed products on a public blockchain network. This isn't experimental—it's a strategic pivot to make "commercial banking come on-chain" with 24/7 settlement capabilities that directly compete with stablecoins while offering deposit insurance and interest-bearing capabilities.

BlackRock's BUIDL fund represents the asset management analog to JPMorgan's infrastructure play. Launched in March 2024, the BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund surpassed $1 billion in assets under management within 40 days and now controls over $2.1 billion deployed across Ethereum, Aptos, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Optimism, and Polygon. CEO Larry Fink's vision that "every stock, every bond will be on one general ledger" is being operationalized through concrete products, with BlackRock planning to tokenize ETFs representing $2 trillion in potential assets. The fund's structure demonstrates sophisticated integration: backed by cash and U.S. Treasury bills, it distributes yield daily via blockchain, enables 24/7 peer-to-peer transfers, and already serves as collateral on crypto exchanges like Crypto.com and Deribit. BNY Mellon, custodian for the BUIDL fund and the world's largest with $55.8 trillion in assets under custody, began piloting tokenized deposits in October 2025 to transform its $2.5 trillion daily payment volume onto blockchain infrastructure.

Franklin Templeton's BENJI fund showcases multi-chain strategy as competitive advantage. The Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund launched in 2021 as the first U.S.-registered mutual fund on blockchain and has since expanded to eight different networks: Stellar, Polygon, Avalanche, Aptos, Arbitrum, Base, Ethereum, and BNB Chain. With $420-750 million in assets, BENJI enables daily yield accrual via token airdrops, peer-to-peer transfers, and potential DeFi collateral use—essentially transforming a traditional money market fund into a composable DeFi primitive while maintaining SEC registration and compliance.

The custody layer reveals banks' strategic positioning. Goldman Sachs holds $2.05 billion in Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs as of late 2024, representing a 50% quarterly increase, while simultaneously investing $135 million with Citadel into Digital Asset's Canton Network for institutional blockchain infrastructure. Fidelity, which began mining Bitcoin in 2014 and launched Fidelity Digital Assets in 2018, now provides institutional custody as a limited purpose trust company licensed by New York State. These aren't diversionary experiments—they represent core infrastructure buildout by institutions collectively managing over $10 trillion in assets.

Five DeFi leaders converge on "hybrid rails" as the path forward

Thomas Uhm's journey from Jane Street Capital to Jito Foundation crystallizes the institutional bridge thesis. After 22 years at Jane Street, including as Head of Institutional Crypto, Uhm observed "how crypto has shifted from the fringes to a core pillar of the global financial system" before joining Jito as Chief Commercial Officer in April 2025. His signature achievement—the VanEck JitoSOL ETF filing in August 2025—represents a landmark moment: the first spot Solana ETF 100% backed by a liquid staking token. Uhm worked directly with ETF issuers, custodians, and the SEC through months of "collaborative policy outreach" beginning in February 2025, culminating in regulatory clarity that liquid staking tokens structured without centralized control are not securities.

Uhm's perspective rejects absorption narratives in favor of convergence through superior infrastructure. He positions Jito's Block Assembly Marketplace (BAM), launched July 2025, as creating "auditable markets with execution assurances that rival traditional finance" through TEE-based transaction sequencing, cryptographic attestations for audit trails, and deterministic execution guarantees institutions demand. His critical insight: "A healthy market has makers economically incentivized by genuine liquidity demand"—noting that crypto market making often relies on unsustainable token unlocks rather than bid-ask spreads, meaning DeFi must adopt TradFi's sustainable economic models. Yet he also identifies areas where crypto improves on traditional finance: expanded trading hours, more efficient intraday collateral movements, and composability that enables novel financial products. His vision is bidirectional learning where TradFi brings regulatory frameworks and risk management sophistication while DeFi contributes efficiency innovations and transparent market structure.

TN, CEO and founder of Pendle Finance, articulates the most comprehensive "hybrid rails" strategy among the five leaders. His "Citadels" initiative launched in 2025 explicitly targets three institutional bridges: PT for TradFi (KYC-compliant products packaging DeFi yields for regulated institutions through isolated SPVs managed by regulated investment managers), PT for Islamic Funds (Shariah-compliant products targeting the $3.9 trillion Islamic finance sector growing at 10% annually), and non-EVM expansion to Solana and TON networks. TN's Pendle 2025: Zenith roadmap positions the protocol as "the doorway to your yield experience" serving everyone "from a degenerate DeFi ape to a Middle Eastern sovereign fund."

His key insight centers on market size asymmetry: "Limiting ourselves only to DeFi-native yields would be missing the bigger picture" given that the interest rate derivatives market is $558 trillion—roughly 30,000 times larger than Pendle's current market. The Boros platform launched in August 2025 operationalizes this vision, designed to support "any form of yield, from DeFi protocols to CeFi products, and even traditional benchmarks like LIBOR or mortgage rates." TN's 10-year vision sees "DeFi becoming a fully integrated part of the global financial system" where "capital will flow freely between DeFi and TradFi, creating a dynamic landscape where innovation and regulation coexist." His partnership with Converge blockchain (launching Q2 2025 with Ethena Labs and Securitize) creates a settlement layer blending permissionless DeFi with KYC-compliant tokenized RWAs including BlackRock's BUIDL fund.

Nick van Eck of Agora provides the crucial stablecoin perspective, tempering crypto industry optimism with realism informed by his traditional finance background (his grandfather founded VanEck, the $130+ billion asset management firm). After 22 years at Jane Street, van Eck projects that institutional stablecoin adoption will take 3-4 years, not 1-2 years, because "we live in our own bubble in crypto" and most CFOs and CEOs of large U.S. corporations "aren't necessarily aware of the developments in crypto, even when it comes to stablecoins." Having conversations with "some of the largest hedge funds in the US," he finds "there's still a lack of understanding when it comes to the role that stablecoins play." The real curve is educational, not technological.

Yet van Eck's long-term conviction is absolute. He recently tweeted about discussions to move "$500M-$1B in monthly cross-border flows to stables," describing stablecoins as positioned to "vampire liquidity from the correspondent banking system" with "100x improvement" in efficiency. His strategic positioning of Agora emphasizes "credible neutrality"—unlike USDC (which shares revenue with Coinbase) or Tether (opaque) or PYUSD (PayPal subsidiary competing with customers), Agora operates as infrastructure sharing reserve yield with partners building on the platform. With institutional partnerships including State Street (custodian with $49 trillion in assets), VanEck (asset manager), PwC (auditor), and banking partners Cross River Bank and Customers Bank, van Eck is constructing TradFi-grade infrastructure for stablecoin issuance while deliberately avoiding yield-bearing structures to maintain broader regulatory compliance and market access.

Perpetual markets may frontrun tokenization in bringing traditional assets on-chain

Kaledora Kiernan-Linn of Ostium Labs presents perhaps the most contrarian thesis among the five leaders: "perpification" will precede tokenization as the primary mechanism for bringing traditional financial markets on-chain. Her argument is rooted in liquidity economics and operational efficiency. Comparing tokenized solutions to Ostium's synthetic perpetuals, she notes users "pay roughly 97x more to trade tokenized TSLA" on Jupiter than through Ostium's synthetic stock perpetuals—a liquidity differential that renders tokenization commercially unviable for most traders despite being technically functional.

Kiernan-Linn's insight identifies the core challenge with tokenization: it requires coordination of asset origination, custody infrastructure, regulatory approval, composable KYC-enforced token standards, and redemption mechanisms—massive operational overhead before a single trade occurs. Perpetuals, by contrast, "only require sufficient liquidity and robust data feeds—no need for underlying asset to exist on-chain." They avoid security token frameworks, eliminate counterparty custody risk, and provide superior capital efficiency through cross-margining capabilities. Her platform has achieved remarkable validation: Ostium ranks #3 in weekly revenues on Arbitrum behind only Uniswap and GMX, with over $14 billion in volume and nearly $7 million in revenue, having 70x'd revenues in six months from February to July 2025.

The macroeconomic validation is striking. During weeks of macroeconomic instability in 2024, RWA perpetual volumes on Ostium outpaced crypto volumes by 4x, and 8x on days with heightened instability. When China announced QE measures in late September 2024, FX and commodities perpetuals volumes surged 550% in a single week. This demonstrates that when traditional market participants need to hedge or trade macro events, they're choosing DeFi perpetuals over both tokenized alternatives and sometimes even traditional venues—validating the thesis that derivatives can bridge markets faster than spot tokenization.

Her strategic vision targets the 80 million monthly active forex traders in the $50 trillion traditional retail FX/CFD market, positioning perpetuals as "fundamentally better instruments" than the cash-settled synthetic products offered by FX brokers for years, thanks to funding rates that incentivize market balance and self-custodial trading that eliminates adversarial platform-user dynamics. Co-founder Marco Antonio predicts "the retail FX trading market will be disrupted in the next 5 years and it will be done by perps." This represents DeFi not absorbing TradFi infrastructure but instead out-competing it by offering superior products to the same customer base.

David Lu of Drift Protocol articulates the "permissionless institutions" framework that synthesizes elements from the other four leaders' approaches. His core thesis: "RWA as the fuel for a DeFi super-protocol" that unites five financial primitives (borrow/lend, derivatives, prediction markets, AMM, wealth management) into capital-efficient infrastructure. At Token2049 Singapore in October 2024, Lu emphasized that "the key is infrastructure, not speculation" and warned that "Wall Street's move has started. Do not chase hype. Put your assets on-chain."

Drift's May 2025 launch of "Drift Institutional" operationalizes this vision through white-glove service guiding institutions in bringing real-world assets into Solana's DeFi ecosystem. The flagship partnership with Securitize to design institutional pools for Apollo's $1 billion Diversified Credit Fund (ACRED) represents the first institutional DeFi product on Solana, with pilot users including Wormhole Foundation, Solana Foundation, and Drift Foundation testing "onchain structures for their private credit and treasury management strategies." Lu's innovation eliminates the traditional $100 million+ minimums that confined credit facility-based lending to the largest institutions, instead enabling comparable structures on-chain with dramatically lower minimums and 24/7 accessibility.

The Ondo Finance partnership in June 2024 demonstrated Drift's capital efficiency thesis: integrating tokenized treasury bills (USDY, backed by short-term U.S. treasuries generating 5.30% APY) as trading collateral meant users "no longer have to choose between generating yield on stablecoins or using them as collateral for trading"—they can earn yield and trade simultaneously. This composability, impossible in traditional finance where treasuries in custody accounts can't simultaneously serve as perpetuals margin, exemplifies how DeFi infrastructure enables superior capital efficiency even for traditional financial instruments. Lu's vision of "permissionless institutions" suggests the future isn't TradFi adopting DeFi technology or DeFi professionalizing toward TradFi standards, but rather creating entirely new institutional forms that combine decentralization with professional-grade capabilities.

Regulatory clarity is accelerating convergence while revealing implementation gaps

The regulatory landscape transformed dramatically in 2024-2025, shifting from uncertainty to actionable frameworks in both Europe and the United States. MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) achieved full implementation in the EU on December 30, 2024, with remarkable compliance velocity: 65%+ of EU crypto businesses achieved compliance by Q1 2025, 70%+ of EU crypto transactions now occur on MiCA-compliant exchanges (up from 48% in 2024), and regulators issued €540 million in penalties to non-compliant firms. The regulation drove a 28% increase in stablecoin transactions within the EU and catalyzed EURC's explosive growth from $47 million to $7.5 billion monthly volume—a 15,857% increase—between June 2024 and June 2025.

In the United States, the GENIUS Act signed in July 2025 established the first federal stablecoin legislation, creating state-based licensing with federal oversight for issuers exceeding $10 billion in circulation, mandating 1:1 reserve backing, and requiring supervision by the Federal Reserve, OCC, or NCUA. This legislative breakthrough directly enabled JPMorgan's JPMD deposit token launch and is expected to catalyze similar initiatives from other major banks. Simultaneously, the SEC and CFTC launched joint harmonization efforts through "Project Crypto" and "Crypto Sprint" in July-August 2025, holding a joint roundtable on September 29, 2025, focused on "innovation exemptions" for peer-to-peer DeFi trading and publishing joint staff guidance on spot crypto products.

Thomas Uhm's experience navigating this regulatory evolution is instructive. His move from Jane Street to Jito was directly tied to regulatory developments—Jane Street reduced crypto operations in 2023 due to "regulatory challenges," and Uhm's appointment at Jito came as this landscape cleared. The VanEck JitoSOL ETF achievement required months of "collaborative policy outreach" beginning in February 2025, culminating in SEC guidance in May and August 2025 clarifying that liquid staking tokens structured without centralized control are not securities. Uhm's role explicitly involves "positioning the Jito Foundation for a future shaped by regulatory clarity"—indicating he sees this as the key enabler of convergence, not just an accessory.

Nick van Eck designed Agora's architecture around anticipated regulation, deliberately avoiding yield-bearing stablecoins despite competitive pressure because he expected "the US government and the SEC would not allow interest-bearing stablecoins." This regulatory-first design philosophy positions Agora to serve U.S. entities once legislation is fully enacted while maintaining international focus. His prediction that institutional adoption requires 3-4 years rather than 1-2 years stems from recognizing that regulatory clarity, while necessary, is insufficient—education and internal operational changes at institutions require additional time.

Yet critical gaps persist. DeFi protocols themselves remain largely unaddressed by current frameworks—MiCA explicitly excludes "fully decentralized protocols" from its scope, with EU policymakers planning DeFi-specific regulations for 2026. The FIT21 bill, which would establish clear CFTC jurisdiction over "digital commodities" versus SEC oversight of securities-classified tokens, passed the House 279-136 in May 2024 but remains stalled in the Senate as of March 2025. The EY institutional survey reveals that 52-57% of institutions cite "uncertain regulatory environment" and "unclear legal enforceability of smart contracts" as top barriers—suggesting that while frameworks are materializing, they haven't yet provided sufficient certainty for the largest capital pools (pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds) to fully engage.

Institutional capital is mobilizing at unprecedented scale but flowing through regulated wrappers

The magnitude of institutional capital entering crypto infrastructure in 2024-2025 is staggering. $21.6 billion in institutional investments flowed into crypto in Q1 2025 alone, with venture capital deployment reaching $11.5 billion across 2,153 transactions in 2024 and analysts projecting $18-25 billion total for 2025. BlackRock's IBIT Bitcoin ETF accumulated $400 billion+ in assets under management within approximately 200 days of launch—the fastest ETF growth in history. In May 2025 alone, BlackRock and Fidelity collectively purchased $590 million+ in Bitcoin and Ethereum, with Goldman Sachs revealing $2.05 billion in combined Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF holdings by late 2024, representing a 50% quarter-over-quarter increase.

The EY-Coinbase institutional survey of 352 institutional investors in January 2025 quantifies this momentum: 86% of institutions have exposure to digital assets or plan to invest in 2025, 85% increased allocations in 2024, and 77% plan to increase in 2025. Most significantly, 59% plan to allocate more than 5% of AUM to crypto in 2025, with U.S. respondents particularly aggressive at 64% versus 48% for European and other regions. The allocation preferences reveal sophistication: 73% hold at least one altcoin beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, 60% prefer registered vehicles (ETPs) over direct holdings, and 68% express interest in both diversified crypto index ETPs and single-asset altcoin ETPs for Solana and XRP.

Yet a critical disconnect emerges when examining DeFi engagement specifically. Only 24% of surveyed institutions currently engage with DeFi protocols, though 75% expect to engage by 2027—suggesting a potential tripling of institutional DeFi participation within two years. Among those engaged or planning engagement, use cases center on derivatives (40%), staking (38%), lending (34%), and access to altcoins (32%). Stablecoin adoption is higher at 84% using or expressing interest, with 45% currently using or holding stablecoins and hedge funds leading at 70% adoption. For tokenized assets, 57% express interest and 72% plan to invest by 2026, focusing on alternative funds (47%), commodities (44%), and equities (42%).

The infrastructure to serve this capital exists and functions well. Fireblocks processed $60 billion in institutional digital asset transactions in 2024, custody providers like BNY Mellon and State Street hold $2.1 billion+ in digital assets with full regulatory compliance, and institutional-grade solutions from Fidelity Digital Assets, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, and Coinbase Custody provide enterprise security and operational controls. Yet the infrastructure's existence hasn't translated to massive capital flows directly into DeFi protocols. The tokenized private credit market reached $17.5 billion (32% growth in 2024), but this capital primarily comes from crypto-native sources rather than traditional institutional allocators. As one analysis noted, "Large institutional capital is NOT flowing to DeFi protocols" despite infrastructure maturity, with the primary barrier being "legal enforceability concerns that prevent pension and endowment participation."

This reveals the paradox of current convergence: banks like JPMorgan and asset managers like BlackRock are building on public blockchains and creating composable financial products, but they're doing so within regulated wrappers (ETFs, tokenized funds, deposit tokens) rather than directly utilizing permissionless DeFi protocols. The capital isn't flowing through Aave, Compound, or Uniswap interfaces in meaningful institutional scale—it's flowing into BlackRock's BUIDL fund, which uses blockchain infrastructure while maintaining traditional legal structures. This suggests convergence is occurring at the infrastructure layer (blockchains, settlement rails, tokenization standards) while the application layer diverges into regulated institutional products versus permissionless DeFi protocols.

The verdict: convergence through layered systems, not absorption

Synthesizing perspectives across all five industry leaders and market evidence reveals a consistent conclusion: neither TradFi nor DeFi is "eating" the other. Instead, a layered convergence model is emerging where public blockchains serve as neutral settlement infrastructure, compliance and identity systems layer on top, and both regulated institutional products and permissionless DeFi protocols operate within this shared foundation. Thomas Uhm's framework of "crypto as core pillar of the global financial system" rather than peripheral experiment captures this transition, as does TN's vision of "hybrid rails" and Nick van Eck's emphasis on "credible neutrality" in infrastructure design.

The timeline reveals phased convergence with clear sequencing. Stablecoins achieved critical mass first, with $210 billion market capitalization and institutional use cases spanning yield generation (73%), transactional convenience (71%), foreign exchange (69%), and internal cash management (68%). JPMorgan's JPMD deposit token and similar initiatives from other banks represent traditional finance's response—offering stablecoin-like capabilities with deposit insurance and interest-bearing features that may prove more attractive to regulated institutions than uninsured alternatives like USDT or USDC.

Tokenized treasuries and money market funds achieved product-market fit second, with BlackRock's BUIDL reaching $2.1 billion and Franklin Templeton's BENJI exceeding $400 million. These products demonstrate that traditional assets can successfully operate on public blockchains with traditional legal structures intact. The $10-16 trillion tokenized asset market projected by 2030 by Boston Consulting Group suggests this category will dramatically expand, potentially becoming the primary bridge between traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure. Yet as Nick van Eck cautions, institutional adoption requires 3-4 years for education and operational integration, tempering expectations for immediate transformation despite infrastructure readiness.

Perpetual markets are bridging traditional asset trading before spot tokenization achieves scale, as Kaledora Kiernan-Linn's thesis demonstrates. With 97x better pricing than tokenized alternatives and revenue growth that placed Ostium among top-3 Arbitrum protocols, synthetic perpetuals prove that derivatives markets can achieve liquidity and institutional relevance faster than spot tokenization overcomes regulatory and operational hurdles. This suggests that for many asset classes, DeFi-native derivatives may establish price discovery and risk transfer mechanisms while tokenization infrastructure develops, rather than waiting for tokenization to enable these functions.

Direct institutional engagement with DeFi protocols represents the final phase, currently at 24% adoption but projected to reach 75% by 2027. David Lu's "permissionless institutions" framework and Drift's institutional service offering exemplify how DeFi protocols are building white-glove onboarding and compliance features to serve this market. Yet the timeline may extend longer than protocols hope—legal enforceability concerns, operational complexity, and internal expertise gaps mean that even with infrastructure readiness and regulatory clarity, large-scale pension and endowment capital may flow through regulated wrappers for years before directly engaging permissionless protocols.

The competitive dynamics suggest TradFi holds advantages in trust, regulatory compliance, and established customer relationships, while DeFi excels in capital efficiency, composability, transparency, and operational cost structure. JPMorgan's ability to launch JPMD with deposit insurance and integration into traditional banking systems demonstrates TradFi's regulatory moat. Yet Drift's ability to enable users to simultaneously earn yield on treasury bills while using them as trading collateral—impossible in traditional custody arrangements—showcases DeFi's structural advantages. The convergence model emerging suggests specialized functions: settlement and custody gravitating toward regulated entities with insurance and compliance, while trading, lending, and complex financial engineering gravitating toward composable DeFi protocols offering superior capital efficiency and innovation velocity.

Geographic fragmentation will persist, with Europe's MiCA creating different competitive dynamics than U.S. frameworks, and Asian markets potentially leapfrogging Western adoption in certain categories. Nick van Eck's observation that "financial institutions outside of the U.S. will be quicker to move" is validated by Circle's EURC growth, Asia-focused stablecoin adoption, and the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund interest that TN highlighted in his Pendle strategy. This suggests convergence will manifest differently across regions, with some jurisdictions seeing deeper institutional DeFi engagement while others maintain stricter separation through regulated products.

What this means for the next five years

The 2025-2030 period will likely see convergence acceleration across multiple dimensions simultaneously. Stablecoins reaching 10% of world money supply (Circle CEO's prediction for 2034) appears achievable given current growth trajectories, with bank-issued deposit tokens like JPMD competing with and potentially displacing private stablecoins for institutional use cases while private stablecoins maintain dominance in emerging markets and cross-border transactions. The regulatory frameworks now materializing (MiCA, GENIUS Act, anticipated DeFi regulations in 2026) provide sufficient clarity for institutional capital deployment, though operational integration and education require the 3-4 year timeline Nick van Eck projects.

Tokenization will scale dramatically, potentially reaching BCG's $16 trillion projection by 2030 if current growth rates (32% annually for tokenized private credit) extend across asset classes. Yet tokenization serves as infrastructure rather than end-state—the interesting innovation occurs in how tokenized assets enable new financial products and strategies impossible in traditional systems. TN's vision of "every type of yield tradable through Pendle"—from DeFi staking to TradFi mortgage rates to tokenized corporate bonds—exemplifies how convergence enables previously impossible combinations. David Lu's thesis of "RWAs as fuel for DeFi super-protocols" suggests tokenized traditional assets will unlock order-of-magnitude increases in DeFi sophistication and scale.

The competitive landscape will feature both collaboration and displacement. Banks will lose cross-border payment revenue to blockchain rails offering 100x efficiency improvements, as Nick van Eck projects stablecoins will "vampire liquidity from the correspondent banking system." Retail FX brokers face disruption from DeFi perpetuals offering better economics and self-custody, as Kaledora Kiernan-Linn's Ostium demonstrates. Yet banks gain new revenue streams from custody services, tokenization platforms, and deposit tokens that offer superior economics to traditional checking accounts. Asset managers like BlackRock gain efficiency in fund administration, 24/7 liquidity provision, and programmable compliance while reducing operational overhead.

For DeFi protocols, survival and success require navigating the tension between permissionlessness and institutional compliance. Thomas Uhm's emphasis on "credible neutrality" and infrastructure that enables rather than extracts value represents the winning model. Protocols that layer compliance features (KYC, clawback capabilities, geographic restrictions) as opt-in modules while maintaining permissionless core functionality can serve both institutional and retail users. TN's Citadels initiative—creating parallel KYC-compliant institutional access alongside permissionless retail access—exemplifies this architecture. Protocols unable to accommodate institutional compliance requirements may find themselves limited to crypto-native capital, while those that compromise core permissionlessness for institutional features risk losing their DeFi-native advantages.

The ultimate trajectory points toward a financial system where blockchain infrastructure is ubiquitous but invisible, similar to how TCP/IP became the universal internet protocol while users remain unaware of underlying technology. Traditional financial products will operate on-chain with traditional legal structures and regulatory compliance, permissionless DeFi protocols will continue enabling novel financial engineering impossible in regulated contexts, and most users will interact with both without necessarily distinguishing which infrastructure layer powers each service. The question shifts from "TradFi eating DeFi or DeFi eating TradFi" to "which financial functions benefit from decentralization versus regulatory oversight"—with different answers for different use cases producing a diverse, polyglot financial ecosystem rather than winner-take-all dominance by either paradigm.

What Are Memecoins? A Crisp, Builder-Friendly Primer (2025)

· 10 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

TL;DR

Memecoins are crypto tokens born from internet culture, jokes, and viral moments. Their value is driven by attention, community coordination, and speed, not fundamentals. The category began with Dogecoin in 2013 and has since exploded with tokens like SHIB, PEPE, and a massive wave of assets on Solana and Base. This sector now represents tens of billions in market value and can significantly impact network fees and on-chain volumes. However, most memecoins lack intrinsic utility; they are extremely volatile, high-turnover assets. The risks of "rug pulls" and flawed presales are exceptionally high. If you engage, use a strict checklist to evaluate liquidity, supply, ownership controls, distribution, and contract security.

The 10-Second Definition

A memecoin is a cryptocurrency inspired by an internet meme, a cultural inside joke, or a viral social event. Unlike traditional crypto projects, it is typically community-driven and thrives on social media momentum rather than underlying cash flows or protocol utility. The concept began with Dogecoin, which was launched in 2013 as a lighthearted parody of Bitcoin. Since then, waves of similar tokens have emerged, riding new trends and narratives across different blockchains.

How Big Is This, Really?

Don't let the humorous origins fool you—the memecoin sector is a significant force in the crypto market. On any given day, the aggregate market capitalization of memecoins can reach tens of billions of dollars. During peak bull cycles, this category has accounted for a material share of the entire non-BTC/ETH crypto economy. This scale is easily visible on data aggregators like CoinGecko and in the dedicated "meme" categories featured on major crypto exchanges.

Where Do Memecoins Live?

While memecoins can exist on any smart contract platform, a few ecosystems have become dominant hubs.

  • Ethereum: As the original smart contract chain, Ethereum hosts many iconic memecoins, from $DOGE-adjacent ERC-20s to tokens like $PEPE. During periods of intense speculative frenzy, the trading activity from these tokens has been known to cause significant spikes in network gas fees, even boosting validator revenue.
  • Solana: In 2024 and 2025, Solana became the ground zero for memecoin creation and trading. A Cambrian explosion of new tokens pushed the network to record-breaking fee generation and on-chain volume, birthing viral hits like $BONK and $WIF.
  • Base: Coinbase's Layer 2 network has cultivated its own vibrant meme sub-culture, with a growing list of tokens and dedicated community tracking on platforms like CoinGecko.

How a Memecoin Is Born (2025 Edition)

The technical barrier to launching a memecoin has dropped to near zero. Today, two paths are most common:

1. Classic DEX Launch (EVM or Solana)

In this model, a creator mints a supply of tokens, creates a liquidity pool (LP) on a decentralized exchange (like Uniswap or Raydium) by pairing the tokens with a base asset (like $ETH, $SOL, or $USDC), and then markets the token with a story or meme. The primary risks here hinge on who controls the token contract (e.g., can they mint more?) and the LP tokens (e.g., can they pull the liquidity?).

2. Bonding-Curve “Factory” (e.g., pump.fun on Solana)

This model, which surged in popularity on Solana, standardizes and automates the launch process. Anyone can instantly launch a token with a fixed supply (often one billion) onto a linear bonding curve. The price is automatically quoted based on how much has been bought. Once the token reaches a certain market cap threshold, it "graduates" to a major DEX like Raydium, where the liquidity is automatically created and locked. This innovation dramatically lowered the technical barrier, shaping the culture and accelerating the pace of launches.

Why builders care: These new launchpads compress what used to be days of work into minutes. The result is massive, unpredictable traffic spikes that hammer RPC nodes, clog mempools, and challenge indexers. At their peak, these memecoin launches on Solana generated transaction volumes that matched or exceeded all previous network records.

Where "Value" Comes From

Memecoin value is a function of social dynamics, not financial modeling. It typically derives from three sources:

  • Attention Gravity: Memes, celebrity endorsements, or viral news stories act as powerful magnets for attention and, therefore, liquidity. In 2024–2025, tokens themed around celebrities and political figures saw massive, albeit often short-lived, trading flows, particularly on Solana DEXs.
  • Coordination Games: A strong community can rally around a narrative, a piece of art, or a collective stunt. This shared belief can create powerful reflexive price movements, where buying begets more attention, which begets more buying.
  • Occasional Utility Add-Ons: Some successful memecoin projects attempt to "bolt on" utility after gaining traction, introducing swaps, Layer 2 chains, NFT collections, or games. However, the vast majority remain purely speculative, trade-only assets.

The Risks You Can’t Ignore

The memecoin space is rife with dangers. Understanding them is non-negotiable.

Contract and Control Risk

  • Mint/Freeze Authority: Can the original creator mint an infinite supply of new tokens, diluting holders to zero? Can they freeze transfers, trapping your funds?
  • Ownership/Upgrade Rights: A contract with "renounced" ownership, where the admin keys are burned, reduces this risk but doesn't eliminate it entirely. Proxies or other hidden functions can still pose a threat.

Liquidity Risk

  • Locked Liquidity: Is the initial liquidity pool locked in a smart contract for a period of time? If not, the creator can perform a "rug pull" by removing all the valuable assets from the pool, leaving the token worthless. Thin liquidity also means high slippage on trades.

Presales and Soft Rugs

  • Even without a malicious contract, many projects fail. Teams can abandon a project after raising funds in a presale, or insiders can slowly dump their large allocations on the market. The infamous $SLERF launch on Solana showed how even an accidental mistake (like burning the LP tokens) can vaporize millions while paradoxically creating a volatile trading environment.

Market and Operational Risk

  • Extreme Volatility: Prices can swing 90%+ in either direction within minutes. Furthermore, the network effects of a frenzy can be costly. During $PEPE's initial surge, Ethereum gas fees skyrocketed, making transactions prohibitively expensive for late buyers.
  • Rug pulls, pump-and-dumps, phishing links disguised as airdrops, and fake celebrity endorsements are everywhere. Study how common scams work to protect yourself. This content does not constitute legal or investment advice.

A 5-Minute Memecoin Checklist (DYOR in Practice)

Before interacting with any memecoin, run through this basic due diligence checklist:

  1. Supply Math: What is the total supply vs. the circulating supply? How much is allocated to the LP, the team, or a treasury? Are there any vesting schedules?
  2. LP Health: Is the liquidity pool locked? For how long? What percentage of the total supply is in the LP? Use a blockchain explorer to verify these details on-chain.
  3. Admin Powers: Can the contract owner mint new tokens, pause trading, blacklist wallets, or change transaction taxes? Has ownership been renounced?
  4. Distribution: Check the holder distribution. Is the supply concentrated in a few wallets? Look for signs of bot clusters or insider wallets that received large, early allocations.
  5. Contract Provenance: Is the source code verified on-chain? Does it use a standard, well-understood template, or is it full of custom, unaudited code? Beware of honeypot patterns designed to trap funds.
  6. Liquidity Venues: Where does it trade? Is it still on a bonding curve, or has it graduated to a major DEX or CEX? Check the slippage for the trade size you are considering.
  7. Narrative Durability: Does the meme have genuine cultural resonance, or is it a fleeting joke destined to be forgotten by next week?

What Memecoins Do to Blockchains (and Infra)

Memecoin frenzies are a powerful stress test for blockchain infrastructure.

  • Fee and Throughput Spikes: Sudden, intense demand for blockspace stresses RPC gateways, indexers, and validator nodes. In March 2024, Solana recorded its highest-ever daily fees and billions in on-chain volume, driven almost entirely by a memecoin surge. Infrastructure teams must plan capacity for these events.
  • Liquidity Migration: Capital rapidly concentrates around a few hot DEXs and launchpads, reshaping Miner Extractable Value (MEV) and order-flow patterns on the network.
  • User Onboarding: For better or worse, memecoin waves often serve as the first point of contact for new crypto users, who may later explore other dApps in the ecosystem.

Canonical Examples (For Context, Not Endorsement)

  • $DOGE: The original (2013). A proof-of-work currency that still trades primarily on its brand recognition and cultural significance.
  • $SHIB: An Ethereum ERC-20 token that evolved from a simple meme into a large, community-driven ecosystem with its own swap and L2.
  • $PEPE: A 2023 phenomenon on Ethereum whose explosive popularity significantly impacted on-chain economics for validators and users.
  • BONK & WIF (Solana): Emblematic of the 2024-2025 Solana wave. Their rapid rise and subsequent listings on major exchanges catalyzed massive activity on the network.

For Builders and Teams

If you must launch, default to fairness and safety:

  • Provide clear and honest disclosures. No hidden mints or team allocations.
  • Lock a meaningful portion of the liquidity pool and publish proof of the lock.
  • Avoid presales unless you have the operational security to administer them safely.
  • Plan your infrastructure. Prepare for bot activity, rate-limit abuse, and have a clear communication plan for volatile periods.

If you integrate memecoins into your dApp, sandbox flows and protect users:

  • Display prominent warnings about contract risks and thin liquidity.
  • Clearly show slippage and price impact estimates before a user confirms a trade.
  • Expose key metadata—like supply figures and admin rights—directly in your UI.

For Traders

  • Treat position sizing like leverage: use only a small amount of capital you are fully prepared to lose.
  • Plan your entry and exit points before you trade. Do not let emotion drive your decisions.
  • Automate your security hygiene. Use hardware wallets, regularly review token approvals, use allow-listed RPCs, and practice identifying phishing attempts.
  • Be extremely cautious of spikes caused by celebrity or political news. These are often highly volatile and revert quickly.

Quick Glossary

  • Bonding Curve: An automated mathematical formula that sets a token's price as a function of its purchased supply. Common in pump.fun launches.
  • LP Lock: A smart contract that time-locks liquidity pool tokens, preventing the project creator from removing liquidity and "rugging" the project.
  • Renounced Ownership: The act of surrendering the admin keys to a smart contract, which reduces (but doesn't entirely eliminate) the risk of malicious changes.
  • Graduation: The process of a token moving from an initial bonding curve launchpad to a public DEX with a permanent, locked liquidity pool.

Sources & Further Reading

  • Binance Academy: "What Are Meme Coins?" and "Rug pull" definitions.
  • Wikipedia & Binance Academy: DOGE and SHIB origins.
  • CoinGecko: Live memecoin market statistics by sector.
  • CoinDesk: Reporting on Solana fee spikes, PEPE’s impact on Ethereum, and the SLERF case study.
  • Decrypt & Wikipedia: Explanations of pump.fun mechanics and its cultural impact.
  • Investopedia: Overview of common crypto scams and defenses.

Disclosure: This post is for educational purposes and is not investment advice. Crypto assets are extremely volatile. Always verify data on-chain and from multiple sources before making any decisions.

Introducing SUI Token Staking on BlockEden.xyz: Earn 2.08% APY with One-Click Simplicity

· 7 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

We're happy to announce the launch of SUI token staking on BlockEden.xyz! Starting today, you can stake your SUI tokens directly through our platform and earn a $2.08% APY while supporting the security and decentralization of the SUI network.

What's New: A Seamless SUI Staking Experience

Our new staking feature brings institutional-grade staking to everyone with a simple, intuitive interface that makes earning rewards effortless.

Key Features

One-Click Staking Staking SUI has never been easier. Simply connect your Suisplash wallet, enter the amount of SUI you wish to stake, and approve the transaction. You'll start earning rewards almost immediately without any complex procedures.

Competitive Rewards Earn a competitive $2.08% APY on your staked SUI. Our $8% commission fee is transparent, ensuring you know exactly what to expect. Rewards are distributed daily upon the completion of each epoch.

Trusted Validator Join a growing community that has already staked over 22 million SUI with the BlockEden.xyz validator. We have a proven track record of reliable validation services, supported by enterprise-grade infrastructure that ensures $99.9% uptime.

Flexible Management Your assets remain flexible. Staking is instant, meaning your rewards begin to accumulate right away. Should you need to access your funds, you can initiate the unstaking process at any time. Your SUI will be available after the standard SUI network unbonding period of 24-48 hours. You can track your stakes and rewards in real-time through our dashboard.

Why Stake SUI with BlockEden.xyz?

Choosing a validator is a critical decision. Here’s why BlockEden.xyz is a sound choice for your staking needs.

Reliability You Can Trust

BlockEden.xyz has been a cornerstone of blockchain infrastructure since our inception. Our validator infrastructure powers enterprise applications and has maintained exceptional uptime across multiple networks, ensuring consistent reward generation.

Transparent & Fair

We believe in complete transparency. There are no hidden fees—just a clear $8% commission on the rewards you earn. You can monitor your staking performance with real-time reporting and verify our validator's activity on-chain.

  • Open Validator Address: 0x3b5664bb0f8bb4a8be77f108180a9603e154711ab866de83c8344ae1f3ed4695

Seamless Integration

Our platform is designed for simplicity. There's no need to create an account; you can stake directly from your wallet. The experience is optimized for the Suisplash wallet, and our clean, intuitive interface is built for both beginners and experts.

How to Get Started

Getting started with SUI staking on BlockEden.xyz takes less than two minutes.

Step 1: Visit the Staking Page

Navigate to blockeden.xyz/dash/stake. You can begin the process immediately without any account registration.

Step 2: Connect Your Wallet

If you don't have it already, install the Suisplash wallet. Click the "Connect Wallet" button on our staking page and approve the connection in the wallet extension. Your SUI balance will be displayed automatically.

Step 3: Choose Your Stake Amount

Enter the amount of SUI you want to stake (minimum 1 SUI). You can use the "MAX" button to conveniently stake your entire available balance, leaving a small amount for gas fees. A summary will show your stake amount and estimated annual rewards.

Step 4: Confirm & Start Earning

Click "Stake SUI" and approve the final transaction in your wallet. Your new stake will appear on the dashboard in real-time, and you will begin accumulating rewards immediately.

Staking Economics: What You Need to Know

Understanding the mechanics of staking is key to managing your assets effectively.

Reward Structure

  • Base APY: \$2.08% annually
  • Reward Frequency: Distributed every epoch (approximately 24 hours)
  • Commission: \$8% of earned rewards
  • Compounding: Rewards are added to your wallet and can be re-staked to achieve compound growth.

Example Earnings

Here is a straightforward breakdown of potential earnings based on a \$2.08% APY, after the `$8% commission fee.

Stake AmountAnnual RewardsMonthly RewardsDaily Rewards
100 SUI~2.08 SUI~0.17 SUI~0.0057 SUI
1,000 SUI~20.8 SUI~1.73 SUI~0.057 SUI
10,000 SUI~208 SUI~17.3 SUI~0.57 SUI

Note: These are estimates. Actual rewards may vary based on network conditions.

Risk Considerations

Staking involves certain risks that you should be aware of:

  • Unbonding Period: When you unstake, your SUI is subject to a 24-48 hour unbonding period where it is inaccessible and does not earn rewards.
  • Validator Risk: While we maintain high standards, any validator carries operational risks. Choosing a reputable validator like BlockEden.xyz is important.
  • Network Risk: Staking is a form of network participation and is subject to the inherent risks of the underlying blockchain protocol.
  • Market Risk: The market value of the SUI token can fluctuate, which will affect the total value of your staked assets.

Technical Excellence

Enterprise Infrastructure

Our validator nodes are built on a foundation of technical excellence. We utilize redundant systems distributed across multiple geographic regions to ensure high availability. Our infrastructure is under 24/7 monitoring with automated failover capabilities, and a professional operations team manages the system around the clock. We also conduct regular security audits and compliance checks.

Open Source & Transparency

We are committed to the principles of open source. Our staking integration is built to be transparent, allowing users to inspect the underlying processes. Real-time metrics are publicly available on SUI network explorers, and our fee structure is completely open with no hidden costs. We also actively participate in community governance to support the SUI ecosystem.

Supporting the SUI Ecosystem

By staking with BlockEden.xyz, you're doing more than just earning rewards. You are actively contributing to the health and growth of the entire SUI network.

  • Network Security: Your stake adds to the total amount securing the SUI network, making it more robust against potential attacks.
  • Decentralization: Supporting independent validators like BlockEden.xyz enhances the network's resilience and prevents centralization.
  • Ecosystem Growth: The commission fees we earn are reinvested into maintaining and developing critical infrastructure.
  • Innovation: Revenue supports our research and development of new tools and services for the blockchain community.

Security & Best Practices

Please prioritize the security of your assets.

Wallet Security

  • Never share your private keys or seed phrase with anyone.
  • Use a hardware wallet for storing and staking large amounts.
  • Always verify transaction details in your wallet before signing.
  • Keep your wallet software updated to the latest version.

Staking Safety

  • If you are new to staking, start with a small amount to familiarize yourself with the process.
  • Consider diversifying your stake across multiple reputable validators to reduce risk.
  • Regularly monitor your staked assets and rewards.
  • Ensure you understand the unbonding period before you commit your funds.

Join the Future of SUI Staking

The launch of SUI staking on BlockEden.xyz is more than a new feature; it's a gateway to active participation in the decentralized economy. Whether you're an experienced DeFi user or just beginning your journey, our platform provides a simple and secure way to earn rewards while contributing to the future of the SUI network.

Ready to start earning?

Visit blockeden.xyz/dash/stake and stake your first SUI tokens today!


About BlockEden.xyz

BlockEden.xyz is a leading blockchain infrastructure provider offering reliable, scalable, and secure services to developers, enterprises, and the broader Web3 community. From API services to validator operations, we're committed to building the foundation for a decentralized future.

  • Founded: 2021
  • Networks Supported: 15+ blockchain networks
  • Enterprise Clients: 500+ companies worldwide
  • Total Value Secured: $100M+ across all networks

Follow us on Twitter, join our Discord, and explore our full suite of services at BlockEden.xyz.


Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency staking involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Please conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before staking.

Sui’s Reference Gas Price (RGP) Mechanism

· 8 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

Introduction

Announced for public launch on May 3rd, 2023, after an extensive three-wave testnet, the Sui blockchain introduced an innovative gas pricing system designed to benefit both users and validators. At its heart is the Reference Gas Price (RGP), a network-wide baseline gas fee that validators agree upon at the start of each epoch (approximately 24 hours).

This system aims to create a mutually beneficial ecosystem for SUI token holders, validators, and end-users by providing low, predictable transaction costs while simultaneously rewarding validators for performant and reliable behavior. This report provides a deep dive into how the RGP is determined, the calculations validators perform, its impact on the network economy, its evolution through governance, and how it compares to other blockchain gas models.

The Reference Gas Price (RGP) Mechanism

Sui’s RGP is not a static value but is re-established each epoch through a dynamic, validator-driven process.

  • The Gas Price Survey: At the beginning of each epoch, every validator submits their "reservation price"—the minimum gas price they are willing to accept for processing transactions. The protocol then orders these submissions by stake and sets the RGP for that epoch at the stake-weighted 2/3 percentile. This design ensures that validators representing a supermajority (at least two-thirds) of the total stake are willing to process transactions at this price, guaranteeing a reliable level of service.

  • Update Cadence and Requirements: While the RGP is set each epoch, validators are required to actively manage their quotes. According to official guidance, validators must update their gas price quote at least once a week. Furthermore, if there is a significant change in the value of the SUI token, such as a fluctuation of 20% or more, validators must update their quote immediately to ensure the RGP accurately reflects current market conditions.

  • The Tallying Rule and Reward Distribution: To ensure validators honor the agreed-upon RGP, Sui employs a "tallying rule." Throughout an epoch, validators monitor each other’s performance, tracking whether their peers are promptly processing RGP-priced transactions. This monitoring results in a performance score for each validator. At the end of the epoch, these scores are used to calculate a reward multiplier that adjusts each validator's share of the stake rewards.

    • Validators who performed well receive a multiplier of ≥1, boosting their rewards.
    • Validators who stalled, delayed, or failed to process transactions at the RGP receive a multiplier of <1, effectively slashing a portion of their earnings.

This two-part system creates a powerful incentive structure. It discourages validators from quoting an unrealistically low price they can't support, as the financial penalty for underperformance would be severe. Instead, validators are motivated to submit the lowest price they can sustainably and efficiently handle.


Validator Operations: Calculating the Gas Price Quote

From a validator's perspective, setting the RGP quote is a critical operational task that directly impacts profitability. It requires building data pipelines and automation layers to process a number of inputs from both on-chain and off-chain sources. Key inputs include:

  • Gas units executed per epoch
  • Staking rewards and subsidies per epoch
  • Storage fund contributions
  • The market price of the SUI token
  • Operational expenses (hardware, cloud hosting, maintenance)

The goal is to calculate a quote that ensures net rewards are positive. The process involves several key formulas:

  1. Calculate Total Operational Cost: This determines the validator's expenses in fiat currency for a given epoch.

    Costepoch=(Total Gas Units Executedepoch)×(Cost in USD per Gas Unitepoch)\text{Cost}_{\text{epoch}} = (\text{Total Gas Units Executed}_{\text{epoch}}) \times (\text{Cost in USD per Gas Unit}_{\text{epoch}})
  2. Calculate Total Rewards: This determines the validator's total revenue in fiat currency, sourced from both protocol subsidies and transaction fees.

    USD Rewardsepoch=(Total Stake Rewards in SUIepoch)×(SUI Token Price)\text{USD Rewards}_{\text{epoch}} = (\text{Total Stake Rewards in SUI}_{\text{epoch}}) \times (\text{SUI Token Price})

    Where Total Stake Rewards is the sum of any protocol-provided Stake Subsidies and the Gas Fees collected from transactions.

  3. Calculate Net Rewards: This is the ultimate measure of profitability for a validator.

    USD Net Rewardsepoch=USD RewardsepochUSD Costepoch\text{USD Net Rewards}_{\text{epoch}} = \text{USD Rewards}_{\text{epoch}} - \text{USD Cost}_{\text{epoch}}

    By modeling their expected costs and rewards at different RGP levels, validators can determine an optimal quote to submit to the Gas Price Survey.

Upon mainnet launch, Sui set the initial RGP to a fixed 1,000 MIST (1 SUI = 10⁹ MIST) for the first one to two weeks. This provided a stable operating period for validators to gather sufficient network activity data and establish their calculation processes before the dynamic survey mechanism took full effect.


Impact on the Sui Ecosystem

The RGP mechanism profoundly shapes the economics and user experience of the entire network.

  • For Users: Predictable and Stable Fees: The RGP acts as a credible anchor for users. The gas fee for a transaction follows a simple formula: User Gas Price = RGP + Tip. In normal conditions, no tip is needed. During network congestion, users can add a tip to gain priority, creating a fee market without altering the stable base price within the epoch. This model provides significantly more fee stability than systems where the base fee changes with every block.

  • For Validators: A Race to Efficiency: The system fosters healthy competition. Validators are incentivized to lower their operating costs (through hardware and software optimization) to be able to quote a lower RGP profitably. This "race to efficiency" benefits the entire network by driving down transaction costs. The mechanism also pushes validators toward balanced profit margins; quoting too high risks being priced out of the RGP calculation, while quoting too low leads to operational losses and performance penalties.

  • For the Network: Decentralization and Sustainability: The RGP mechanism helps secure the network's long-term health. The "threat of entry" from new, more efficient validators prevents existing validators from colluding to keep prices high. Furthermore, by adjusting their quotes based on the SUI token's market price, validators collectively ensure their operations remain sustainable in real-world terms, insulating the network's fee economy from token price volatility.


Governance and System Evolution: SIP-45

Sui's gas mechanism is not static and evolves through governance. A prominent example is SIP-45 (Prioritized Transaction Submission), which was proposed to refine fee-based prioritization.

  • Issue Addressed: Analysis showed that simply paying a high gas price did not always guarantee faster transaction inclusion.
  • Proposed Changes: The proposal included increasing the maximum allowable gas price and introducing an "amplified broadcast" for transactions paying significantly above the RGP (e.g., ≥5x RGP), ensuring they are rapidly disseminated across the network for priority inclusion.

This demonstrates a commitment to iterating on the gas model based on empirical data to improve its effectiveness.


Comparison with Other Blockchain Gas Models

Sui's RGP model is unique, especially when contrasted with Ethereum's EIP-1559.

AspectSui (Reference Gas Price)Ethereum (EIP-1559)
Base Fee DeterminationValidator survey each epoch (market-driven).Algorithmic each block (protocol-driven).
Frequency of UpdateOnce per epoch (~24 hours).Every block (~12 seconds).
Fee DestinationAll fees (RGP + tip) go to validators.Base fee is burned; only the tip goes to validators.
Price StabilityHigh. Predictable day-over-day.Medium. Can spike rapidly with demand.
Validator IncentivesCompete on efficiency to set a low, profitable RGP.Maximize tips; no control over the base fee.

Potential Criticisms and Challenges

Despite its innovative design, the RGP mechanism faces potential challenges:

  • Complexity: The system of surveys, tallying rules, and off-chain calculations is intricate and may present a learning curve for new validators.
  • Slow Reaction to Spikes: The RGP is fixed for an epoch and cannot react to sudden, mid-epoch demand surges, which could lead to temporary congestion until users begin adding tips.
  • Potential for Collusion: In theory, validators could collude to set a high RGP. This risk is primarily mitigated by the competitive nature of the permissionless validator set.
  • No Fee Burn: Unlike Ethereum, Sui recycles all gas fees to validators and the storage fund. This rewards network operators but does not create deflationary pressure on the SUI token, a feature some token holders value.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Why stake SUI? Staking SUI secures the network and earns rewards. Initially, these rewards are heavily subsidized by the Sui Foundation to compensate for low network activity. These subsidies decrease by 10% every 90 days, with the expectation that rewards from transaction fees will grow to become the primary source of yield. Staked SUI also grants voting rights in on-chain governance.

Can my staked SUI be slashed? Yes. While parameters are still being finalized, "Tally Rule Slashing" applies. A validator who receives a zero performance score from 2/3 of its peers (due to low performance, malicious behavior, etc.) will have its rewards slashed by a to-be-determined amount. Stakers can also miss out on rewards if their chosen validator has downtime or quotes a suboptimal RGP.

Are staking rewards automatically compounded? Yes, staking rewards on Sui are automatically distributed and re-staked (compounded) every epoch. To access rewards, you must explicitly unstake them.

What is the Sui unbonding period? Initially, stakers can unbond their tokens immediately. An unbonding period where tokens are locked for a set time after unstaking is expected to be implemented and will be subject to governance.

Do I maintain custody of my SUI tokens when staking? Yes. When you stake SUI, you delegate your stake but remain in full control of your tokens. You never transfer custody to the validator.

Hong Kong's Stablecoin Law: A Game-Changer for Global Crypto and the digital Yuan

· 11 min read

Hong Kong, May 21, 2025 – Hong Kong’s Legislative Council has passed the Stablecoin Ordinance Bill, making it one of the first jurisdictions globally to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoin issuance. This move not only addresses the growing concerns around stablecoin risks, like a lack of transparent reserves, but also solidifies Hong Kong’s position as a leader in the regulated virtual asset space.

Let's dive into how this legislation will impact the global stablecoin landscape, Hong Kong's standing in the crypto world, and the internationalization of the Renminbi, particularly the digital Yuan.


The Global Push for Stablecoin Regulation Heats Up

The need for stablecoin regulation has become increasingly clear. With over $38 trillion in global stablecoin transactions in 2024, yet over 60% of issuers refusing to disclose reserve details, a "trust crisis" emerged, exacerbated by events like the TerraUSD collapse. This has spurred regulators worldwide to act.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has finalized its recommendations for stablecoin oversight, and the principle of "same activity, same risk, same regulation" is gaining traction. Hong Kong's new law aligns perfectly with this global trend.

Key Regulatory Developments Around the World:

  • United States: The "GENIUS Act" passed the Senate, marking the first comprehensive federal stablecoin bill. It mandates 1:1, high-quality asset reserves, priority repayment for holders in bankruptcy, and strict AML/CFT compliance. While stablecoins like USDT and USDC largely meet these reserve and transparency requirements, the focus will now shift to their operational compliance.
  • Europe: The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, effective since late 2024, categorizes single-fiat-pegged stablecoins as Electronic Money Tokens (EMT) and multi-asset-pegged ones as Asset-Referenced Tokens (ART). Both require authorization, 100% reserves, and redemption rights. MiCA has already spurred the growth of Euro-denominated stablecoins, signaling a potential shift in the dollar's dominance.
  • Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) finalized its framework for single-currency stablecoins in August 2023, requiring licenses, 100% reserves in matched currencies, and robust capital requirements.
  • Japan: Japan's revised Payment Services Act, in effect since June 2023, defines stablecoins as "electronic payment instruments" and restricts issuance to licensed banks and trust companies, requiring 1:1 fiat backing.

This global "stablecoin regulatory arms race" underscores Hong Kong's proactive approach, setting a precedent for others to follow.

Impact on Major Stablecoins:

Leading stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle have already begun adjusting their strategies to meet evolving global standards. Tether has significantly increased its US Treasury holdings, making its reserves more compliant. Circle's USDC, with its high cash and short-term US Treasury reserves, is well-positioned to thrive in a regulated environment.

However, decentralized, crypto-collateralized stablecoins like DAI, which lack a centralized issuer or fiat reserves, may face challenges under these new regulations, as they fall outside the scope of fiat-backed stablecoin frameworks.


Hong Kong's Ascent in the Crypto Financial Ecosystem

Hong Kong's stablecoin licensing regime is a significant step in its journey to become a leading virtual asset hub. Building on its 2022 "Virtual Asset Development Policy Statement" and 2023 virtual asset exchange licensing, Hong Kong now boasts one of the most comprehensive regulatory frameworks globally.

As Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Christopher Hui stated, Hong Kong's "risk-based, same activity, same risk, same regulation" approach safeguards financial stability while fostering innovation. Eddie Yue, CEO of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), echoed this, highlighting how a robust regulatory system will drive healthy, responsible, and sustainable growth in the digital asset ecosystem.

Attracting Global Players:

The clear regulatory framework has already boosted confidence among international and local institutions. Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) and Ant Group's international business have expressed intentions to apply for stablecoin licenses. Even during the "sandbox" pilot phase, major players like JD.com, Round Dollar, and a Standard Chartered joint venture participated, demonstrating strong industry interest.

First-Mover Advantage and Comprehensive Oversight:

Hong Kong's regulations go further by restricting stablecoin sales to the public to only licensed issuers, significantly reducing fraud. Furthermore, the ordinance has a degree of extraterritorial reach: stablecoins issued outside Hong Kong but pegged to the Hong Kong dollar must obtain a license. The HKMA can also designate foreign-issued stablecoins as "regulated stablecoin entities" if they pose significant financial stability risks to Hong Kong. This "licensed operation + real-time audit + global accountability" model is groundbreaking and positions Hong Kong as a global leader in stablecoin regulation.

Building a Richer Ecosystem:

Hong Kong isn't just focusing on exchanges and stablecoins. The government plans to consult on regulations for over-the-counter (OTC) trading and custody services, and a second virtual asset development policy statement is on the horizon. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has also approved virtual asset spot ETFs, signaling support for further innovation in digital asset products.

This comprehensive approach fosters a dynamic Web3 and digital finance environment. For example, Hong Kong Telecommunications' "Tap & Go" e-wallet, with 8 million users, is integrating with Alipay for cross-border payments, potentially reducing international remittance times from days to seconds. In the realm of tokenized assets, HashKey Group offers lossless stablecoin exchange tools, and Standard Chartered's tokenized bond initiatives have improved settlement efficiency by 70%. Even green finance is getting a digital boost, with the HKMA's Project Ensemble exploring stablecoins as a pricing anchor for global carbon markets. These initiatives solidify Hong Kong's status as a hub for compliant crypto innovation.


Propelling the Internationalization of the Renminbi

Hong Kong's new stablecoin regulations have profound implications for the internationalization of the Renminbi (RMB). As China's international financial center and the largest offshore RMB hub, Hong Kong is a crucial testing ground for the RMB's global reach.

1. Enabling Compliant Offshore RMB Stablecoin Issuance:

The new regulations pave the way for the compliant issuance of offshore RMB (CNH) stablecoins in Hong Kong. While the current ordinance focuses on HKD and other official currency-pegged stablecoins, the HKMA is open to future RMB stablecoin issuance. This could open a new channel for RMB internationalization, allowing overseas markets and investors to easily hold and use RMB value through compliant digital assets.

2. Building New Cross-Border Payment Channels for the RMB:

Offshore RMB stablecoins could dramatically improve the efficiency of cross-border RMB payments. By bypassing traditional SWIFT networks, which are often slow and costly, RMB stablecoins could facilitate direct settlement of RMB-denominated goods and services in global trade. This could significantly expand the use of RMB in e-commerce, tourism, and even "Belt and Road" infrastructure projects.

3. Complementary Role with Digital Renminbi (e-CNY):

Hong Kong's stablecoin regulations complement China's central bank digital currency (CBDC), the digital RMB (e-CNY). While e-CNY is a sovereign digital currency emphasizing state credit and controlled anonymity for retail payments, stablecoins are issued by commercial entities, market-driven, and offer on-chain programmability.

This could lead to a "dual-circulation" system where e-CNY provides the core settlement layer for domestic and some cross-border payments, while HKMA-regulated RMB stablecoins facilitate broader global circulation. For instance, Hong Kong is working to connect its Faster Payment System (FPS) with mainland China's Interbank Payment System (IBPS), enabling seamless real-time cross-border remittances. HKD stablecoins could act as an intermediary, facilitating value transfer between the two regions without violating mainland capital controls. This could expand RMB circulation to areas not yet covered by the e-CNY network.

4. Boosting Offshore RMB Liquidity and Product Innovation:

Hong Kong already handles about 80% of global offshore RMB payments. The stablecoin ordinance will further diversify RMB liquidity and asset allocation. HashKey Exchange, a licensed virtual asset exchange in Hong Kong, has already expanded its fiat on/off-ramp services to include CNH, HKD, USD, and EUR, further promoting RMB's practical use in the crypto market.

Financial Secretary Paul Chan has also pledged support for more RMB-denominated investment products and risk management tools, such as RMB government bonds and "dim sum" bonds. These initiatives, combined with stablecoins, will create a more vibrant offshore RMB ecosystem. Hong Kong's collaboration with the People's Bank of China on RMB trade finance liquidity arrangements and participation in the mBridge CBDC project further solidifies the infrastructure for cross-border RMB use.


Unpacking Hong Kong's Stablecoin Regulations: Core Provisions and Global Comparisons

Hong Kong's Stablecoin Ordinance primarily targets Fiat-Referenced Stablecoins (FRS) with a rigorous set of standards, emphasizing robustness, transparency, and control.

Core Regulatory Requirements:

  • Licensing and Issuance Restrictions: Issuing FRS in Hong Kong or issuing HKD-pegged stablecoins from outside Hong Kong requires an HKMA license. Only licensed issuers can sell stablecoins to the public in Hong Kong, and advertising for unlicensed stablecoins is prohibited.
  • Reserve Asset Requirements: Stablecoins must be 1:1 backed by high-quality, segregated, and independently custodied reserves. The market value of reserves must at all times be equal to or greater than the stablecoin's total outstanding face value. Quarterly reserve disclosures will be mandatory.
  • Redemption and Stability Mechanisms: Licensed issuers must ensure holders can redeem their stablecoins at par value without undue restrictions or high fees. In case of issuer bankruptcy, holders have priority claims on the reserve assets.
  • Issuer Qualifications and Operational Requirements: Strict standards for applicants include:
    • Local Entity and Minimum Capital: Issuers must be registered in Hong Kong and have a minimum paid-up capital of HK$25 million (approx. US$3.2 million), which is higher than Singapore's.
    • Fit and Proper Persons and Governance: Controlling shareholders, directors, and senior management must meet "fit and proper" criteria, demonstrating integrity and competence. Robust corporate governance and transparency (e.g., whitepapers, complaints procedures) are also required.
    • Risk Management and Compliance: Comprehensive risk management frameworks are mandatory, including strict AML/CFT compliance, robust cybersecurity, and fraud prevention measures.
  • Transition Arrangements: A six-month transition period allows existing stablecoin businesses to apply for a license within the first three months, potentially receiving a provisional license while their full application is reviewed.
  • Enforcement and Penalties: The HKMA has extensive investigative and enforcement powers, including fines up to HK$10 million or three times the illicit gains, and the ability to suspend or revoke licenses.

Comparison with Other International Frameworks:

Hong Kong's stablecoin ordinance generally aligns with the regulatory philosophies of the EU's MiCA and proposed US federal laws, all emphasizing 100% reserves, redemption rights, and licensing. However, Hong Kong has carved out its unique features:

  • Legal Status and Scope: While MiCA is a comprehensive crypto asset regulation, Hong Kong has focused specifically on fiat-pegged stablecoins, with the ability to expand to other types later.
  • Regulatory Body and Licensing: Hong Kong's HKMA is the primary regulator, issuing stablecoin licenses parallel to existing banking and stored-value facility licenses. Hong Kong's distinct feature is its explicit extraterritorial reach, encompassing stablecoins pegged to the HKD regardless of their issuance location.
  • Capital and Operational Restrictions: Hong Kong's higher minimum capital requirement (HK$25 million) is notable, suggesting a preference for well-capitalized players. While not explicitly prohibiting other business activities in the ordinance, the HKMA can impose restrictions.
  • Redemption Rights and Timelines: Like other jurisdictions, Hong Kong prioritizes timely and unimpeded redemption rights, treating stablecoins akin to redeemable electronic deposits.
  • Transparency and Disclosure: Hong Kong's regulations require public whitepapers and ongoing disclosure of significant information. Uniquely, it also restricts advertising for unlicensed stablecoins, showcasing a strong commitment to investor protection.
  • Extraterritorial Influence and International Coordination: Hong Kong's "designated stablecoin entity" mechanism allows it to regulate foreign-issued stablecoins if they significantly impact Hong Kong's financial stability. This proactive cross-border macroprudential approach sets it apart from MiCA and US proposals, offering a potential model for other small, open economies.

The Road Ahead

Hong Kong's Stablecoin Ordinance is a significant milestone, setting a high bar for responsible stablecoin issuance and operation. Its comprehensive yet flexible approach, coupled with a strong emphasis on investor protection and financial stability, positions Hong Kong as a crucial player in the evolving global digital finance landscape.

This move is not just about stablecoins; it's a strategic play that bolsters Hong Kong's status as an international financial center and provides a vital platform for the digital Renminbi to expand its global footprint. As jurisdictions worldwide continue to grapple with crypto regulation, Hong Kong's model is likely to be a key reference point, ushering in a new era of compliant competition and innovation in the stablecoin industry.

What are your thoughts on Hong Kong's new stablecoin regulations and their potential impact?

The GENIUS Act: Decoding the Landmark U.S. Stablecoin Legislation and Its Crypto Market Shockwaves

· 11 min read

The U.S. Congress is on the cusp of making history with the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a groundbreaking bipartisan bill introduced in early 2025. This legislation aims to establish the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for stablecoins – those digital currencies pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar. With strong backing from key senators across the aisle and even the White House's "crypto czar," the GENIUS Act is not just another bill; it's a potential cornerstone for the future of digital assets in the United States.

Having already achieved a significant milestone by being the first major digital asset legislation approved by a congressional committee in the new Congress, the GENIUS Act is sending ripples through the $230+ billion stablecoin market and beyond. Let's dive into what this Act is all about, its current standing, and the transformative impacts it’s expected to unleash on the cryptocurrency landscape.

What's the Big Idea? Purpose and Key Pillars of the GENIUS Act

At its core, the GENIUS Act seeks to bring order, safety, and clarity to the rapidly expanding world of "payment stablecoins." Lawmakers are responding to the explosive growth in stablecoin usage and the lessons learned from past collapses (like those of algorithmic stablecoins) to:

  • Protect Consumers: Shield users from risks like runs, fraud, and illicit activities.
  • Ensure Financial Stability: Mitigate systemic risks associated with unregulated stablecoins.
  • Foster Responsible Innovation: Legitimize stablecoins and encourage their development within a U.S. regulatory framework.

What Counts as a "Payment Stablecoin"? The Act defines a "payment stablecoin" as a digital asset meant for payments or settlements, which the issuer promises to redeem at a fixed monetary value (e.g., $1 USD). Crucially, these tokens must be fully collateralized on a 1:1 basis with approved reserves like U.S. dollars or other high-quality liquid assets. This explicitly excludes algorithmic stablecoins, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and registered investment products from this specific regulatory regime. Think USDC or a U.S.-issued USDT, not an index fund token.

Who Gets to Issue Stablecoins? A New Licensing Framework

To legally issue a payment stablecoin in the U.S., entities must become a "Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer" (PPSI). Unlicensed issuance will be prohibited. The Act outlines three paths to becoming a PPSI:

  1. Insured Depository Institution (IDI) Subsidiaries: Subsidiaries of federally insured banks or credit unions, approved by their regulators.
  2. Federal Nonbank Stablecoin Issuers: A new type of OCC-chartered entity, offering a federal license for nonbank fintech companies.
  3. State-Qualified Stablecoin Issuers: State-chartered entities (like trust companies) approved under state regimes that meet federal standards.

Balancing Federal and State Power: The Act attempts a delicate balance. Issuers with over $10 billion in stablecoin market cap will fall under mandatory federal regulation. Smaller issuers (under $10 billion) can opt for state-based regulation if the state's framework is deemed "substantially similar" to federal rules. However, once a state-regulated issuer crosses the $10 billion threshold, it must transition to federal oversight within 360 days. This dual approach aims to foster innovation at the state level while ensuring systemic players are under direct federal supervision.

The Rulebook: Strict Standards for Stablecoin Issuers

All permitted issuers must adhere to rigorous prudential requirements:

  • Full 1:1 Reserve Backing: Every stablecoin must be backed by at least one dollar in safe, liquid assets (cash, U.S. Treasuries, etc.). No fractional or algorithmic backing allowed for these regulated "payment stablecoins."
  • Guaranteed Redemption Rights: Issuers must honor redemptions at par value in a timely manner.
  • Segregated and Safe Reserves: Reserve assets must be kept separate from the issuer’s operational funds and cannot be rehypothecated (lent out or reused).
  • Capital and Liquidity Buffers: Issuers must meet tailored capital and liquidity requirements set by regulators.
  • Transparency through Audits and Disclosures: Monthly reserve attestations and periodic independent audits are mandated, with public reporting on reserve composition. Large issuers (>$50 billion) face annual audited financial statements.
  • Robust Risk Management & Cybersecurity: Comprehensive risk management frameworks, including enhanced cybersecurity, are required. Individuals with financial crime convictions are barred from management.

Keeping a Watchful Eye: Oversight, Enforcement, and Consumer Safeguards

Federal bank regulators (Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC) are empowered to supervise and take enforcement actions against any permitted stablecoin issuer, including state-regulated ones in certain scenarios. They can issue cease-and-desist orders, levy fines, or revoke licenses.

The Act also sets rules for custodians and wallet providers:

  • Must be regulated entities.
  • Must segregate customer stablecoins from their own assets.
  • Cannot commingle or misuse customer funds.
  • Must provide monthly audited compliance reports. These measures aim to prevent scenarios like the 2022 crypto exchange failures by ensuring customer assets are protected, even in bankruptcy. Banks are explicitly allowed to custody stablecoins and their reserves and even issue tokenized deposits.

A landmark provision of the GENIUS Act declares that payment stablecoins are neither securities nor commodities under U.S. law. This carves them out from SEC oversight in this regard and nullifies accounting treatments like SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 that would force custodians to list such assets as liabilities. Stablecoins are to be treated as payment instruments. Importantly, the Act confirms stablecoin holders do not have federal deposit insurance.

If Things Go Wrong: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Protections

In an issuer insolvency, the GENIUS Act grants stablecoin holders a first-priority claim on the issuer’s reserve assets, ahead of other creditors. This aims to maximize the chances of holders redeeming their stablecoins at par, though some legal scholars note this is an unusual approach that subordinates other claims.

Tackling Illicit Finance: AML and National Security

The full weight of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) will apply to stablecoin activities. Issuers must implement robust AML/CFT programs and sanctions compliance. FinCEN is directed to issue tailored rules and facilitate new methods to detect illicit crypto activity.

The "Tether Loophole"? Addressing Foreign Issuers

Recognizing the prevalence of offshore stablecoins like Tether (USDT), the Act states that after a grace period (reportedly three years), it will be unlawful to offer non-U.S. permitted stablecoins to U.S. users. However, an exception exists: foreign stablecoins from jurisdictions with comparable regulation, whose issuers comply with U.S. law enforcement requests (e.g., freezing illicit accounts), can continue to be traded. Critics worry this "Tether loophole" might allow large offshore issuers to evade the full U.S. regime, potentially disadvantaging U.S.-based issuers.

What About Algorithmic Stablecoins? A Study is Mandated

The GENIUS Act does not legitimize algorithmic or "endogenously collateralized" stablecoins (like the failed TerraUSD). Instead, it mandates a U.S. Treasury study on these designs within one year. For now, they fall outside the "payment stablecoin" definition and cannot be issued by licensed entities under this Act.

Current Status: The GENIUS Act's Journey Through Congress (as of May 2025)

  • Introduced: February 4, 2025, by Senator Bill Hagerty and co-sponsors.
  • Senate Banking Committee Approval: Passed 18-6 on March 13, 2025.
  • Senate Floor Action: After an initial cloture vote fell short on May 8, negotiations led to amendments. A subsequent cloture vote on May 19, 2025, succeeded 66-32, clearing the path for a full Senate debate and final passage vote, which is expected imminently and highly likely to pass.
  • House Companion Bill: The House Financial Services Committee is working on its own "STABLE Act," which aligns closely with the GENIUS Act. House action is expected to pick up once the Senate passes its version.

Given strong bipartisan support and backing from the Trump Administration, the GENIUS Act has a strong prospect of becoming law in 2025, marking a pivotal moment for U.S. crypto regulation.

The Ripple Effect: Expected Impacts on the Crypto Market

The GENIUS Act is set to dramatically reshape the crypto landscape:

  • Increased Trust & Institutional Adoption: Regulatory clarity is expected to boost confidence, attracting more institutional investors and traditional financial players to use stablecoins for trading, payments, and settlements.
  • Consolidation & Compliance Costs: The rigorous requirements and compliance costs may lead to market consolidation, favoring well-capitalized and compliant issuers (like Circle or Paxos). Smaller or non-compliant ventures might exit the U.S. market.
  • U.S. Global Competitiveness: The Act could bolster the U.S. dollar's dominance in digital assets by creating a robust framework for USD-pegged stablecoins, potentially attracting issuers to the U.S.
  • DeFi and Broader Crypto Markets:
    • Positive: Greater stability in stablecoins (the lifeblood of DeFi) could attract institutional capital into DeFi protocols using regulated stablecoins.
    • Adaptation Needed: DeFi protocols may need to ensure they use compliant stablecoins for U.S. users.
  • Innovation for Banks & Payment Firms: The Act explicitly allows banks to issue their own stablecoins or tokenized deposits, potentially leading to increased competition and integration of crypto tech with mainstream finance.
  • Remaining Challenges:
    • Privacy Concerns: Increased AML/BSA compliance means greater transaction monitoring, potentially pushing privacy-seeking users to other assets.
    • Algorithmic Stablecoins: Their future remains uncertain pending the Treasury study.
    • "Tether Loophole": If not tightened, it could create an uneven playing field.

Impact Snapshot by Asset Type:

Asset/Coin TypeImplications under the GENIUS Act
Regulated USD Stablecoins (e.g., USDC, USDP)Clear legal status, licensing required, 1:1 reserves. Likely increased trust, adoption, and trading volumes. Positive for compliant issuers.
Offshore/Unregulated Stablecoins (e.g., Tether USDT)Restricted after 2-3 years unless from a comparable regulatory regime and cooperative with U.S. law enforcement. Pressure to comply or lose U.S. market access. Potential market volatility during transition.
Decentralized/Algorithmic Stablecoins (e.g., DAI)Not recognized as "payment stablecoins." Treasury study mandated. May limit U.S. growth or push activity offshore. Projects might need to re-engineer.
Major Cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.)Indirect benefits. Improved on/off ramps and market stability from regulated stablecoins could boost liquidity and confidence. Ethereum, with its large stablecoin ecosystem, may see significant positive impact (e.g., increased transaction fees/demand for ETH).
Smart Contract Platforms & Altcoins (Solana, Tron)Likely beneficiaries from increased regulated stablecoin volume on efficient networks. Platforms supporting fast, low-cost transactions stand to gain.
Privacy Coins (Monero, Zcash, etc.)No direct mention. Potentially a modest increase in interest from users seeking to avoid traceable regulated stablecoins, but these coins face their own regulatory pressures. Likely to remain niche.

Voices from the Field: Expert Commentary and Industry Reactions

The GENIUS Act has elicited a spectrum of opinions:

  • Government & Regulatory Experts: Generally view it as a vital step to introduce "helpful guardrails." However, some former regulators caution about potential loopholes, like the foreign issuer exemption, arguing it could "undermine the purpose of US stablecoin legislation" if not addressed. State regulators advocate for retaining a meaningful oversight role.
  • Legal Scholars & Financial Analysts: Applaud the clarity that stablecoins are not securities. However, some bankruptcy law experts, like Professor Adam Levitin, have critiqued the "super-priority" for stablecoin holders in bankruptcy, suggesting it could create fairness issues with other creditors.
  • Crypto Industry & Market Participants: The reaction is broadly positive, seeing the Act as a legitimizing force. Blockchain fund CEO Kavita Gupta noted the welcome differentiation of stablecoins from speculative crypto. Analysts at Galaxy Digital acknowledge the stricter requirements in the final drafts but see them as bolstering credibility. Crypto policy expert Jake Chervinsky highlighted the potential for increased institutional confidence. Venture investor Chris Burniske suggests Ethereum could see the "most significant positive impact."

The Dawn of a New Era for Stablecoins?

The GENIUS Act of 2025 represents a monumental effort to integrate stablecoins into the regulated financial system. It promises enhanced stability, robust consumer protection, and a clearer path for innovation. While debates continue on specific provisions and implementation will be key, its passage would signify that crypto, starting with digital dollars, is being formally recognized and structured within the U.S. economy.

The coming months will be critical as the House considers the bill and the industry gears up for a new compliance landscape. One thing is clear: the GENIUS Act is poised to be a defining piece of legislation, potentially setting global standards and ushering in a more mature, albeit more regulated, era for the cryptocurrency market.


Sources: Official text of the GENIUS Act; Covington & Burling analysis; Sullivan & Cromwell client memo; Congressional Research Service Insight; Senate Banking Committee press releases; CoinDesk news report; Atlantic Council policy commentary; Binance/Chris Burniske commentary; blockchain.news/J. Chervinsky remarks; PYMNTS.com coverage.

Meta’s Stablecoin Revival in 2025: Plans, Strategy, and Impact

· 26 min read

Meta’s 2025 Stablecoin Initiative – Announcements and Projects

In May 2025, reports surfaced that Meta (formerly Facebook) is re-entering the stablecoin market with new initiatives focused on digital currencies. While Meta has not formally announced a new coin, a Fortune report revealed the company is in discussions with crypto firms about using stablecoins for payments. These discussions are still preliminary (Meta is in “learn mode”), but they mark Meta’s first significant crypto move since the 2019–2022 Libra/Diem project. Notably, Meta aims to leverage stablecoins to handle payouts for content creators and cross-border transfers on its platforms.

Official stance: Meta has not launched any new cryptocurrency of its own as of May 2025. Andy Stone, Meta’s Communications Director, responded to the rumors by clarifying that “Diem is ‘dead.’ There is no Meta stablecoin.”. This indicates that instead of resurrecting an in-house coin like Diem, Meta’s approach is likely to integrate existing stablecoins (possibly issued by partner firms) into its ecosystem. In fact, sources suggest Meta may use multiple stablecoins rather than a single proprietary coin. In short, the project in 2025 is not a relaunch of Libra/Diem, but a new effort to support stablecoins within Meta’s products.

Strategic Goals and Motivations for Meta

Meta’s renewed crypto foray is driven by clear strategic goals. Chief among these is reducing payment friction and cost for global user transactions. By using stablecoins (digital tokens pegged 1:1 to fiat currency), Meta can simplify cross-border payments and creator monetization across its 3+ billion users. Specific motivations include:

  • Lowering Payment Costs: Meta makes countless small payouts to contributors and creators worldwide. Stablecoin payouts would let Meta pay everyone in a single USD-pegged currency, avoiding hefty fees from bank wires or currency conversions. For example, a creator in India or Nigeria could receive a USD stablecoin rather than dealing with costly international bank transfers. This could save Meta money (fewer processing fees) and speed up payments.

  • Micropayments and New Revenue Streams: Stablecoins enable fast, low-cost micro-transactions. Meta could facilitate tipping, in-app purchases, or revenue sharing in tiny increments (cents or dollars) without exorbitant fees. For instance, sending a few dollars in stablecoin costs only fractions of a cent on certain networks. This capability is crucial for business models like tipping content creators, cross-border e-commerce on Facebook Marketplace, or buying digital goods in the metaverse.

  • Global User Engagement: A stablecoin integrated into Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc., would function as a universal digital currency within Meta’s ecosystem. This can keep users and their money circulating inside Meta’s apps (similar to how WeChat uses WeChat Pay). Meta could become a major fintech platform by handling remittances, shopping, and creator payments internally. Such a move aligns with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s longstanding interest in expanding Meta’s role in financial services and the metaverse economy (where digital currencies are needed for transactions).

  • Staying Competitive: The broader tech and finance industry is warming up to stablecoins as essential infrastructure. Rivals and financial partners are embracing stablecoins, from PayPal’s PYUSD launch in 2023 to Mastercard, Visa, and Stripe’s stablecoin projects. Meta doesn’t want to be left behind in what some see as the future of payments. Re-entering crypto now allows Meta to capitalize on an evolving market (stablecoins may grow by $2 trillion by 2028, according to Standard Chartered) and to diversify its business beyond advertising.

In summary, Meta’s stablecoin push is about cutting costs, unlocking new features (fast global payments), and positioning Meta as a key player in the digital economy. These motivations echo the original Libra vision of financial inclusion, but with a more focused and pragmatic approach in 2025.

Technology and Blockchain Infrastructure Plans

Unlike the Libra project—which involved creating a brand-new blockchain—Meta’s 2025 strategy leans toward using existing blockchain infrastructure and stablecoins. According to reports, Meta is considering Ethereum’s blockchain as one backbone for these stablecoin transactions. Ethereum is attractive due to its maturity and widespread adoption in the crypto ecosystem. In fact, Meta “plans to start using stablecoins on the Ethereum blockchain” to reach its massive user base. This suggests Meta might integrate popular Ethereum-based stablecoins (like USDC or USDT) into its apps.

However, Meta appears open to a multi-chain or multi-coin approach. The company will “likely use more than one type of stablecoin” for different purposes. This could involve:

  • Partnering with Major Stablecoin Issuers: Meta has reportedly been in talks with firms like Circle (issuer of USDC) and others. It may support USD Coin (USDC) and Tether (USDT), the two largest USD stablecoins, to ensure liquidity and familiarity for users. Integrating existing regulated stablecoins would spare Meta the trouble of issuing its own token while providing immediate scale.

  • Utilizing Efficient Networks: Meta also seems interested in high-speed, low-cost blockchain networks. The hiring of Ginger Baker (more on her below) hints at this strategy. Baker sits on the board of the Stellar Development Foundation, and analysts note that Stellar’s network is designed for compliance and cheap transactions. Stellar natively supports regulated stablecoins and features like KYC and on-chain reporting. It’s speculated that Meta Pay’s wallet could leverage Stellar for near-instant micropayments (sending USDC via Stellar costs a fraction of a cent). In essence, Meta might route transactions through whichever blockchain offers the best mix of compliance, speed, and low fees (Ethereum for broad compatibility, Stellar or others for efficiency).

  • Meta Pay Wallet Transformation: On the front end, Meta is likely upgrading its existing Meta Pay infrastructure into a “decentralized-ready” digital wallet. Meta Pay (formerly Facebook Pay) currently handles traditional payments on Meta’s platforms. Under Baker’s leadership, it is envisioned to support cryptocurrencies and stablecoins seamlessly. This means users could hold stablecoin balances, send them to peers, or receive payouts in-app, with the complexity of blockchain managed behind the scenes.

Importantly, Meta is not building a new coin or chain from scratch this time. By using proven public blockchains and partner-issued coins, Meta can roll out stablecoin functionality faster and with (hopefully) less regulatory resistance. The technology plan focuses on integration rather than invention – weaving stablecoins into Meta’s products in a way that feels natural to users (e.g. a WhatsApp user might send a USDC payment as easily as sending a photo).

Reviving Diem/Novi or Starting Anew?

Meta’s current initiative clearly differs from its past Libra/Diem effort. Libra (announced 2019) was an ambitious plan for a Facebook-led global currency, backed by a basket of assets and governed by an association of companies. It was later rebranded to Diem (a USD-pegged stablecoin) but ultimately shut down in early 2022 amid regulatory backlash. Novi, the accompanying crypto wallet, was piloted briefly but also discontinued.

In 2025, Meta is not simply reviving Diem/Novi. Key differences in the new approach include:

  • No In-House “Meta Coin” (For Now): During Libra, Facebook was essentially creating its own currency. Now, Meta’s spokespeople emphasize that “there is no Meta stablecoin” in development. Diem is dead and won’t be resurrected. Instead, the focus is on using existing stablecoins (issued by third parties) as payment tools. This shift from issuer to integrator is a direct lesson from Libra’s failure – Meta is avoiding the appearance of coining its own money.

  • Compliance-First Strategy: Libra’s broad vision spooked regulators who feared a private currency for billions could undermine national currencies. Today Meta is operating more quietly and cooperatively. The company is hiring compliance and fintech experts (for example, Ginger Baker) and choosing technologies known for regulatory compliance (e.g. Stellar). Any new stablecoin features will likely require identity verification and adhere to financial regulations in each jurisdiction, in contrast to Libra’s initially decentralized approach.

  • Scaling Back Ambitions (at Least Initially): Libra aimed to be a universal currency and financial system. Meta’s 2025 effort has a narrower initial scope: payouts and peer-to-peer payments within Meta’s platforms. By targeting creator payments (like “up to $100” micro-payouts on Instagram), Meta is finding a use-case that is less likely to alarm regulators than a full-scale global currency. Over time this could expand, but the rollout is expected to be gradual and use-case driven, rather than a Big Bang launch of a new coin.

  • No Public Association or New Blockchain: Libra was managed by an independent association and required partners running nodes on a brand new blockchain. The new approach doesn’t involve creating a consortium or a custom network. Meta is working directly with established crypto companies and leveraging their infrastructure. This behind-the-scenes collaboration means less publicity and potentially fewer regulatory targets than Libra’s highly public coalition.

In summary, Meta is starting anew, using the lessons from Libra/Diem to chart a more pragmatic course. The company has essentially pivoted from “becoming a crypto issuer” to “being a crypto-friendly platform”. As one crypto analyst observed, whether Meta “builds and issues their own [stablecoin] or partners with someone like Circle is yet to be determined” – but all signs point to partnerships rather than a solo venture like Diem.

Key Personnel, Partnerships, and Collaborations

Meta has made strategic hires and likely partnerships to drive this stablecoin initiative. The standout personnel move is the addition of Ginger Baker as Meta’s Vice President of Product for payments and crypto. Baker joined Meta in January 2025 specifically to “help shepherd [Meta’s] stablecoin explorations”. Her background is a strong indicator of Meta’s strategy:

  • Ginger Baker – Fintech Veteran: Baker is a seasoned payment executive. She previously worked at Plaid (as Chief Network Officer), and has experience at Ripple, Square, and Visa – all major players in payments/crypto. Uniquely, she also served on the board of the Stellar Development Foundation, and was an executive there. By hiring Baker, Meta gains expertise in both traditional fintech and blockchain networks (Ripple and Stellar are focused on cross-border and compliance). Baker is now “spearheading Meta’s renewed stablecoin initiatives”, including the transformation of Meta Pay into a crypto-ready wallet. Her leadership suggests Meta will build a product that bridges conventional payments with crypto (likely ensuring things like bank integrations, smooth UX, KYC, etc., are in place alongside the blockchain elements).

  • Other Team Members: In addition to Baker, Meta is “adding crypto-experienced individuals” to its teams to support the stablecoin plans. Some former members of the Libra/Diem team may be involved behind the scenes, though many departed (for example, former Novi head David Marcus left to start his own crypto firm, and others went on to projects like Aptos). The current effort appears largely under Meta’s existing Meta Financial Technologies unit (which runs Meta Pay). No major acquisitions of crypto companies have been announced in 2025 so far – Meta seems to be relying on internal hires and partnerships rather than buying a stablecoin company outright.

  • Potential Partnerships: While no official partners are named yet, multiple crypto firms have been in talks with Meta. At least two crypto company executives confirmed they’ve had early discussions with Meta about stablecoin payouts. It’s reasonable to speculate that Circle (issuer of USDC) is among them – the Fortune report made mention of Circle’s activities in the same context. Meta could partner with a regulated stablecoin issuer (like Circle or Paxos) to handle the currency issuance and custody. For instance, Meta might integrate USDC by working with Circle, similar to how PayPal partnered with Paxos to launch its own stablecoin. Other partnerships might involve crypto infrastructure providers (for security, custody, or blockchain integration) or fintech companies in different regions for compliance.

  • External Advisors/Influencers: It’s worth noting that Meta’s move comes as others in tech/finance ramp up stablecoin efforts. Companies like Stripe and Visa recently made moves (Stripe bought a crypto startup, Visa partnered with a stablecoin platform). Meta may not formally partner with these companies, but these industry connections (e.g., Baker’s past at Visa, or existing commerce relationships Meta has with Stripe for payments) could smooth the path for stablecoin adoption. Additionally, First Digital (issuer of FDUSD) and Tether might see indirect collaboration if Meta decides to support their coins for certain markets.

In essence, Meta’s stablecoin initiative is being led by experienced fintech insiders and likely involves close collaboration with established crypto players. We see a deliberate effort to bring in people who understand both Silicon Valley and crypto. This bodes well for Meta navigating the technical and regulatory challenges with knowledgeable guidance.

Regulatory Strategy and Positioning

Regulation is the elephant in the room for Meta’s crypto ambitions. After the bruising experience with Libra (where global regulators and lawmakers almost unanimously opposed Facebook’s coin), Meta is taking a very cautious, compliance-forward stance in 2025. Key elements of Meta’s regulatory positioning include:

  • Working Within Regulatory Frameworks: Meta appears intent on working with authorities rather than attempting an end-run around them. By using existing regulated stablecoins (like USDC, which complies with U.S. state regulations and audits) and by building in KYC/AML features, Meta is aligning with current financial rules. For example, Stellar’s compliance features (KYC, sanctions screening) are explicitly noted as aligning with Meta’s need to stay in regulators’ good graces. This suggests Meta will ensure that users who transact in stablecoins through its apps are verified and that transactions can be monitored for illicit activity, similar to any fintech app.

  • Political Timing: The regulatory climate in the U.S. has shifted since the Libra days. As of 2025, the administration of President Donald Trump is seen as more crypto-friendly than the prior Biden administration. This change potentially gives Meta an opening. In fact, Meta’s renewed push comes just as Washington is actively debating stablecoin legislation. A pair of stablecoin bills are working through Congress, and the Senate’s GENIUS Act is aiming to set guardrails for stablecoins. Meta could be hoping that a clearer legal framework will legitimize corporate involvement in digital currency. However, this is not without opposition – Senator Elizabeth Warren and other lawmakers have singled out Meta, urging that big tech firms be barred from issuing stablecoins in any new law. Meta will have to navigate such political hurdles, possibly by emphasizing that it is not issuing a new coin but merely using existing ones (thus technically not “Facebook Coin” that worried Congress).

  • Global and Local Compliance: Beyond the U.S., Meta will consider regulations in each market. For instance, if it introduces stablecoin payments in WhatsApp for remittances, it may pilot this in countries with receptive regulators (similar to how WhatsApp Pay was rolled out in markets like Brazil or India with local approval). Meta may engage central banks and financial regulators in target regions to ensure its stablecoin integration meets requirements (such as being fully fiat-backed, redeemable, and not harming local currency stability). The First Digital USD (FDUSD), one of the stablecoins Meta could support, is Hong Kong-based and operates under that jurisdiction’s trust laws, which hints Meta might leverage regions with crypto-friendly rules (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore) for initial phases.

  • Avoiding the “Libra Mistake”: With Libra, regulators were concerned Meta would control a global currency outside of government control. Meta’s strategy now is to position itself as a participant, not a controller. By saying “there is no Meta stablecoin”, the company distances itself from the idea of printing money. Instead, Meta can argue it’s improving payment infrastructure for users, analogous to offering support for PayPal or credit cards. This narrative — “we’re just using safe, fully reserved currencies like USDC to help users transact” — is likely how Meta will pitch the project to regulators to allay fears of destabilizing the monetary system.

  • Compliance and Licensing: If Meta does decide to offer a branded stablecoin or custody users’ crypto, it may seek the proper licenses (e.g., becoming a licensed money transmitter, obtaining state or federal charter for stablecoin issuance via a subsidiary or partner bank). There’s precedent: PayPal obtained a New York trust charter (through Paxos) for its stablecoin. Meta could similarly partner or create a regulated entity for any custodial aspects. For now, by partnering with established stablecoin issuers and banks, Meta can rely on their regulatory approvals.

Overall, Meta’s approach can be seen as “regulatory accommodation” – it is trying to design the project to fit into legal boxes that regulators have built or are building. This includes proactive outreach, scaling slowly, and employing experts who know the rules. That said, regulatory uncertainty remains a risk. The company will be closely watching the outcome of stablecoin bills and likely engaging in policy discussions to ensure it can move forward without legal roadblocks.

Market Impact and Stablecoin Landscape Analysis

Meta’s entrance into stablecoins could be a game-changer for the stablecoin market, which as of early 2025 is already booming. The total market capitalization of stablecoins hit an all-time high of around $238–245 billion in April 2025, roughly double the size from a year before. This market is currently dominated by a few key players:

  • Tether (USDT): The largest stablecoin, with nearly 70% of market share and about $148 billion in circulation as of April. USDT is issued by Tether Ltd. and is widely used in crypto trading and cross-exchange liquidity. It’s known for less transparency in reserves but has maintained its peg.

  • USD Coin (USDC): The second-largest, issued by Circle (in partnership with Coinbase) with around $62 billion in supply (≈26% market share). USDC is U.S.-regulated, fully reserved in cash and treasuries, and favored by institutions for its transparency. It’s used both in trading and an increasing number of mainstream fintech apps.

  • First Digital USD (FDUSD): A newer entrant (launched mid-2023) issued by First Digital Trust out of Hong Kong. FDUSD grew as an alternative on platforms like Binance after regulatory issues hit Binance’s own BUSD. By April 2025, FDUSD’s market cap was about $1.25 billion. It had some volatility (losing its $1 peg briefly in April), but is touted for being based in a friendlier regulatory environment in Asia.

The table below compares Meta’s envisioned stablecoin integration with USDT, USDC, and FDUSD:

FeatureMeta’s Stablecoin Initiative (2025)Tether (USDT)USD Coin (USDC)First Digital USD (FDUSD)
Issuer / ManagerNo proprietary coin: Meta to partner with existing issuers; coin could be issued by a third-party (e.g. Circle, etc.). Meta will integrate stablecoins in its platforms, not issue its own (per official statements).Tether Holdings Ltd. (affiliated with iFinex). Privately held; issuer of USDT.Circle Internet Financial (with Coinbase; via Centre Consortium). USDC governed by Circle under U.S. regulations.First Digital Trust, a Hong Kong-registered trust company, issues FDUSD under HK’s Trust Ordinance.
Launch & StatusNew initiative, planning stage in 2025. No coin launched yet (Meta exploring integration to start in 2025). Internal testing or pilots expected; not publicly available as of May 2025.Launched in 2014. Established with ~$148B in circulation. Widely used across exchanges and chains (Ethereum, Tron, etc.).Launched in 2018. Established with ~$62B in circulation. Used in trading, DeFi, payments; available on multiple chains (Ethereum, Stellar, others).Launched in mid-2023. Emerging player with ~$1–2B market cap (recently ~$1.25B). Promoted on Asian exchanges (Binance, etc.) as a regulated USD stablecoin alternative.
Technology / BlockchainLikely multi-blockchain support. Emphasis on Ethereum for compatibility; possibly leveraging Stellar or other networks for low-fee transactions. Meta’s wallet will abstract the blockchain layer for users.Multi-chain: Originally on Bitcoin’s Omni, now primarily on Tron, Ethereum, etc. USDT exists on 10+ networks. Fast on Tron (low fees); widespread integration in crypto platforms.Multi-chain: Primarily on Ethereum, with versions on Stellar, Algorand, Solana, etc. Focus on Ethereum but expanding to reduce fees (also exploring Layer-2).Multi-chain: Issued on Ethereum and BNB Chain (Binance Smart Chain) from launch. Aims for cross-chain usage. Relies on Ethereum security and Binance ecosystem for liquidity.
Regulatory OversightMeta will adhere to regulations via partners. Stablecoins used will be fully reserved (1:1 USD) and issuers under supervision (e.g. Circle regulated under U.S. state laws). Meta will implement KYC/AML in its apps. Regulatory strategy is to cooperate and comply (especially after Diem’s failure).Historically opaque. Limited audits; faced regulatory bans in NY. Increasing transparency lately but not regulated like a bank. Has settled with regulators over past misrepresentations. Operates in a grey area but systemically important due to size.High compliance. Regulated as a stored value under U.S. laws (Circle has a NY BitLicense, trust charters). Monthly reserve attestations published. Seen as safer by U.S. authorities; could seek federal stablecoin charter if laws pass.Moderate compliance. Regulated in Hong Kong as a trust-held asset. Benefits from Hong Kong’s pro-crypto stance. Less scrutiny from U.S. regulators; positioned to serve markets where USDT/USDC face hurdles.
Use Cases & IntegrationMeta’s platforms integration: Used for payouts to creators, P2P transfers, in-app purchases across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.. Aimed at mainstream users (social/media context) rather than crypto traders. Could enable global remittances (e.g. sending money via WhatsApp) and metaverse commerce.Primarily used in crypto trading (as a dollar substitute on exchanges). Also common in DeFi lending, and as a dollar hedge in countries with currency instability. Less used in retail payments due to volatility concerns around issuer.Used in both crypto markets and some fintech apps. Popular in DeFi and trading pairs, but also integrated by payment processors and fintechs (for commerce, remittances). Coinbase and others allow USDC for transfers. Growing role in business settlements.Currently mostly used on crypto exchanges (Binance) as a USD liquidity option after BUSD’s decline. Some potential for Asia-based payments or DeFi, but use cases are nascent. Market positioning is to be a compliant alternative for Asian users and institutions.

Projected Impact: If Meta successfully rolls out stablecoin payments, it could significantly expand the reach and usage of stablecoins. Meta’s apps might onboard hundreds of millions of new stablecoin users who have never used crypto before. This mainstream adoption could increase the overall stablecoin market cap beyond current leaders. For example, should Meta partner with Circle to use USDC at scale, the demand for USDC could surge – potentially challenging USDT’s dominance over time. It’s plausible that Meta could help USDC (or whichever coin it adopts) grow closer to Tether’s size, by providing use cases outside of trading (social commerce, remittances, etc.).

On the other hand, Meta’s involvement might spur competition and innovation among stablecoins. Tether and other incumbents could adjust by improving transparency or forming their own big-tech alliances. New stablecoins might emerge tailored for social networks. Also, Meta supporting multiple stablecoins suggests no single coin will “monopolize” Meta’s ecosystem – users might seamlessly transact with different dollar tokens depending on region or preference. This could lead to a more diversified stablecoin market where dominance is spread.

It’s also important to note the infrastructure boost Meta could provide. A stablecoin integrated with Meta will likely need robust capacity for millions of daily transactions. This could drive improvements on the underlying blockchains (e.g. Ethereum Layer-2 scaling, or increased Stellar network usage). Already, observers suggest Meta’s move could “increase activity on [Ethereum] and demand for ETH” if a lot of transactions flow there. Similarly, if Stellar is used, its native token XLM could see higher demand as gas for transactions.

Finally, Meta’s entrance is somewhat double-edged for the crypto industry: it legitimizes stablecoins as a payment mechanism (potentially positive for adoption and market growth), but it also raises regulatory stakes. Governments may treat stablecoins more as a matter of national importance if billions of social media users start transacting in them. This could accelerate regulatory clarity – or crackdowns – depending on how Meta’s rollout goes. In any case, the stablecoin landscape by the late 2020s will likely be reshaped by Meta’s participation, alongside other big players like PayPal, Visa, and traditional banks venturing into this space.

Integration into Meta’s Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.)

A critical aspect of Meta’s strategy is seamless integration of stablecoin payments into its family of apps. The goal is to embed digital currency functionality in a user-friendly way across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and even new platforms like Threads. Here’s how integration is expected to play out on each service:

  • Instagram: Instagram is poised to be a testing ground for stablecoin payouts. Creators on Instagram could opt to receive their earnings (for Reels bonuses, affiliate sales, etc.) in a stablecoin rather than local currency. Reports specifically mention Meta may start by paying out up to ~$100 to creators via stablecoins on Instagram. This suggests a focus on small cross-border payments – ideal for influencers in countries where receiving U.S. dollars directly is preferable. Additionally, Instagram could enable tipping of creators in-app using stablecoins, or allow users to purchase digital collectibles and services with a stablecoin balance. Since Instagram already experimented with NFT display features (in 2022) and has a creator marketplace, adding a stablecoin wallet could enhance its creator ecosystem.

  • Facebook (Meta): On Facebook proper, stablecoin integration might manifest in Facebook Pay/Meta Pay features. Users on Facebook could send money to each other in chats using stablecoins, or donate to fundraisers with crypto. Facebook Marketplace (where people buy/sell goods) could support stablecoin transactions, enabling easier cross-border commerce by eliminating currency exchange issues. Another area is gaming and apps on Facebook – developers could be paid out in stablecoins, or in-game purchases could utilize a stablecoin for a universal experience. Given Facebook’s broad user base, integrating a stablecoin wallet in the profile or Messenger could quickly mainstream the concept of sending “digital dollars” to friends and family. Meta’s own posts hint at content monetization: for instance, paying out bonuses to Facebook content creators or Stars (Facebook’s tipping tokens) being potentially backed by stablecoins in the future.

  • WhatsApp: This is perhaps the most transformative integration. WhatsApp has over 2 billion users and is heavily used for messaging in regions where remittances are crucial (India, Latin America, etc.). Meta’s stablecoin could turn WhatsApp into a global remittance platform. Users might send a stablecoin to a contact as easily as sending a text, with WhatsApp handling the currency swap on each end if needed. In fact, WhatsApp briefly piloted the Novi wallet in 2021 for sending a stablecoin (USDP) in the US and Guatemala – so the concept is proven on a small scale. Now Meta could incorporate stablecoin transfers natively into WhatsApp’s UI. For example, an Indian worker in the US could send USDC via WhatsApp to family in India, who could then cash it out or spend it if integrations with local payment providers are in place. This bypasses expensive remittance fees. Aside from P2P, small businesses on WhatsApp (common in emerging markets) could accept stablecoin payments for goods, using it like a low-fee merchant payment system. The Altcoin Buzz analysis even speculates that WhatsApp will be one of the next integration points after creator payouts.

  • Messenger: Similar to WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger could allow sending money in chats using stablecoins. Messenger already has peer-to-peer fiat payments in the U.S. If extended to stablecoins, it could connect users internationally. One could envision Messenger chatbots or customer service using stablecoin transactions (for example, paying a bill or ordering products via a Messenger interaction and settling in stablecoin).

  • Threads and Others: Threads (Meta’s Twitter-like platform launched in 2023) and the broader Meta VR/Metaverse (Reality Labs) might also leverage stablecoins. In Horizon Worlds or other metaverse experiences, a stablecoin could serve as the in-world currency for buying virtual goods, tickets to events, etc., providing a real-money equivalent that travels across experiences. While Meta’s metaverse unit is currently operating at a loss, integrating a currency accepted across games and worlds could create a unified economy that might spur usage (much like Roblox has Robux, but in Meta’s case it would be a USD stablecoin under the hood). This would align with Zuckerberg’s vision of the metaverse economy, without creating a new token just for VR.

Integration Strategy: Meta is likely to roll this out carefully. A plausible sequence is:

  1. Pilot creator payouts on Instagram (limited amount, select regions) – this tests the system with real value going out, but in a controlled way.
  2. Expand to P2P transfers in messaging (WhatsApp/Messenger) once confidence is gained – starting with remittance corridors or within certain countries.
  3. Merchant payments and services – enabling businesses on its platforms to transact in stablecoin (this could involve partnerships with payment processors to allow easy conversion to local fiat).
  4. Full ecosystem integration – eventually, a user’s Meta Pay wallet could show a stablecoin balance that can be used anywhere across Facebook ads, Instagram shopping, WhatsApp pay, etc.

It’s worth noting that user experience will be key. Meta will likely abstract away terms like “USDC” or “Ethereum” from the average user. The wallet might just display a balance in “USD” (powered by stablecoins in the backend) to make it simple. Only more advanced users might interact with on-chain functions (like withdrawing to an external crypto wallet), if allowed. Meta’s advantage is its huge user base; if even a fraction adopt the stablecoin feature, it could outnumber the current crypto user population.

In conclusion, Meta’s plan to integrate stablecoins into its platforms could blur the line between traditional digital payments and cryptocurrency. A Facebook or WhatsApp user may soon be using a stablecoin without even realizing it’s a crypto asset – they’ll just see a faster, cheaper way to send money and transact globally. This deep integration could set Meta’s apps apart in markets where financial infrastructure is costly or slow, and it positions Meta as a formidable competitor to both fintech companies and crypto exchanges in the realm of digital payments.

Sources:

  • Meta’s stablecoin exploratory talks and hiring of a crypto VP
  • Meta’s intent to use stablecoins for cross-border creator payouts (Fortune report)
  • Comment by Meta’s communications director (“Diem is dead, no Meta stablecoin”)
  • Analysis of Meta’s strategic motivations (cost reduction, single currency for payouts)
  • Tech infrastructure choices – Ethereum integration and Stellar’s compliance features
  • Ginger Baker’s role and background (former Plaid, Ripple, Stellar board)
  • Fortune/LinkedIn insights on Meta’s crypto team and partnerships in discussion
  • Regulatory context: Libra’s collapse in 2022 and 2025’s friendlier environment under Trump vs. legislative pushback (Sen. Warren on banning Big Tech stablecoins)
  • Stablecoin market data (Q2 2025): ~$238B market cap, USDT ~$148B vs USDC ~$62B, growth trends
  • Comparison info for USDT, USDC, FDUSD (market share, regulatory stance, issuers)
  • Integration details across Meta’s products (content creator payouts, WhatsApp payments).

Stablecoins in Business: Pain Points and Opportunities

· 47 min read
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

Introduction

Stablecoins – digital currencies pegged to stable assets like the US dollar – promise to streamline business transactions with near-instant settlement, low fees, and global reach . In theory, they combine the efficiency of crypto with the familiarity of fiat money, making them ideal for cross-border payments and commerce. The global B2B payments market exceeds $125 trillion annually and is plagued by high fees and slow settlements . Stablecoins have already seen over $10 trillion in transaction volume in 2023 , and use is growing. Yet despite this potential, mainstream business adoption remains limited. Companies face significant pain points – from regulatory hurdles to tooling gaps – that frustrate stablecoin use in daily operations . Identifying these friction points and the underserved segments affected can highlight low-hanging-fruit opportunities for developers to build tools and services that unlock stablecoins’ value.

This report analyzes the biggest challenges businesses encounter with stablecoins, underserved markets with unmet needs, and practical use cases where adoption is blocked by fixable frictions. We also pinpoint gaps in current infrastructure (e.g. accounting, compliance, invoicing, multi-currency support) and suggest where developer-friendly solutions (APIs, integrations, wallets) could generate significant ROI. The focus is on actionable insights, concrete examples, and areas where simple tools could make a big difference.

Key Pain Points for Businesses Using Stablecoins

Regulatory Uncertainty and Compliance Burdens

One of the foremost barriers is the uncertain regulatory environment surrounding stablecoins. Rules differ across jurisdictions and are evolving, leaving businesses unsure how to comply. Inconsistent or unclear regulations are frequently cited as a major hindrance to stablecoin adoption . For example, the EU’s new MiCA regulation will impose specific compliance requirements on stablecoin issuers and service providers in Europe . Companies must navigate licensing, reporting, and consumer protection rules that may apply to transacting in stablecoins, which can be daunting.

Moreover, firms worry about KYC/AML (Know Your Customer / Anti-Money Laundering) obligations when using stablecoins. Transacting on public blockchains means dealing with pseudonymous addresses, raising concerns about illicit finance. Businesses need to ensure they aren’t receiving or sending stablecoins from sanctioned or criminal sources. However, most stablecoins and crypto wallets don’t natively provide KYC/AML checks, so businesses must bolt on their own compliance processes. This is a pain point especially for smaller companies that lack compliance departments. Without robust tools, stablecoins can facilitate anonymous transfers – creating AML risk that regulators are increasingly wary of .

Tax and accounting compliance adds another layer of complexity. In many jurisdictions (e.g. the US), stablecoins are not legally treated as “money” or legal tender for tax purposes but rather as property or financial assets . This means using a stablecoin to make a payment could trigger tax reporting similar to selling an asset, even if its value stays at $1. Businesses must track cost basis and potential gains/losses on stablecoin transactions, which is cumbersome. Accounting standards haven’t fully caught up either – companies must determine if stablecoin holdings count as cash, financial instruments, or intangibles on their balance sheet . This uncertainty makes CFOs and auditors nervous. In short, the regulatory and compliance burden – from licensing, to KYC/AML, to tax treatment – remains a top pain point keeping businesses on the sidelines. Developer tools that automate compliance (KYC checks, address screening, tax calculations) could greatly reduce this friction.

Integration with Legacy Systems and Workflows

Even when a business is willing to use stablecoins, integrating them into existing systems is a challenge. Traditional payment infrastructure and accounting systems are not built for crypto. Companies can’t simply “plug and play” stablecoins into their invoicing, ERP, or treasury workflows . PYMNTS notes that adopting stablecoin payments often “requires technological upgrades, staff training and assurances” to integrate with legacy systems . For example, an accounts receivable system might need modification to record incoming USDC payments, or an e-commerce checkout might need an API to accept stablecoin transactions alongside credit cards. These integrations can be complex and costly, especially for firms without in-house crypto expertise.

Another issue is lack of standardization and interoperability. There are many stablecoin protocols and blockchains, but no universal standard that legacy systems can easily interface with. A payment provider described it as having to “stitch together different ecosystems that don’t really talk to each other” when bridging fiat and stablecoins . If a business pays suppliers in stablecoin but manages cash in bank software, there’s a gap. Multi-chain compatibility is also a headache – USDC exists on Ethereum, Solana, Tron, etc., and different partners may insist on different chains. **Cross-chain interoperability remains a challenge **, meaning a company might need to support multiple wallets or use bridge services to accommodate all counterparties. This adds operational complexity and risk.

Crucially, businesses demand that any new payment method integrates with their broader workflow. They need APIs, SDKs, and software that sync stablecoin transactions with their databases, accounting books, and user interfaces. Today, those tools are nascent. A stablecoin transaction on blockchain might require manual steps to reconcile (e.g. checking a block explorer and updating an invoice status by hand). Until integration is seamless, many firms will stick to what’s already connected (banks, Swift, card processors). Developer opportunity: Build middleware and integration tools that connect on-chain payments to off-chain business systems (for instance, software that logs stablecoin payments into QuickBooks automatically). As one report emphasized, **payment service providers must create APIs and tools that simplify incorporating stablecoins into enterprise workflows **. Solving integration pain through technology is key to broader stablecoin use.

Liquidity, Conversion and Financial Frictions

While stablecoins are designed to hold a stable value, businesses still face financial frictions around liquidity and conversion. For one, converting large sums of stablecoins to actual fiat currency (or vice versa) isn’t always trivial. Liquidity for large transactions can be limited, especially in certain stablecoins or on certain exchanges . A fintech CEO noted that when moving “enterprise-grade money” (hundreds of thousands of dollars) across borders via stablecoins, companies encounter **three major pain points: limited liquidity for large transactions, long settlement times, and complex integrations **. In other words, if a corporation tried to pay a $5 million invoice with stablecoins, they might struggle to exchange that volume back to fiat quickly without moving markets or incurring slippage, unless they have prime exchange partners. Stablecoins themselves settle on-chain in minutes, but off-ramping a large payment into a bank account can still take time, especially if local banking partners are involved (e.g. waiting for an exchange to wire out funds).

In many emerging markets, fiat on/off ramps are underdeveloped. A business in Vietnam receiving USDC might need to find a crypto exchange or OTC broker to convert to Vietnamese Dong – a process that may be informal, time-consuming, or expensive if local regulators restrict crypto trading. This lack of local conversion infrastructure is a bottleneck for using stablecoins in the last mile. Businesses prefer transactions that land directly in their bank in local currency; with stablecoins, an extra conversion step is needed and often falls on the recipient to handle. Developer solutions that embed conversion (so recipients can automatically swap stablecoin to the currency of choice) would address this need. In fact, platforms are emerging that pair traditional fiat infrastructure with stablecoin rails to make conversion seamless – for example, Stripe’s recent acquisition of the stablecoin platform Bridge is meant to connect stablecoin payments with standard payout channels .

Another friction is choosing the “right” stablecoin. The market offers a plethora – USDT, USDC, BUSD, DAI, TrueUSD, and more – each with different issuers and risk profiles. This abundance “just confuses potential users, and it’s going to turn away some” businesses . A payment executive noted that many business owners are asking: “Why are there so many stablecoins, and which one is safer?” . Determining which stablecoin to trust (in terms of reserve backing and stability) is non-trivial. Some firms may only be comfortable with fully regulated coins (like USDC with monthly attestations), while others might prioritize the one their partners use (often USDT due to liquidity). Counterparty risk and trust in the issuer is a pain point – for instance, Tether’s USDT has vast adoption but a less transparent reserve history, whereas Circle’s USDC is transparent but was temporarily hit by a depeg scare when a portion of reserves were stuck during a bank failure . Businesses do not want to hold significant value in a stablecoin that could suddenly lose its peg or be frozen by an issuer. This risk was highlighted in a Deloitte analysis: **depegging and issuer solvency are key risks that businesses must consider with stablecoins **. Managing these risks (perhaps by diversifying stablecoins or having instant conversion to fiat) is an extra task for companies.

Finally, foreign exchange (FX) implications can be an issue. Most stablecoins are USD-pegged, which is useful globally, but not a panacea. If a European company’s books are in EUR, accepting USD stablecoins introduces FX exposure (albeit mild compared to accepting volatile crypto). They might prefer a EUR-pegged stablecoin for invoices, but those (e.g. EUR stablecoins) have much lower liquidity and acceptance. Similarly, businesses in countries with unique currencies often have no stablecoin option in their local currency. This means they use USD stablecoins as an intermediate value – which helps avoid local inflation, but eventually they need to convert to pay local expenses. Until multi-currency stablecoin ecosystems mature, developers could add value by building easy FX conversion tools (so a payment in USDC can be quickly swapped to, say, a EUR or NGN stablecoin or to fiat). In summary, liquidity and conversion bottlenecks – particularly for large amounts and non-USD currencies – remain a pain point. Any service that improves convertibility (through better liquidity pools, market-making, or integration with banking networks) would alleviate a key friction.

User Experience and Operational Challenges

For many businesses, the operational side of using stablecoins is a new frontier full of practical challenges. Unlike traditional banking, using stablecoins means dealing with blockchain wallets, private keys, and transaction fees – elements that most finance teams have little experience with. User experience (UX) issues are a notable barrier: “Gas fees and onboarding complexities remain barriers” to wider stablecoin adoption . If a company tries to use stablecoins on Ethereum, for example, they must manage ETH for gas or use a layer-2 solution – details that add friction and confusion. High network fees at times can erode the cost advantage for small payments. While newer blockchains with lower fees exist, choosing and navigating them can be overwhelming for a non-crypto business user.

There is also the challenge of wallet management and security. Holding stablecoins requires either a secure custodial account or self-custody of private keys. Self-custody can be risky without proper knowledge – losing a key means losing funds, and transactions are irreversible. Businesses are used to calling a bank to help if an error occurs; in crypto, mistakes can be final. Multisignature wallets and custody providers (like Fireblocks, BitGo, etc.) exist to add security for enterprises, but those may be costly or geared toward larger institutions. Many SMEs find no easy-to-use, affordable wallet solution that provides corporate controls (e.g. multi-user access with approvals) and insurance on holdings. This gap in enterprise-friendly wallet UX makes stablecoin handling daunting. A simple, safe wallet app tailored for businesses (with permissions, spending limits, and recovery options) is still an unmet need.

Another operational issue is transaction handling and reversibility. In traditional payments, if a mistake is made (wrong amount or payee), banks or card networks can often reverse or refund the transaction. Stablecoin payments are final once confirmed on-chain; there is no built-in dispute resolution. For B2B transactions between trusted parties this may be acceptable (they can communicate and refund manually if needed), but for customer payments it poses a problem. For instance, a small retailer accepting stablecoin has no recourse if a customer underpays or sends to the wrong address – except to rely on the customer to fix it. Fraud and error management thus become the business’s responsibility, whereas today card processors handle a lot of fraud detection and eat the cost of chargebacks. As one commentator noted, stablecoins by themselves don’t solve ancillary “jobs-to-be-done” in payments like fraud management, dispute coordination, and regulatory compliance . Merchants and businesses would need new tools or services to cover these functions if they move to direct stablecoin payments. This lack of a safety net is a pain point that makes some businesses hesitant to use stablecoins beyond controlled situations.

Finally, educational and cultural barriers fall under UX challenges. Many decision-makers simply don’t understand how stablecoins work, and that lack of understanding breeds mistrust. If a finance manager doesn’t grasp private keys or is unsure how to explain a stablecoin transaction to auditors, they will likely avoid it. Likewise, if counterparties (suppliers, customers) are not asking to pay or be paid in stablecoin, a business has little immediate incentive to offer it . In fact, a recent industry panel observed that “at the moment, there is simply not the demand for beneficiaries to receive funds in stablecoins” for many small businesses and consumers . This indicates a chicken-and-egg scenario: without easy user experiences, mainstream demand stays low, and without demand, businesses see no reason to push for stablecoin options. Overcoming UX hurdles – through better interfaces, education, and perhaps abstracting away the crypto “weirdness” – is necessary to unlock broader adoption.

Accounting and Reporting Complications

Stablecoin usage also runs into back-office complications in accounting, bookkeeping, and reporting. Traditional financial systems expect transactions in government currencies; inserting a digital token that behaves like cash but isn’t officially cash creates reconciliation headaches. A key pain point is the lack of accounting tooling and standards for stablecoins. Businesses need to track stablecoin transactions, value holdings, and report them correctly on financial statements. However, guidance has been murky: depending on circumstances, stablecoins might be treated as **financial assets or as intangibles under accounting standards **. If treated as an intangible asset (as Bitcoin has been under U.S. GAAP historically), any decline in value below cost must be impaired on the books, but increases in value aren’t recognized – an unfavorable treatment for something meant to stay at $1. Recently there have been efforts to allow fair-value accounting for digital assets, which would help, but many companies’ internal policies haven’t adapted yet. Until it’s crystal clear that a USD stablecoin is as good as a dollar for accounting purposes, finance teams will be uneasy.

Reporting and audit trail is another issue. Stablecoin transactions on blockchain are transparent in theory, but linking them to specific invoices or contracts requires careful record-keeping. Auditors will ask to see proof of payment and ownership – which may involve showing blockchain transactions, wallet ownership proofs, and conversion records. Most companies lack in-house expertise to prepare such audit documentation. Tools like block explorers are helpful but not integrated with internal systems. Additionally, valuing end-of-period holdings (even if stable at $1, there may be slight market deviations or interest earned in some cases) can be confusing. There may also be treasury policy questions – e.g., can a company count USDC as part of its cash reserves for liquidity ratios? Many likely do, but conservative auditors might not give full credit.

On the software side, common accounting packages (QuickBooks, Xero, Oracle Netsuite, etc.) do not natively support crypto transactions. Companies end up using workarounds: manual journal entries to record stablecoin movements, or third-party crypto accounting software (like Bitwave, Gilded, or Cryptio) that can sync blockchain data to their ledgers . These are emerging solutions, but adoption is still low, and some are focused on larger enterprises. Small businesses are often left doing manual reconciliation – e.g., an accountant copying transaction IDs into Excel – which is error-prone and inefficient. This lack of easy accounting integration is a clear unmet need. As an example, one crypto accounting platform advertises how it can integrate stablecoin payments into ERP systems and handle the custody and wallet tracking , underscoring that a market for such tools is forming.

In summary, from an accounting perspective, stablecoins currently introduce uncertainty and extra work. Businesses crave clarity and automation: they want stablecoin transactions to be as easy to account for as bank transactions. Until that happens, this remains a pain point. Tools that automatically reconcile stablecoin payments with invoices, maintain audit trails (with URLs to blockchain proofs), and generate reports compliant with accounting standards would significantly reduce this friction. Ensuring tax reporting is handled (for instance, issuing 1099 forms for stablecoin payments if required under new IRS rules ) is another area a tool could assist with. Developers who can bridge the gap between blockchain records and accounting records will help remove a major blocker for corporate use of stablecoins.

Underserved Market Segments and Blocked Use Cases

Despite the challenges above, certain market segments stand to benefit greatly from stablecoins – and many are already experimenting out of necessity. These segments often face acute pain points with current financial services, meaning stablecoins could be a game-changer if specific frictions are resolved. Below we highlight some underserved segments or use cases, where there are clear unmet needs that developer-driven solutions could address.

SMEs in Emerging Markets (Cross-Border Payments)

Small-to-medium enterprises in emerging markets are among those most harmed by the status quo in payments, and thus prime candidates for stablecoin adoption . These businesses frequently deal with cross-border transactions – paying suppliers, receiving customer payments, or remittances – and they suffer from high fees, slow processing, and poor access to banking. For instance, a payment from a small manufacturer in Mexico to a supplier in Vietnam might go through 4+ intermediaries (local banks, correspondent banks, forex brokers), taking 3-7 days and costing $14-$150 per $1000 sent . This is both slow and expensive, hurting the SME’s cash flow and margins.

In regions with weak banking infrastructure or capital controls (parts of Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia), SMEs often struggle to even make international payments. They resort to informal channels or costly money transmitters. Stablecoins offer a lifeline: a dollar-pegged token that can zip across borders in minutes, avoiding correspondent bank chains. As a16z notes, sending $200 from the U.S. to Colombia via stablecoin can cost less than $0.01, whereas traditional rails cost around $12 . Those savings are life-changing for SMEs operating on thin margins. Additionally, stablecoins can be accessible where dollar bank accounts are not – providing an inflation-resistant medium in countries with volatile currencies . Businesses in places like Argentina or Nigeria already use USD stablecoins informally to store value and transact, because local currency devaluation is extreme.

However, these emerging-market SMEs are largely underserved by current stablecoin services. They face the friction of converting between fiat and stablecoin, as discussed, and often lack trusted platforms to facilitate this. Many simply hold stablecoins on exchange accounts or mobile wallets, without integration into their billing systems. There’s a need for easy tools: for example, a multi-currency invoicing platform that lets an SME bill a foreign client in their home currency, but receive the payment in stablecoins (auto-converted from, say, the client’s credit card or local bank transfer) . The SME could then quickly swap the stablecoins to local fiat or spend them. Such tools would hide the crypto complexity and present stablecoins as just another currency option.

Geographically, regions like Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Southeast Asia have thriving informal stablecoin usage but minimal formal infrastructure. A report on stablecoins and financial inclusion notes that while stablecoins are used in high-inflation economies, adoption is hampered in areas with low internet penetration or digital literacy . That suggests a need for user-friendly mobile apps and education targeted at these markets. If, say, a Nigerian import/export firm could use a simple app to send USDC to a Chinese supplier (and that supplier gets RMB in their bank via an integrated off-ramp), it would fill a huge gap. Today, a few crypto fintechs (like Bitso in LATAM or MPesa-like crypto wallets in Africa) are moving this direction, but there’s ample room for more players focused on SME use cases.

In summary, emerging-market SMEs are an underserved segment where stablecoins solve real problems – currency instability and expensive cross-border payments – but adoption is blocked by lack of local support and easy tools. Developers can tap into this by building localized solutions: stablecoin payment gateways that connect to local banks/mobile money, SME-friendly wallets with local language support, and platforms to auto-convert exotic currencies to stablecoins and then to major currencies . This is precisely what one fintech, Orbital, did – starting by helping merchants repatriate profits from emerging markets using stablecoins, cutting settlement from 5 days to same-day . The success of such models shows the demand is there if the pain points are addressed.

Cross-Border Trade and Supply Chain Finance

Global trade involves countless B2B payments between importers, exporters, freight companies, and suppliers. These are typically high-value and time-sensitive transactions. Stablecoins are very promising in this domain because they can remove delays and banking dependencies that plague trade payments. For example, an exporter shipping goods often waits days or weeks for a letter of credit or wire payment to clear. With stablecoins, payment could be released as soon as goods are delivered (nearly instantly, even across time zones). This improves cash flow for suppliers and can reduce the need for trade financing.

A concrete use case: A logistics company in Germany uses stablecoins to collect payments from retailers in Southeast Asia, immediately converts to EUR, and then pays its contractors in Eastern Europe in the same day . This three-continent transaction flow (Asia → Europe → Eastern Europe) can be accomplished through stablecoins far more efficiently than through banks. In Orbital’s example, the process included auto-conversion of various currencies to stablecoin and back to EUR, simplifying a previously cumbersome cross-border FX workflow . Similarly, companies can pilot entering a new market without upfront banking integration – e.g. a trading firm testing Brazil could accept stablecoin deposits from Brazilian clients instead of integrating with the local banking network PIX, saving cost and time for a market test . These scenarios highlight stablecoins acting as a universal settlement layer for trade, avoiding the patchwork of local payment systems.

Despite the clear benefits, most traditional import/export businesses have not adopted stablecoins yet. This is an underserved niche largely due to conservatism and lack of tailored solutions. Large multinationals have treasury departments that hedge currency and use banks; small importers/exporters often just bear the fees or use brokers. If there were easy-to-use platforms that integrate stablecoins into trade finance processes (for example, tying stablecoin escrow payments to shipping documents or IoT sensors for delivery), it could gain traction. One hurdle is that trade transactions often require contracts and trust frameworks (letters of credit ensure goods and payment exchange properly). Smart contracts on stablecoins could replicate some of this – a stablecoin could be put in escrow and released automatically upon delivery confirmation. However, building such systems in a user-friendly way is a developer challenge that few have tackled at scale.

Another underserved aspect is supply chain payments to countries with capital controls or sanctions. Companies doing business in markets under sanctions or with unstable banking (e.g. certain African or Central Asian countries) struggle to move money for legitimate trade. Stablecoins can provide a channel if done carefully under regulatory allowances (e.g. humanitarian goods or exempted trade). There’s an opportunity for specialized trade facilitators that use stablecoins to bridge gaps when banks cannot operate, all while ensuring compliance.

In short, cross-border trade is ripe for stablecoin solutions but needs integrated platforms bridging the old and new. The partnership of Visa and Circle to use USDC for global settlement shows institutional interest in this direction . Until now, trade-focused stablecoin adoption has been limited to crypto-savvy firms and pilot programs. Developers can target this underserved use case by building tools like stablecoin escrow services, integrations between logistics software and blockchain payments, and simplified interfaces for suppliers to request stablecoin payment (with one-click conversion to their home currency). The value unlocked – faster turnover of capital, lower fees (potentially up to 80% cost reduction on transactions ), and more inclusive global trade – represents a significant opportunity.

Global Freelancers, Contractors, and Payroll

In the era of remote work and the gig economy, businesses frequently need to pay people across borders – freelancers, contractors, or even full-time employees working abroad. Traditional payroll and banking often falter here: international wire fees, delays, and currency conversions eat into payments. Freelancers in countries with weak banking may wait weeks to receive a check or PayPal transfer, and lose a chunk to fees. Stablecoins present an attractive alternative: a company can pay a contractor in USD stablecoin within minutes, which the contractor can then hold as USD value or convert to local currency. This is especially valuable in countries where local currency is depreciating; many workers prefer stable USD over volatile local money.

Some forward-thinking companies and platforms have started offering crypto payment options. For instance, certain freelance job platforms enable payment in USDC or Bitcoin. However, this is not yet mainstream, and many smaller businesses lack a simple way to payroll via stablecoins. It’s an underserved need because the demand is there – anecdotal evidence shows growing numbers of freelancers request payment in crypto to avoid bank hassles – but solutions are fragmented. Each company might hack together their own process (e.g., manually sending USDC from a crypto exchange account), which doesn’t scale or integrate with payroll systems.

Key frictions that need solving in this segment include: generating pay stubs or invoices for stablecoin payments, handling tax deductions or benefits if needed, and tracking payments for multiple recipients easily. A business paying 50 contractors in stablecoin might want one batch process rather than 50 manual transfers. They also need to collect wallet addresses securely (and ensure they belong to the right person, tying identity to address to avoid mispayment). Additionally, compliance is crucial – businesses have to report these payments and possibly ensure the recipient isn’t in a sanctioned region.

An opportunity here is for developers to create crypto payroll platforms. Imagine a service where a company uploads a payroll CSV, and the platform handles sending stablecoins to each recipient’s wallet, emails them a payment confirmation or slip, and logs the transaction details for accounting. The platform could even handle currency conversion if the company wants to pay $1,000 but the freelancer asks to receive in local currency stablecoin or fiat – effectively acting as a crypto-powered global payroll processor. Some startups (e.g. Request Finance, or Franklin as mentioned in search results ) are starting to do this, but no dominant player has emerged. Integration with popular HR or accounting software would also ease adoption (so that paying an invoice in stablecoin is as easy as any other payment method).

Another underserved group is NGOs and non-profits paying staff or grantees in challenging environments. Stablecoins have been used, for example, to pay aid workers in regions where banking systems are down, or to deliver aid to beneficiaries directly. The principle is similar: a reliable digital dollar that can be received on a phone. Tools developed for businesses to manage stablecoin payouts can often apply here too, expanding the impact.

In summary, global payroll and contractor payments represent a use case with clear benefits but currently clunky execution. By solving the pain points (address management, batch payments, withholding/tax calculations, records for compliance), developers can unlock stablecoins as a normal payroll option. Notably, these payments are usually low-to-medium value but high volume, which plays to stablecoins’ strengths (micro-fees, speed). A gig platform using stablecoins reported that they could pay thousands of freelancers globally within minutes, reducing delays and fees, and access a wider talent pool without banking frictions . That illustrates the potential if the right infrastructure is in place.

Small Retailers and High-Fee Industries

Customer-facing small businesses – like retail shops, cafés, restaurants, and e-commerce sellers – operate on thin margins and often feel disproportionately burdened by payment fees. Every card swipe takes ~2-3% plus a fixed fee, which for a $2 coffee can be 15% of the transaction . These fees effectively tax small transactions heavily, hurting mom-and-pop stores and quick-serve businesses. Stablecoins offer a vision of fee-free (or very low fee) payments that could save these businesses significant money. If a café could accept a stablecoin payment with no middleman, that ~$0.30 on a $2 purchase could be saved as profit, potentially boosting their bottom line markedly over time .

However, this segment is currently very underserved by stablecoin solutions, because bridging the gap between crypto and everyday consumers is difficult. The average customer isn’t carrying a crypto wallet to buy coffee, and the merchant wouldn’t know how to handle price volatility – they just want $2 worth of value. Some tech-savvy cafes (in cities like SF or Berlin) have experimented with accepting crypto, but it’s niche. The opportunity here is to create payment solutions that hide the crypto part for both merchant and customer, yet leverage stablecoins underneath for cost savings. For example, a point-of-sale system that lets a customer scan a QR code and pay via a stablecoin wallet (or even convert from their bank on the fly), and the merchant instantly sees the confirmed payment in their currency. Services like this are starting: e.g., companies like **Stripe have announced stablecoin payment support with lower fees (1.5% vs ~2.9% for cards) **, showing that even big payment processors see demand to lower costs. Stripe’s approach likely converts stablecoin to fiat for the merchant instantly, simplifying things.

Still, outside of early pilots, few small retailers have the means to accept stablecoins directly. Why? Beyond consumer adoption, reasons include lack of easy-to-use apps, fear of crypto’s reputation, and absence of integration with their sales systems. A coffee shop uses a simple card reader or POS terminal that ties into inventory and accounting – any crypto solution must seamlessly fit into that setup to be viable. That means developers should focus on integrations with existing retail software (POS, e-commerce plugins). Encouragingly, there are e-commerce plugins for WooCommerce, Magento, etc., that enable stablecoin checkouts . A European online retailer used such plugins to accept stablecoins from Latin American customers who lacked reliable traditional payment options, and found it “boosting sales” with faster, cheaper payments auto-converted to EUR . This example shows that when implemented well, stablecoin acceptance can expand a business’s market (here, reaching customers who might otherwise be unable to purchase due to local payment issues).

High-fee industries like online gaming, digital content, or adult industries (which get hit with high payment processor fees or bans) are also underserved segments that could leap on stablecoins if friction is reduced. These industries often have global user bases and face chargeback/fraud issues that stablecoins could alleviate (no chargebacks in crypto). For them, stablecoins could solve both cost and access (e.g. adult content platforms have been debanked, so crypto is an alternative). The pain points mirror those of small retailers: need for discrete, user-friendly payment interfaces and mechanisms for trust/refunds since card protections won’t apply.

Overall, while consumer/retail payments with stablecoins are still nascent, the segment represents a large opportunity once base-level frictions (wallet UX, point-of-sale integration, buyer protection mechanisms) are addressed. The first movers will likely be SMBs with strong customer communities and high payment costs – as a16z predicts, coffee shops, restaurants, and stores with captive audiences may lead the way in 2025, leveraging stablecoins to save on fees . These early adopters will need support in the form of reliable apps and perhaps guarantees (maybe a third-party that insures against certain fraud). Developers can provide that by building the “Stripe for stablecoins” or the “Square terminal of crypto” as easy plug-ins. The reward is significant: if stablecoin payments shave even 1-2% off costs, that can increase a small business’s profits by double-digit percentages – a huge value proposition.

Gaps in Current Tooling and Infrastructure

From the above pain points and use cases, it’s clear that many infrastructure gaps are preventing stablecoins from reaching their full utility for businesses. These gaps represent areas where new tools, services, or platforms are needed. Below are some of the most glaring deficiencies in today’s stablecoin ecosystem for business use, along with the potential each has for improvement:

  • Accounting and Financial Reporting Tools: Traditional accounting software does not handle crypto well, forcing clunky workarounds. Businesses lack easy tools to automatically record stablecoin transactions, track valuations, and produce compliant reports. Opportunity: Develop integrations (or plugins) for popular accounting systems (QuickBooks, Xero, SAP) that treat stablecoin transactions like regular bank transactions. This includes fetching blockchain transactions, mapping them to invoices or accounts, and updating balances in real-time. It should also handle classification (e.g. mark stablecoins as cash equivalents or inventory as appropriate) consistent with the latest accounting standards. Given that holders of stablecoins must assess how to classify them on financial statements , software could guide users through that and apply consistent rules. Additionally, providing audit logs linking each ledger entry to a blockchain transaction hash would simplify audits. Some startups (Gilded, Bitwave) are working on this, but a lot of the market (especially mid-sized firms) is still untapped.

  • Tax and Regulatory Compliance Solutions: Similar to accounting, tax compliance for stablecoin transactions is largely manual today. Tools like TaxBit and CoinTracker exist for crypto, but companies could use specialized features for stablecoins given the volume of transactions can be high. For example, automatically calculating any gains/losses on stablecoin dispositions (which might be near zero most of the time, but still reportable), generating IRS Form 1099-DA or equivalent for payments made in digital assets , and monitoring transactions against sanctions lists. KYC/AML tools are another gap – businesses need a way to easily identify counterparties in stablecoin deals. While big exchanges and some fintechs have compliance APIs, a developer could create a lightweight API or software that scans wallet addresses for risk (using public data or partnering with blockchain analytics) and provides a simple dashboard for a company’s compliance officer. This would allow even smaller businesses to confidently accept stablecoins, knowing they’ll be alerted to any red flags (e.g. if an incoming payment came from a wallet linked to hacks or blacklists). In essence, making compliance “plug-and-play” for stablecoin transactions would remove a big burden from businesses who don’t want to become crypto compliance experts.

  • Invoicing and Payment Request Platforms: Unlike credit card or bank payments, there isn’t a ubiquitous, user-friendly way to request a stablecoin payment from a customer or client. Many businesses resort to emailing a wallet address or QR code and asking the payer to confirm once sent. This is error-prone and unprofessional. A clear gap is an invoicing platform for stablecoins: a service where a business can issue an invoice (denominated in fiat or stablecoin), and the payer can click a link to pay with stablecoins easily. Upon payment, the platform would notify both parties and update the invoice status. Ideally, it would also handle things like exchange rate lock-in – e.g., if an invoice is in EUR but paid in USDC, it calculates the correct amount of USDC at that time and perhaps offers a brief window where that quote is valid. By handling these details, it removes friction and uncertainty (no more “did I send the right amount?” worries). Such tools could also integrate a payment gateway that accepts multiple stablecoin types, giving flexibility to the payer. For instance, a freelancer could invoice $500 and the client could pay with USDC, USDT, or DAI on various networks, with the platform converting and delivering one consolidated stablecoin to the freelancer’s account. This kind of multi-option invoicing is not common yet, but it’s a low-hanging fruit given the technology largely exists (it’s about packaging it neatly for users).

  • Multi-Currency and FX Conversion Support: Today’s stablecoin infrastructure is heavily USD-centric. Businesses operating internationally often deal with USD, EUR, GBP, etc. There’s a gap in tools that handle multi-currency stablecoin operations seamlessly. For example, a company might want to hold a balance in USD stablecoins but also easily convert to Euro stablecoin when needed to pay European partners, all within one platform. While exchanges allow trading, a dedicated tool for businesses could present this as a simple currency conversion within their wallet, abstracting the trading aspect. Additionally, a platform that automatically picks the best stablecoin rail for a given corridor could be valuable – e.g., if sending value to a partner in Brazil, the tool might convert USD stablecoin to a BRL-pegged stablecoin or to USDC and instruct conversion to BRL via a local exchange. Right now, businesses would have to manually figure out these steps. Developer opportunity: Create services that pool liquidity from multiple sources and offer one-click conversion between fiat and various stablecoins (and between different stablecoins). This can be offered via API for other fintechs to integrate as well. Essentially, become the “Wise (TransferWise) of stablecoins”, optimizing FX routes but using crypto rails where advantageous . Some fintechs like MuralPay advertise multi-currency invoice and payment support leveraging stablecoins , which indicates the demand. But more competition and expansion to new currency corridors are needed to truly serve global business needs.

  • Enterprise Wallets and Custody Solutions: As noted earlier, managing stablecoin wallets is non-trivial for businesses. There’s a gap in secure, user-friendly enterprise wallets that allow multiple users and permissions. Current enterprise crypto custodians focus on large institutions and often require high fees. Smaller businesses could use a wallet that, for instance, allows the finance team to view balances, the CFO to approve large payments, and a clerk to initiate transactions – all with appropriate safeguards. Additionally, integrating backup and recovery mechanisms (like social recovery or hardware key sharding) would address fears of lost access. Some solutions like Gnosis Safe (multisig wallet) exist, but their interfaces are still quite technical. Developers could build on these protocols to create a polished app tailored for businesses. Another aspect is custody insurance: businesses are used to bank deposits being insured (FDIC, etc.). Crypto deposits are not, but a wallet solution that includes an insurance policy or guarantee for the stablecoins held (up to a limit) could attract businesses who are on the fence due to risk. This might involve partnerships with insurers, but offering it via a simple interface would fill a trust gap.

  • Fraud and Dispute Management Services: As stablecoins take off in payments, there will be a need for third-party services that provide some of the protections of traditional payment networks. For example, an escrow service that can hold stablecoins for a transaction and release them when both buyer and seller are satisfied (useful for marketplaces or commerce to mitigate fraud). Or a dispute resolution protocol where a neutral party (or algorithm) can arbitrate if a refund is warranted. These are more complex to build (often more business process than technology), but developers could create tools that integrate with stablecoin payment flows to add an optional layer of protection. This would particularly help with consumer-facing use cases where lack of chargebacks is currently seen as a negative. While not a “tooling” gap in the pure tech sense, it’s an infrastructure/service gap that, if filled, would make businesses more comfortable using stablecoins at scale.

In essence, the current stablecoin infrastructure has been built primarily for crypto traders and decentralized finance users, not for everyday business operations. Bridging that gap requires building the same kind of surrounding infrastructure that fiat money has: accounting systems, compliance checks, invoicing, payroll, treasury management, and user-friendly custody. Each gap identified above is an opportunity for developers and entrepreneurs to create value by bringing stablecoin-based systems up to par with the convenience of traditional finance (while retaining the advantages of speed, cost, and openness).

Developer Opportunities: Low-Hanging Fruit with High ROI

Given the pain points and gaps discussed, there are several promising areas where developers can build solutions that quickly add value. These are “low-hanging fruit” in the sense that the need is clear and pressing, and the solutions are within reach using current technology. By targeting these areas, developers can not only solve real problems (and potentially capture a loyal user base) but also accelerate stablecoin adoption in the business world. Here are some of the most viable opportunities:

  • Seamless Stablecoin Payment Gateways: Develop an easy-to-integrate payment gateway (like a Stripe or PayPal module) that enables businesses to accept stablecoin payments on their website or app. The gateway should handle multiple stablecoins and networks, abstracting that complexity from the merchant. Crucially, it should offer instant conversion to fiat (or to the merchant’s desired stablecoin) to mitigate volatility and simplify accounting. By providing a stable API and dashboard, developers can let businesses add a “Pay with USDC/USDT” option with minimal coding. This addresses the integration pain directly and opens merchants to new customers. For example, an online store using such a gateway could easily start selling to customers in countries where credit cards don’t work well, because now those customers can use stablecoins. The ROI for merchants is tangible: lower transaction fees and possibly new sales . As cited earlier, an EU retailer reached Latin American buyers by adding stablecoin checkout, avoiding costly local payment methods . A developer who provides that capability broadly could tap into a global market of e-commerce and SaaS companies looking for cheaper, global payment options.

  • Stablecoin-to-Fiat On/Off-Ramp APIs: One big friction is getting money in and out of stablecoins. A developer opportunity is to build robust on/off-ramp services with an API. This would allow any application to programmatically convert fiat to stablecoin or vice versa, through local bank transfers, cards, or mobile wallets. Essentially, acting as a bridge between banking systems and blockchain. A business could integrate this API to automatically cash out stablecoins to their bank at day’s end, or to fund a wallet from their bank when they need to make a payment. By handling compliance (KYC/AML) in the background, such a service would remove a huge barrier. Companies like Circle and fintech startups are working on this (e.g., Circle’s APIs for USDC, or regional players like Bitso for LATAM), but gaps remain especially in underserved currencies and countries. A network of local partners might be required, but even focusing on a few high-need corridors (say, USDC to Nigerian Naira, or Euro to USDC) can capture significant volume. Every SME that currently goes through a convoluted process on an exchange to convert funds would prefer a one-click solution integrated in their finance software.

  • Crypto Invoicing and Billing Software: As described, there’s demand for tools to create and manage invoices to be paid in stablecoins. A developer could create a web app (or add-on to existing invoicing software) that lets businesses issue professional invoices where the payment method is a stablecoin transaction. The software can generate a unique deposit address or payment link for each invoice and monitor the blockchain for payment. Once detected, it can automatically mark the invoice as paid and even initiate a conversion to fiat if the business wants. By preserving the familiar format of invoices and just changing the payment rail, it requires little new learning from businesses and their customers. This addresses a very specific but common need – how to request money in stablecoin – which is currently solved with ad-hoc manual communication. Concrete example: a freelancer sends an invoice of $1,000 to a client; the client opens a link, sees a request for 1,000 USDC (with the current equivalent in their preferred currency, if needed), and sends it; both get a receipt. This process could save days of waiting compared to international bank wires and cut fees dramatically. Given the rise of freelance and consultant work across borders, such a tool could see rapid adoption in those communities.

  • Stablecoin Payroll and Mass Payout Systems: Another actionable opportunity is building a platform for mass payouts in stablecoins, tailored for payroll or vendor payments. This would allow a business to upload a list (or integrate via API) of who to pay and how much, and the platform takes care of the rest – converting currencies if needed and distributing stablecoins to each recipient’s wallet. It can also handle sending out notification emails with payslips or payment details. By integrating compliance checks (verifying the wallet belongs to the intended recipient, screening against sanctions lists, etc.), it gives companies confidence to use it at scale. This type of solution would directly target the pain of companies that have multiple international contractors or remote employees, replacing a process that might involve multiple bank wires or high-fee services. A platform called Transfi, for instance, highlights that stablecoin payout solutions are increasingly used to complement cross-border Swift transactions due to speed and cost benefits . A developer solution here could plug into existing HR or accounts payable systems, making it easy for a company’s finance team to adopt. There’s potential for a subscription or transaction-fee business model, given the value saved. Additionally, by handling exchange to local fiat for those who want it, it can cater to recipients who aren’t crypto-savvy – they just see that they got paid, with stablecoins as the behind-the-scenes vehicle.

  • Integrated Compliance and Monitoring Tools: Many businesses worry about the compliance aspect of using stablecoins – “Are we allowed to do this? What if the funds are tainted?” Developers can seize the opportunity by offering compliance-as-a-service for stablecoin transactions. This could be an API or software that automatically checks each transaction against certain rules: e.g., it can flag if a stablecoin payment came from a wallet associated with known fraud or if it exceeded a certain threshold requiring KYC. It could also help generate reports needed by regulators (like a log of all digital asset transactions in the quarter). By packaging this into an easy tool, developers take a complex task off the business’s plate. Think of it as the Plaid or Alloy (fintech compliance APIs) equivalent for on-chain payments. As regulation tightens, such tools will become not just nice-to-have but necessary, especially if governments mandate more reporting on crypto transactions. Early movers in providing compliance solutions will become the go-to providers that other services integrate. This might not be a consumer-facing product but rather developer-facing (an API) – yet it’s crucial for enabling other products (like the payment gateways and payroll systems mentioned above) to be legally viable for businesses. In short, solving compliance pain through tech unlocks the ability for businesses to use stablecoins without fear.

  • Multi-Network and Stablecoin Aggregators: Given the fragmentation (so many stablecoins and blockchains), a useful developer project is an aggregator that supports all major stablecoin types and networks under one interface or API. This service would let a business accept or send stablecoins without worrying about the specific type. For example, a business could say “I only care about receiving USD value” – the aggregator could provide an address that accepts USDC, USDT, DAI, etc., on various chains, detect the incoming payment, and consolidate it for the user, converting if necessary. This removes the headache of “which stablecoin do we support?” and allows businesses to safely accept whatever the payer has, which increases flexibility. Likewise for sending – a business could input a destination (maybe the recipient’s preference or let the service find the cheapest way to deliver $X to that country) and the aggregator handles choosing the stablecoin/chain and execution. Such a tool reduces confusion and error (no more sending the wrong token to the wrong network). It could charge a small fee or spread on conversion for the convenience. With the plethora of stablecoins likely to persist (as noted, having many options is confusing users ), an aggregator becomes quite valuable. It’s essentially offering interoperability as a service, something the Orbital article cited as an area where early developments offer hope . By being chain-agnostic, this also future-proofs businesses against stablecoin market changes (if one coin falls out of favor, the aggregator just uses another under the hood).

  • Stablecoin Financing and Credit Services: This is a bit further afield from just payments, but it’s worth noting – developers could build services around working capital and credit using stablecoins. For example, enabling businesses to earn yield on idle stablecoin balances (through safe DeFi lending or interest-bearing accounts) to improve treasury income. Or providing short-term credit in stablecoins for suppliers who need liquidity (kind of like invoice factoring but via crypto). These are more complex opportunities but could be highly valuable in underserved markets where getting a bank loan is hard but a DeFi protocol might provide an advance against stablecoin receivables. Such innovations can drive adoption because they offer something beyond what traditional finance does. If a small exporter knows that by using stablecoin payments they also gain access to a quick line of credit or yield options, they have extra incentive to switch. Developers in the crypto space are exploring “DeFi for businesses” and this could integrate with stablecoin payment platforms.

To illustrate the potential impact of capturing these opportunities: consider transaction fees and cost savings. If a developer’s solution enables even a 1% reduction in payment costs, that can translate to huge savings at scale – e.g., Walmart could save on the order of $10 billion in card fees per year, theoretically boosting profitability by over 60% if such costs were eliminated . While that’s an extreme example, it shows the magnitude of value in replacing legacy payments. Realistically, stablecoin solutions might cut costs by 20-50% in various scenarios , which is still significant. Developers can capture a slice of that value (e.g., charge 0.1% of transactions) and still make clients better off.

Additionally, the strategic timing is good. Large players like Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and PayPal are all making moves toward stablecoins (Visa settling in USDC , Stripe with stablecoin payouts , PayPal launching its own USD stablecoin, etc.). This validates the market and will increase confidence. But those big players will likely serve other big enterprises first; smaller businesses and niche segments might be overlooked initially – which is where independent developers can shine by focusing on those niches and providing tailored solutions. Once built, these tools could themselves become acquisition targets (as Stripe acquired a stablecoin startup for $1B ), indicating strong ROI potential for successful products.

In summary, by targeting integration, compliance, and usability gaps, developers can create the picks-and-shovels needed for businesses to comfortably use stablecoins. These opportunities not only promise financial return for the builders but also advance the overall ecosystem, making stablecoins more practical and trusted in day-to-day commerce.

Conclusion

Stablecoins have demonstrated immense promise by offering fast, low-cost, global transactions – a compelling upgrade to traditional payment rails mired in fees and delays. For businesses, the allure is straightforward: near-instant cross-border payments, reduced transaction costs (often by 50-80% ), and access to a digital dollar economy that operates 24/7. These benefits directly address long-standing pain points in areas like B2B payments, international trade, and small business transactions. Yet, as we’ve explored, widespread adoption by businesses has been held back by equally real challenges. Regulatory uncertainty, integration hurdles, liquidity and FX issues, user experience gaps, and the lack of enterprise-ready tooling form a wall between the promise of stablecoins and the reality on the ground.

Crucially, within these challenges lie clear opportunities. Many of the barriers are fixable frictions – the kind that innovative tools and services can overcome. Underserved market segments such as emerging-market SMEs, global freelancers, and small retailers are hungry for better payment solutions, but they need the bridges built for them to cross into the stablecoin world. Developers and entrepreneurs who focus on these pain points can become the bridge-builders. Whether it’s an API that **plugs stablecoins into existing finance software **, or an app that simplifies KYC for crypto transactions, or a platform that lets a coffee shop take digital dollars for lattes, each solution chips away at the barriers. Over time, these incremental improvements can lower the threshold enough that even non-crypto-savvy businesses step through and give stablecoins a try.

It’s also worth noting that stablecoins do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of a broader financial stack. To truly unlock their value, the surrounding services (compliance, security, dispute resolution, etc.) must evolve in parallel. As one analyst pointed out, the cost savings of stablecoins come from cutting out middlemen, but businesses still need someone or something to perform the “jobs” those middlemen did – fraud prevention, coordination, regulatory compliance . This is where new service providers can step in: for every function a bank or card network used to handle, there’s an opportunity for a crypto-native solution to handle it more efficiently or in a more user-driven way. The maturation of the stablecoin ecosystem will see the emergence of these complementary services, many likely built by agile startups.

From a strategic perspective, focusing on low-hanging fruit doesn’t just mean quick wins – it means laying the groundwork for bigger shifts. Solving practical issues for niche markets can be the wedge that brings stablecoin usage into the mainstream. For example, a robust stablecoin invoicing system for freelancers might later expand to SMB payroll, then to enterprise vendor payments. Each step builds confidence and track record. By emphasizing actionable improvements and ROI, developers can convince businesses to take that first step. Early success stories (like companies that cut remittance costs by 80% , or a retailer that gained new customers via stablecoin payments) will in turn inspire others to explore these tools.

In conclusion, the path to stablecoin adoption in business is not absent of obstacles, but none of the obstacles are insurmountable. The pain points are well-defined; many are already being tackled in pieces by forward-thinking companies and projects. What’s needed now is a concerted effort to address these gaps with practical, user-friendly solutions. By targeting underserved segments and their specific needs, and by developing the “glue” that connects stablecoins with everyday business operations, developers can unlock significant value – for themselves, for businesses, and for the broader economy. The year 2025 and beyond is poised to be a turning point where stablecoins move from the periphery of finance into its core workflows . Those who build the picks and shovels for this digital gold rush stand to reap substantial rewards, while also advancing financial innovation. In other words, solving these pain points isn’t just good deeds – it’s good business.

Sources:

  • PYMNTS – Stablecoins Keep Racking Up Milestones, but Can They Crack B2B Payments?
  • PYMNTS – Interview with Stable Sea CEO on cross-border payment pain points
  • Orbital (Alexandra Lartey) – Stablecoins: Solving Real-World Challenges in B2B Payments (use cases and adoption hurdles)
  • a16z (Sam Broner) – How stablecoins will eat payments (stablecoin benefits for SMEs, payment cost analysis)
  • Banking Dive – Stablecoins face obstacles to widespread adoption (Money20/20 panel insights)
  • Fintech Takes (Alex Johnson) – The Trouble With Stablecoins (critical analysis of stablecoin payments vs. card networks)
  • Deloitte – 2025 – The year of payment stablecoins (risk, accounting, and tax considerations)
  • Transfi – Efficient Stablecoin Payout Solutions: A Comprehensive Guide (stablecoin payout mechanics and benefits)
  • Orbital – example of cost savings via stablecoins in B2B FX processes and e-commerce plugins boosting sales
  • a16z – stablecoin vs traditional remittance cost comparison and Stripe stablecoin fee initiative .