rev #undefined (initial)
---
template: worksheet
---
# USDC Payment Setup Checklist
_Derived from: Global Stablecoin Ecosystem Overview (End-to-End)_
Global Stablecoin Ecosystem Overview (End-to-
End)
Stablecoin Types and Examples
• Fiat-backed Stablecoins: Tokens pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency and fully collateralized by cash or
equivalents held in reserve. Examples include USD Coin (USDC) and Tether (USDT), which hold
dollar reserves (cash and short-term Treasuries) equal to tokens issued 1 . These dominate the
market due to transparency and liquidity (USDT alone is the most traded crypto asset globally 2 ).
• Crypto-Collateralized Stablecoins: Issued against on-chain crypto assets locked in smart contracts,
usually over-collateralized to absorb volatility. Dai (DAI), for instance, is backed by ETH and other
assets in MakerDAO vaults, requiring >100% collateral (e.g. $2,000 ETH for $1,000 DAI) 3 .
Governance is decentralized via a DAO (MakerDAO) rather than a company 4 . Other examples
include Liquidity USD (LUSD) and RAI, all maintaining pegs via excess crypto reserves.
• Algorithmic Stablecoins: Rely on algorithmic supply controls (no full backing) to hold a peg. They
expand or contract token supply based on price deviations. Example: TerraUSD (UST), which aimed
to stay $1 via arbitrage with a sister token (LUNA), collapsed in May 2022 when its stabilizing
mechanism failed – UST fell to ~$0.30, wiping out billions 5 . Pure algorithmic models (Basis Cash,
ESD, etc.) often face de-peg risk, as seen with UST’s “death spiral.”
• Commodity-Backed Stablecoins: Pegged to physical assets like gold, oil, or other commodities held
in reserve. Popular examples are Pax Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT), each token representing
one fine troy ounce of gold 6 . Holders can even redeem tokens for physical gold under certain
conditions 6 . These coins provide exposure to commodity prices, so they remain stable relative to
that asset (not a fiat currency) and can fluctuate with market value of the commodity.
• Inflation-Indexed Stablecoins (Flatcoins): Tokens that aim to preserve purchasing power by
tracking an inflation index rather than a fixed fiat amount. For example, Frax Price Index (FPI) is
pegged to the U.S. Consumer Price Index, making it “the first inflation-resistant stablecoin” that
rises in nominal value to offset inflation 7 . Nuon is another flatcoin adjusting its peg via daily CPI
oracles 8 . These are designed as a hedge against fiat inflation, maintaining stable real value over
time.
• Synthetic Stablecoins: Stable-value assets created via derivatives or protocol-based guarantees,
often without holding the reference asset directly. For instance, sUSD (by Synthetix) is minted by
locking SNX tokens as collateral and represents $1 worth of value synthetically. Such “synthetic USD”
tokens function as stablecoins but are backed by complex on-chain positions (debt pools or hedges).
They provide stability through over-collateralization and algorithmic enforcement of peg, similar to
crypto-backed models.
• Basket-Pegged Stablecoins: Pegged to a basket of currencies or assets instead of a single currency.
This diversifies risk across multiple values. (Libra/Diem, Facebook’s proposed stablecoin, initially
planned to reference a basket of fiat currencies, though regulatory pushback stopped it. Another
example is Reserve (RSV), intended to be backed by a basket of assets.) These are still nascent. An
operational example is Silk, a privacy-focused stablecoin on Secret Network, which pegs to a
dynamic basket (an index of currencies/commodities) rather than $1 9 . Basket-pegged designs aim
1
for broader stability (e.g. akin to SDR) but are complex to implement and have seen limited adoption
so far.
Stablecoin Issuing Entities
• Private Companies (Non-Bank Issuers): Many major stablecoins are issued by fintech firms or
trusts. For example, Circle issues USDC and Paxos issues USDP (and powers PayPal’s PYUSD); both
are regulated firms that hold 1:1 fiat reserves and provide regular attestations 10 . Tether Ltd.
(associated with Bitfinex) issues USDT, the largest stablecoin, backed by cash-equivalent reserves
2 . These companies operate the smart contracts, manage reserves, and handle compliance for
their stablecoins. Non-bank issuers leverage public blockchains for wide access while pursuing
regulatory compliance (e.g. USDC and PYUSD are under U.S. oversight with audited reserves) 11 .
• Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): Some stablecoins are issued by blockchain
protocols governed by token holders with no central company. MakerDAO (a DAO) issues DAI via
decentralized collateral vaults 4 . Other DAO-issued stablecoins include Frax (by Frax Finance DAO)
and LUSD (by Liquity protocol). These entities use governance tokens and smart contract systems to
manage the peg, collateral, and monetary policy in a decentralized manner.
• Financial Institutions and Banks: Traditional institutions have begun issuing their own stablecoins
or deposit tokens on private ledgers. For example, JPMorgan’s JPM Coin is a permissioned
stablecoin backed by bank deposits, used internally for corporate settlements 12 13 . The USDF
Consortium (formed by several U.S. banks) was an initiative to create bank-issued stablecoins
interchangeable among member banks 13 . In Japan, new regulations allow licensed banks and trust
companies to issue JPY stablecoins under banking oversight (ensuring full reserve backing). These
bank-issued coins run on private or consortium blockchains, emphasizing regulatory compliance
and integration with core banking systems.
• Government and CBDC-related Initiatives: A few governments have explored “stablecoin-like”
digital tokens. The Marshall Islands recently launched a pilot UBI program where citizens can opt to
receive stipends in a government-backed stablecoin pegged to USD (distributed via a state-run
digital wallet) 14 . The Republic of Palau conducted a 2023 pilot of a USD-backed Palau Stablecoin
(alias “Kluk”) on the XRP ledger in collaboration with Ripple, essentially a government-issued
stablecoin for local use 15 16 . While these blur the line with Central Bank Digital Currencies, they
function as stablecoins issued or authorized by sovereign entities.
• Hybrid/Partnership Models: Some stablecoin projects involve consortiums or partnerships (e.g.
Centre consortium by Circle and Coinbase governs USDC issuance; Libra Association was a
coalition of corporations and non-profits meant to oversee Libra stablecoin). These models distribute
governance among multiple stakeholders (including big tech, payment companies, VCs) to build
trust, though they still need regulatory approval. The now-defunct Diem (Libra) project was backed
by firms like Facebook, Visa, and Andreessen Horowitz, highlighting broad private-sector interest in
stablecoins.
Reserve Models and Collateralization
• Fully Reserved (1:1 Backing): The simplest model—each stablecoin token is backed by an
equivalent value of fiat currency or liquid assets in reserve. Issuers hold high-quality, liquid assets
(like cash in bank accounts or short-term Treasury bills) equal to 100% of outstanding coins. USDC,
USDP, BUSD, and PYUSD follow this model. Regulations increasingly mandate this: e.g. a new U.S.
law (2025) requires stablecoin issuers to maintain 1:1 reserves in eligible assets (cash or T-bills)
2
with monthly audits 17 . Fully-backed coins offer straightforward redemption: 1 token for $1,
mitigating run risk if reserves are transparent.
• Over-Collateralized (Crypto-Backed On-Chain): Decentralized stablecoins like DAI and LUSD are
backed by crypto collateral worth more than the stablecoins issued. This cushion (often 150% or
more of face value) protects the peg against volatile collateral. Smart contracts automatically
liquidate collateral if its value falls too low. For example, MakerDAO requires minimum 150%
collateralization; in practice users often lock 200%+ in ETH to mint DAI 3 . The surplus collateral
buffers price fluctuations and has kept DAI roughly at $1, though users can face liquidation in sharp
market crashes. Over-collateralization sacrifices capital efficiency for decentralization and
transparency, since all reserves are verifiable on-chain.
• Fractional Reserve (Hybrid) Models: Stablecoins that are partially backed by reserves and rely on
algorithmic mechanisms for the rest. Frax (FRAX) pioneered this “fractional-algorithmic” approach –
initially targeting an 80–95% collateral ratio with the remainder stabilized by its governance token
FXS 18 . In practice, if FRAX trades above $1, the protocol lowers collateralization (increasing
algorithmic portion); if below $1, it raises the collateral ratio and/or buys back tokens 19 . This hybrid
model seeks a middle ground between efficiency and stability. Hybrid collateral can also mean
mixing asset types (on-chain crypto + off-chain fiat). Reserve Protocol’s RSV was one example
aiming to be backed by a basket of assets (USD plus tokenized bonds/commodities). Fractional
models carry higher peg risk – if confidence falters, users may rush to redeem the limited collateral
(a scenario that caused past fractional-algo coins like Iron/TITAN to collapse).
• Algorithmic (Uncollateralized): Pure algorithmic stablecoins have no explicit reserve backing;
instead, they attempt to algorithmically adjust supply or use game-theory incentives to maintain
price. These include rebasing coins (like Ampleforth, which isn’t pegged to $1 but targets a
purchasing power stability) and earlier seigniorage-share models (Basis, Empty Set Dollar). They
often involve minting/burning a volatile counterpart token. TerraUSD (UST) was algorithmic (backed
chiefly by LUNA’s market value); it maintained $1 by a swap mechanism with LUNA until a loss of
confidence led to a run and the system’s collapse 5 . Generally, unbacked algorithmic designs are
unstable – regulators note they could fall outside stablecoin definitions and be treated as unlicensed
“other tokens” in regimes like MiCA 20 . Post-UST, purely algorithmic stablecoins have fallen out of
favor due to their failure modes.
• On-Chain vs Off-Chain Collateral: A distinction in where reserves are held. Fiat-backed stablecoins
hold off-chain reserves (in bank accounts, money-market funds, etc.) managed by an issuer. Crypto-
backed coins use on-chain collateral, locked in smart contracts that anyone can verify in real time.
On-chain reserves bolster trust through transparency (e.g. anyone can see MakerDAO’s vaults and
DAI backing). Off-chain reserves rely on audits and issuer honesty (lack of which led to Tether’s 2021
CFTC fine for misleading reserve claims 21 ). Some projects combine both: Reserve’s RSV initially
held fiat in bank accounts but long-term planned to diversify into on-chain assets and other
currencies. Hybrid custody is emerging too – e.g. USDC uses a mix of traditional custodians (for fiat)
and now offers an on-chain treasury for some reserves on Ethereum.
• Yield-Bearing Models: A newer variant where reserves are deployed to earn interest, and that yield
is passed to holders or used to support the peg. OUSD (Origin Dollar) and AMPLX have attempted
this by investing collateral in DeFi lending and reflecting the accrued yield via increasing token
balances. These are essentially stablecoin wrappers that auto-invest reserves. They promise interest
to holders but add smart-contract and liquidity risk (e.g. if underlying investments default or are
hacked). Regulators have taken note; some consider yield-bearing stablecoins as potentially
regulated products (the BIS has discussed frameworks for stablecoin-related yield products 22 ). In
practice, yield stablecoins remain a niche within the broader ecosystem.
3
Blockchain Rails and Stablecoin Protocols
• Multi-Chain Deployment: Stablecoins today operate across numerous blockchains to maximize
reach and efficiency. Leading fiat stablecoins like USDT and USDC are issued on Ethereum, Tron,
BSC (BNB Chain), Solana, Polygon, Arbitrum, and more. For example, Circle’s USDC supports at
least 8+ networks (Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, etc.), ensuring users on
different chains can access liquidity 23 . Tron in particular has become a major rail for USDT
transactions due to its low fees – by 2025 Tron was handling over 50% of global USDT volume,
processing trillions in transfers and millions of daily transactions 24 . This cross-chain ubiquity is
enabled by either native issuance on each chain (as Circle does) or bridged assets.
• Bridged Stablecoins: When a stablecoin isn’t natively supported on a blockchain, users often rely on
token bridges (lock coins on one chain, mint equivalent on another). Projects like Wormhole,
Multichain, Axelar, and LayerZero facilitate moving stablecoins across chains. However, bridging
introduces additional counterparty risk (bridge hacks have targeted cross-chain assets). In response,
issuers are moving toward native interoperability – e.g. Circle announced plans for a Cross-Chain
Transfer Protocol to natively swap USDC across chains without third-party bridges. Interoperability
protocols and standards (like federated mints or omnichain tokens) are a developing part of
stablecoin infrastructure aiming to eliminate fragmented liquidity and “wrapped” duplicates.
• Layer 2 and Scaling Solutions: With Ethereum’s high demand, stablecoins also live on Layer 2
networks (e.g. USDC on Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) to enable faster, cheaper transactions. Users
increasingly transfer stablecoins on L2s for trading and payments to avoid L1 fees, while still
benefitting from Ethereum’s security. Some stablecoins are even native to L2s – KDX (Kadena USD)
on Kadenachain or community initiatives on rollups. Additionally, sidechains like Stellar and
Algorand host fiat stablecoins (USDC has native versions on both). Polygon and Solana became
popular stablecoin rails for retail payments due to throughput and low cost (Solana’s rapid
settlement attracted USDC for high-frequency trading and merchant payments until its outages
raised concerns).
• Dedicated Stablecoin Blockchains: Several Layer-1 chains were purpose-built around stablecoins or
forex use. Terra (original) was a prime example – its ecosystem revolved around the UST stablecoin
and other fiat-pegged tokens (KRT, EUT) on a delegated proof-of-stake chain optimized for
payments. Celo is another L1 that launched with stable-value currencies (cUSD, cEUR) as core
primitives for mobile payments. While Terra’s collapse hurt confidence, new stablecoin-centric chains
are still appearing (e.g. Kava pivoting to native USDX stablecoin, Cardano launching Djed stablecoin
on its chain). These L1s often integrate stablecoin functionality at the protocol level for performance
or governance benefits.
• Permissioned and Enterprise Blockchains: Outside public networks, banks and consortia are using
private or permissioned ledgers for stablecoins. JPM Coin runs on JPM’s internal variant of Ethereum
(Quorum) and is used for institutional clients’ intra-bank transfers. Fnality’s USC project (Utility
Settlement Coin) in Europe was a permissioned network for tokenized bank deposits (effectively a
consortium stablecoin for settlement). Similarly, the USDF Consortium proposed a bank-owned
blockchain for member-issued stablecoins 13 . These private rails trade some openness for
regulatory clarity, allowing only KYC’d entities to transact. They aim to integrate with existing
payment systems (Fedwire, ACH, SWIFT) as a faster interbank settlement layer.
• Stablecoin Protocol Innovations: On the protocol side, new designs continue to emerge: AMM-
based stabilization (using automated market maker pools to keep price at $1), tranche and
insurance mechanisms (to make stablecoins safer by design), and programmable interest (like
Reflexer’s RAI which has a moving peg rate). Projects like OlympusDAO and Tokemak even
4
attempted reserve-backed “reserve currencies” that are not pegged to $1 but provide relative
stability. As stablecoins expand beyond USD, protocols for multi-currency stablecoins (e.g. EUR
stablecoins on EU networks, or Asia’s regional stablecoin proposals) are growing. Cross-chain
stablecoins are another frontier – e.g. Tether announced plans for a native stablecoin on Polkadot’s
parachains, and Circle integrated with Cosmos via issuers. Overall, the stablecoin rails are quickly
evolving to be as diverse as the internet itself – spanning public, private, Layer 1, Layer 2, and cross-
chain networks.
Products and Use Cases Built on Stablecoins
• Digital Wallets and Payment Apps: A plethora of crypto wallets allow users to hold and transact
stablecoins as easily as cash. Some are general-purpose (e.g. MetaMask, Trust Wallet, Coinbase
Wallet) while others are tailored for stablecoins and emerging markets. For instance, Vibrant (on
Stellar) was built for Argentinians to save in USDC, and Chipper Cash and VALR in Africa integrate
USDT/USDC for cross-border transfers. These apps act as mobile bank accounts, enabling millions
without access to USD bank accounts to hold “digital dollars.” The competition among wallets and
exchanges is intense – “dozens, if not hundreds of wallet providers and platforms” are striving to
offer the smoothest user experience for stablecoin transfers 25 . Features often include QR code
payments, contact list transfers, and integrations with local payment methods. The result is an
ecosystem where sending money via stablecoin can be as simple as sending a message, with near-
zero fees.
• Stablecoin Debit Cards and Merchant Tools: Payment companies have linked stablecoins to real-
world spending. Crypto debit cards (offered by the likes of Crypto.com, Binance, Coinbase) let users
spend stablecoins anywhere Visa/MasterCard are accepted, by instantly converting stablecoin to fiat
at the point of sale. Even traditional networks are on board: Visa expanded a pilot to settle
transactions in USDC with acquirer banks 26 , meaning merchants can get paid in stablecoin and
Visa will convert it behind the scenes. This stablecoin settlement can cut out correspondent banks and
allow 24/7 fund movement 27 . Fintech startups (e.g. Ramp Network, MoonPay) provide APIs so
apps can load and unload stablecoin value via credit card or bank transfers, blurring the line
between traditional money and crypto. We are also seeing point-of-sale systems support stablecoins
directly – for example, some retailers in Latin America accept USDT payments via wallet scan, and
Stripe has begun enabling stablecoin payouts for gig economy platforms. These tools make
spending stablecoins nearly as convenient as using local currency, accelerating merchant adoption.
• Yield and Lending Applications: Because stablecoins hold value, they’ve become the lifeblood of
crypto lending and yield platforms. DeFi lending protocols like Aave, Compound, and Curve let
users deposit stablecoins and earn interest from borrowers (rates fluctuating with demand). This
decentralized “savings account” use case drove massive stablecoin deposits – at one point Coinbase
noted over $12 billion of USDC was being held by users lured by ~4% APY rewards 28 . Beyond DeFi,
CeFi lenders (Celsius, BlockFi pre-2022) also attracted stablecoin deposits with high yields (often by
rehypothecating into DeFi or arbitrage). There are specialized yield aggregators (Yearn, etc.) that
optimize across platforms to boost returns on stablecoins. On the borrowing side, individuals and
institutions use stablecoins as a reliable source of liquidity – e.g. traders borrow USDC against crypto
collateral to make trades without cashing out. Money market protocols like Compound essentially
turned stablecoins into the crypto equivalent of Eurodollars, with billions in daily lending. However,
the hunt for yield introduced risks (several CeFi lenders collapsed in 2022 due to risky deployment of
stablecoins). Regulators are watching closely – some stablecoin legislation explicitly forbids issuers
from rehypothecating reserves into lending 29 , to separate “money” stablecoins from yield-bearing
5
products. Still, yield apps remain a key use: they provide an interest return on what is essentially
digital cash, attracting both retail users in low-rate countries and crypto treasuries seeking to park
funds.
• Remittances and Cross-Border Payments: Perhaps the most humanitarian use case, stablecoins
are increasingly used to remit money abroad cheaply and quickly. Workers in high-cost corridors
have started switching from Western Union or MoneyGram to dollar stablecoins sent over crypto
networks. For example, in the U.S.–Mexico corridor (world’s largest by volume, ~$68B in 2024) 30 ,
fintech apps now enable migrants to send USDC/USDT which relatives in Mexico receive in minutes
and often convert to pesos via local exchanges or even ATMs. This trend is growing: “Adoption is high
in some corridors, like U.S.-Mexico, Europe–Africa, and intra-Africa” where traditional remittances are
slow or expensive 31 . Case studies abound: Venezuela, suffering hyperinflation, sees millions use
USDT for both saving and inbound remittances – stablecoins have “become a necessity” there 32 .
Mexico has mobile wallets (e.g. Bitso, Airtm) allowing U.S. workers to send USD stablecoins home,
with transfers costing pennies and arriving instantly 33 . Philippines (where remittances are ~10%
of GDP) likewise has integrations between mobile money apps and stablecoin platforms to maximize
what families receive 34 . The process typically involves an on-ramp (exchange or app) to buy
stablecoin with local currency, on-chain transfer to the recipient’s wallet, and an off-ramp to local
currency or direct spending of the stablecoin. By cutting intermediaries, fees on a $200 transfer drop
from ~6-7% to nearly 0% 35 36 . Furthermore, stablecoin networks operate 24/7, so recipients don’t
wait days. This speed can be life-saving in emergencies when funds are needed immediately 37 .
Remittance companies are taking notice: MoneyGram launched a pilot with Stellar to facilitate USDC
remittances with cash pickup, and startups like Remeit, Afriex, and Xend specifically leverage
stablecoins for cross-border flows in Africa and Asia. The main hurdles remain local cash-out
availability and user education, but the model has been proven to drastically reduce cost and
increase accessibility in cross-border finance.
• Micropayments and Content Monetization: Stablecoins are unlocking new internet business
models by enabling micropayments that weren’t feasible before. Because on-chain transfers can be
tiny (fractions of a cent) and still economically viable, creatives and platforms are experimenting with
pay-per-use pricing. For instance, journalists and publishers have floated “stablecoin
micropayments” for articles or media as an alternative to subscriptions 38 . A reader could pay a
few cents in USDC to read an article or tip a creator, which is impractical via credit cards (due to fees)
but possible with crypto wallets or Layer-2 transactions. We’re seeing this in practice with social
media tipping (Twitter integrated USDC via Strike/Lightning for tips in some configurations) and
streaming platforms (certain Twitch and OnlyFans competitors accept stablecoins for small
donations or pay-per-view content). IoT and API services can also use stablecoins for machine-to-
machine micropayments – e.g. a car paying a few cents of DAI to a smart traffic API per data query,
enabling a true machine economy. Another niche is pay-as-you-go software: some VPNs and cloud
storage services use stablecoins to charge by the minute or byte. The key advantage is that
stablecoins eliminate high transaction costs and chargebacks associated with cards, so businesses
can charge $0.10 reliably. While still early, many see micropayments (especially when integrated with
web browsers or apps seamlessly) as a way to better compensate creators and service providers with
granular payments, and stablecoins provide the stable unit of account needed for this vision.
• Payroll, Gig Economy, and B2B Payments: Companies are starting to use stablecoins to pay
salaries, contractor invoices, and suppliers, especially across borders. International payroll is a
compelling area – a remote freelancer in Brazil or Nigeria might prefer USDC to receiving a wire in
volatile local currency. Services like Bitwage, Deel, and Request Finance facilitate paying
employees in crypto or stablecoins, often converting from the employer’s bank funds to stablecoin
on the fly. This can significantly speed up receipt of wages (minutes instead of international ACH that
6
can take days) and reduce forex fees. In fact, analysts note stablecoins are a “perfect fit” for cross-
border payroll and gig work, providing near-instant payouts to workers globally 39 . We have
examples of Filipino gig workers being paid in USDT and then cashing out via local crypto exchanges,
or Latin American freelancers using stablecoins through platforms like Upwork in lieu of PayPal (to
avoid its high fees and currency conversion). On the B2B side, stablecoins streamline trade
payments and supplier settlements. Stripe reports that businesses in regions with weak banking are
paying and getting paid in stablecoins as a stable dollar substitute 40 . A global trade firm can
settle an invoice in minutes with a stablecoin instead of waiting days for a wire—“supply chain firms
use them to settle invoices in minutes instead of days” 41 . This improves cash flow and frees
working capital that would be tied up in transit. Companies also avoid the cut-off times of
correspondent banking; stablecoins settle 24/7, which is valuable for just-in-time logistics.
Importantly, new services are emerging that integrate stablecoin B2B payments with existing
accounting systems – e.g. Stripe can auto-convert incoming USDC to USD and deposit it in the
business’s bank account 42 , hiding the crypto part. Real-world example: a U.S. client can pay a
vendor in Argentina by sending USDC on Saturday; the vendor’s crypto payment processor converts
it to pesos and deposits to their local bank by Monday, bypassing SWIFT fees and Argentina’s capital
controls (which often make it hard to obtain dollars) 43 . We’re also seeing Fortune 500 companies
experiment with stablecoins for treasury operations: e.g. Tesla reportedly used stablecoins to move
corporate funds between exchanges, and Siemens executed a €60K on-chain bond payment using a
euro stablecoin. These examples illustrate a broader trend: stablecoins are becoming part of
corporate finance rails.
• Universal Basic Income and Aid Distribution: Stablecoins have been piloted as a vehicle for UBI
and aid because of their efficiency and traceability. The Marshall Islands’ UBI program (world-first
national crypto UBI) gives citizens $800/yr in quarterly payments, optionally via a USD-pegged
stablecoin to a government wallet 14 . The motivation was to leverage blockchain to reach residents
across remote islands quickly and transparently. Only a small number opted for the crypto so far
(most took direct bank deposits) 44 , but it proved the concept of government stablecoin
disbursements. In humanitarian aid, organizations are turning to stablecoins to get funds on the
ground faster. UNICEF’s CryptoFund is now accepting and disbursing aid in stablecoins 45 – for
example, they can fund startups in emerging markets with USDC without the friction of international
banking. The UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) accepted a $2.5M donation in BUSD stablecoin for
Ukrainian relief, which was delivered via Binance’s charity platform 46 . That stablecoin aid could be
spent by refugees or local NGOs through partnered wallets, providing immediate relief in USD
equivalent. Stablecoins avoid the delays of moving money through multiple correspondent banks,
and can reduce corruption since every on-chain transaction is traceable (or can be programmed with
conditions). Some non-profits are exploring geo-fenced stablecoins that can only be spent at certain
merchants (ensuring aid is used for intended purposes). While not a panacea (beneficiaries still need
internet and wallet access), stablecoins present an opportunity to stretch every aid dollar further – a
LinkedIn study estimated billions in savings if aid programs used stablecoins and avoided traditional
FX fees 47 . This is an active area of experimentation, aligning with the broader theme that
stablecoins can promote financial inclusion when combined with mobile technology.
Industries and Enterprise Use Cases
• E-Commerce and Retail: Stablecoins are increasingly used in online commerce as both a consumer
payment method and a settlement currency for merchants. Some online retailers and marketplaces
now accept USDC/USDT alongside credit cards, especially in regions where a large share of
7
customers have crypto. Stablecoins shine for international e-commerce: an e-shop can sell to
customers globally in USD stablecoin without dealing with each local currency or high card fees.
Shopify has plugins for accepting stablecoins via payment processors (e.g. CoinPayments, BitPay)
which then either pass through crypto or instantly convert to fiat. For merchants, stablecoins offer
near-instant settlement (no multi-day waits for card clearing) and finality with no chargebacks 48 . E-
commerce businesses are using them to reach customers in markets with weak banking
infrastructure 49 – for instance, a SaaS company might collect subscription payments in USDC from
users in Africa who lack access to international cards. On the retail point-of-sale side, adoption is
nascent but present: cities like Lugano, Switzerland have a program with Tether where local shops
accept USDT for everyday purchases (taxes and fees to the city can also be paid in USDT). In Turkey
and Argentina, some electronics and appliance stores informally take USDT or DAI because
customers prefer to hold dollars amid inflation (these transactions often happen via a quick crypto
transfer in-store). Fast-food franchises in Venezuela have accepted crypto (including stablecoins)
using wallet apps, illustrating how commerce can adapt in high-inflation economies. As stablecoins
become more user-friendly (with things like NFC payment cards or phone tap-to-pay in stablecoin),
retail adoption is expected to grow, especially for cross-border tourist spending and online shopping
where currency conversion is a pain point.
• Gaming and Online Entertainment: The gaming industry is rapidly embracing stablecoins for
payments and payouts. Online gaming platforms (casinos, esports betting, skill gaming) are using
stablecoins to manage player deposits and winnings. This solves issues with slow bank payments
and chargeback fraud. According to industry executives, stablecoins’ ability to move funds instantly,
24/7, and with transparency has “captured the imagination” of operators and players alike 50 51 . It’s
not about gamers directly spending crypto in-game, but rather the gaming platforms using
stablecoin rails in the background to settle with players. For example, an esports tournament
organizer might pay prize money in USDC to an international winner, avoiding international wires.
iGaming sites have integrated USDT and USDC so that players can deposit/withdraw quickly – no
waiting days for bank withdrawals, which in a 24/7 gaming world feels archaic 52 . By using
stablecoins under the hood, companies like Approvely (mentioned in PaymentExpert) provide real-
time payouts without forcing end-users to understand crypto 53 . In-game economies also benefit:
stablecoins can serve as a universal in-game currency that holds consistent value. Some blockchain
games use stablecoins for their marketplaces (e.g. selling NFTs or items priced in a stable token so
the price is predictable). This shields players from crypto volatility – they can cash out game earnings
in a stablecoin that won’t drop in value overnight. Moreover, stablecoins allow games to have global
player bases without worrying about exchanging dozens of fiat currencies; a Brazilian and a
Japanese player can transact in the same USD-pegged token. Metaverse platforms and NFT
marketplaces have similarly started using stablecoins (Decentraland supports USDC for land sales,
some NFT creators invoice in DAI) because it simplifies pricing and reduces speculative distortion.
Overall, stablecoins in gaming reduce friction: instant deposits/withdrawals, no regional restrictions
(as long as internet works), and lower fees – aligning with gamers’ expectation of on-demand, fast
experiences. With big gaming firms exploring Web3, stablecoins could become the standard
currency for digital worlds and competitions.
• Financial Services and Trading: In finance, stablecoins are serving as the bridge between crypto
and traditional markets. Crypto exchanges were the first to use stablecoins heavily – today
stablecoins quote the majority of trading pairs (instead of Bitcoin or fiat). For instance, Binance’s
futures and spot markets use USDT or BUSD as the base currency. This has made stablecoins the de
facto “cash” of the crypto trading system, enabling arbitrage and capital flow between exchanges
quickly. Beyond crypto-native trading, stablecoins are entering mainstream financial infrastructure:
Visa and Mastercard are exploring stablecoin settlements (as noted, Visa’s pilot with Circle allows
8
issuers to settle daily card obligations in USDC 26 ). Brokerage apps like Robinhood and eToro have
started supporting stablecoins, effectively letting users hold uninvested cash in tokenized dollars
that can be moved out to crypto wallets. Some hedge funds and institutional traders use stablecoins
to manage liquidity – for example, instead of leaving cash at an exchange (with counterparty risk),
they hold stablecoins in self-custody and only send to exchanges when needed for a trade. On-chain
Forex and asset trading platforms, like Uniswap or Synthetix, rely on stablecoins as the quote asset
to price everything. Even in derivatives and DeFi, protocols like dYdX use USDC as collateral and PnL
currency for perpetual futures, meaning the whole system runs on stablecoin accounting. Payment
processors (Stripe, Checkout.com, Worldpay) have begun adding stablecoin support through
partnerships, essentially making stablecoins another currency in their global networks 54 . The
result: businesses can send stablecoin payouts to vendors or creators in one API call (Stripe can pay
out USDC over Polygon to content creators, for instance, as announced in 2022). Treasury
management is another use – companies with excess cash may hold some in stablecoins to easily
deploy into DeFi or to send internationally without banking delays. This is especially seen in crypto-
native companies, but even some tech firms are dabbling (there were reports of a Nasdaq-listed
company moving millions in USDC to earn yield during 2022’s high interest rates). In summary,
stablecoins started as a trading convenience, but are now “powering everything from global payments
to on-chain treasury management” 55 in the financial services realm. They act as a connective tissue
between legacy finance (with its slower, closed networks) and crypto finance (open 24/7), bringing
the speed of the latter to the former.
• Real Estate and Property: The real estate sector has seen pioneering instances of stablecoin use in
property transactions and investments. Properties have been bought directly with stablecoins – for
example, there are documented sales of apartments in Miami and condos in Dubai where the buyer
paid in USDC or USDT, facilitated by crypto-friendly escrow services. Using a stablecoin can simplify
cross-border real estate deals: a buyer from country A can transfer USDC from their wallet to an
American title company, which converts to USD for closing, avoiding international wire fees and
delays. It also provides certainty of value during the transfer (unlike paying in BTC/ETH which might
change in value mid-transaction). Real estate tokenization platforms (like RedSwan, RealT) often use
stablecoins for the cashflows – investors buy fractions of properties and receive rental income as
USDC distributions. This makes managing investor payouts much easier, especially if they’re globally
distributed. Mortgage and lending: There are emerging DeFi platforms offering crypto-
collateralized home loans where the loan is disbursed in a stablecoin to the borrower. On the flip
side, property sellers in inflation-hit countries have started requesting payment in stablecoins to
preserve value – e.g. some sellers in Argentina list home prices in DAI or USDT (taking stablecoins as
payment instead of rapidly-devaluing pesos). In commercial real estate, stablecoins can expedite
settlements of large transactions or distributions from real estate funds to investors. While still
early, real estate’s stablecoin adoption highlights a theme: for high-value, cross-border transactions,
a stable, digital dollar is a convenient medium of exchange. One challenge is legal – many
jurisdictions require recording sale prices in local currency, so stablecoin payments are often
immediately converted. But as crypto regulations clarify, we may see entire property sales recorded
on-chain with stablecoin consideration, significantly speeding up what is traditionally a paperwork-
heavy process.
• Supply Chain and Logistics: Supply chain finance and trade logistics benefit from stablecoins
through faster B2B payments and improved cash flow. Global trade transactions typically involve
multiple banks and 2-5 day settlement times. Replacing letters of credit and wire transfers with on-
chain stablecoin payments can cut that down to minutes. Major freight and commodity trading
firms have trialed using stablecoins to settle imports/exports, so that when goods are delivered,
payment is released instantly on-chain (possibly via a smart contract tied to IoT or bill of lading
9
updates). Stripe noted that “global trade and supply chain firms use [stablecoins] to settle invoices in
minutes instead of days” 41 . A concrete example: a shipment from China to Nigeria could be paid in
USDC the moment it’s confirmed received, rather than Nigeria struggling to send USD through
correspondent banks (which often delay or face FX shortages). By holding stablecoins, an importer
can avoid holding physical dollars or dealing with volatile local currency until the moment of trade.
Trade finance platforms (like Marco Polo or Contour) are exploring stablecoin integration to make
the financing of goods more efficient – e.g. issuing a loan in a stablecoin that the supplier can
immediately use or convert. Logistics firms also use stablecoins for internal treasury across
borders: a multinational shipping company can instantly rebalance funds between subsidiaries in
different countries by sending stablecoins instead of using internal ledgers and forex trades. The
transparency of blockchain is an added bonus: companies can track when a payment was sent/
received, useful for audits and reducing disputes (“I paid you on time, here’s the on-chain proof!”). In
summary, stablecoins in supply chain reduce friction in an industry where margins depend on timely
payments and trust. The combination of IoT + blockchain even allows programmable money in
logistics – imagine a smart container that triggers a USDC payment to the supplier when it reaches a
certain port. These efficiencies are driving interest in stablecoins as the backbone of modern B2B
payments, especially as traditional players like DHL, Maersk, etc., invest in blockchain pilots.
• Healthcare, Insurance, and Others: The healthcare sector is cautiously experimenting with
stablecoins for things like cross-border medical billing and fast claim payouts. For example, medical
tourism agencies could hold client funds in stablecoin and pay hospitals abroad instantly after the
procedure, ensuring the hospital isn’t waiting on international wires. Humanitarian health programs
(by NGOs) use stablecoins to fund clinics in crisis regions where banking is collapsed – e.g. some
COVID-19 relief funds were sent via USDC to local responders in certain countries when other
channels failed. In insurance, a few blockchain-based insurers (Nexus Mutual, InsurAce) collect
premiums and pay claims in stablecoins, which makes global coverage easier (no need to convert
currencies for each claim). Even traditional insurers are studying stablecoins: they could make
reinsurance settlements faster and reduce trapped capital by moving funds on-chain upon trigger
events. Media and Entertainment companies use stablecoins for paying royalties or contractors
overseas (some film VFX studios pay international freelancers in stablecoin to avoid wire fees on
each small payment). Advertising platforms might use stablecoin rewards to compensate users for
attention (Basic Attention Token was an attempt, but arguably a USD stablecoin would have been
more straightforward for users). Overall, any industry involving multi-country value exchange,
frequent small payments, or unreliable local currencies is testing stablecoins as a solution. From
ride-sharing startups paying drivers in stablecoins to avoid local banking issues, to gaming/
gambling platforms ensuring instant payouts globally, the breadth of use cases is expanding
rapidly. As one fintech commentary noted, “stablecoins won’t just be a payment trend in gaming; they
will redefine liquidity, risk, and trust across the digital economy” 56 – a sentiment that applies to many
industries as stablecoins become a norm in financial operations.
Geographic Usage: Countries and Corridors
• Latin America: The region is a hotspot for stablecoin adoption due to inflation and capital controls.
In countries like Argentina (with >100% inflation and strict currency controls), citizens turn to
stablecoins as a dollar substitute for savings and commerce 43 . Many Argentines purchase USDT/
DAI on peer-to-peer markets to preserve wealth and transact in a stable value, circumventing limits
on buying USD. Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy, has seen a surge in crypto usage driven by
stablecoins – over 90% of Brazil’s crypto transaction volume is now stablecoin-related as of 2025, per
10
officials 57 58 . This underscores that Brazilians use stablecoins heavily for payments and cross-
border transfers (e.g. paying imports or sending money abroad) in lieu of volatile reais. Venezuela,
with years of hyperinflation, ranks among the top in crypto adoption largely thanks to stablecoins;
it’s common for everyday transactions (groceries, rent) to be negotiated in USDT via mobile apps 59 .
Colombia, Peru, and Mexico also show high stablecoin usage for remittances and as a USD hedge.
In fact, Chainalysis notes stablecoins serve as a “parallel financial system” in LATAM, providing stability
for savings, remittances, and business transactions where local currencies fail 58 . Many Latin
Americans prefer holding USDC/USDT over local bank deposits; businesses keep some treasury in
stablecoin to manage FX risk. This adoption is grassroots-driven: for instance, Colombian freelancers
use DAI to invoice global clients, and Mexican unbanked communities receive USDC-based
remittances through smartphone wallets. The dominance of stablecoins in LatAm’s crypto scene
(over half of exchange trades in some countries 60 ) reflects how critical they’ve become to everyday
financial life there.
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Africa has high stablecoin utility due to expensive remittances, currency
instability, and limited banking access. Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, exemplifies this: between
mid-2023 and mid-2024 Nigeria processed roughly $22 billion in stablecoin transactions (~43% of
its total crypto volume) 61 . Nigerians use USDT and BUSD for everything from protecting savings
against naira devaluation to online purchases (where international payments were otherwise
blocked). When the Nigerian government banned crypto bank transfers in 2021, peer-to-peer
stablecoin trading became a lifeline. Kenya, Ghana, South Africa all have active stablecoin markets
as well. Use cases: Importers in Nigeria and Ghana source goods from China using USDT bought
locally (cheaper and faster than getting USD through banks). Families in diaspora send money home
via USDC on mobile apps like Chipper Cash, which can be cashed out to mobile money. In countries
like Zimbabwe (which re-dollarized) or Sudan (facing sanctions), stablecoins allow value storage in
dollars beyond government reach. Crypto exchanges like Binance have large P2P markets in Africa
primarily trading stablecoins for local currency. There’s also innovation: a startup in Kenya enables
people to buy solar power credits using stablecoins, and pan-African fintech Yellow Card offers
USDC as a service to users in several countries. Intra-African corridors (e.g. Nigeria to Ghana, South
Africa to Nigeria) also leverage stablecoins to avoid converting through USD at poor rates.
Remittance fees within Africa are among the highest globally (often >10% 31 ), so stablecoins
present a huge opportunity to cut costs for migrant workers sending money to neighboring
countries. Some African governments are cautiously supportive – Ghana’s central bank used a
sandbox to test a stablecoin-based remittance platform, and Nigeria is studying stablecoin adoption
formally 62 (even after launching its own CBDC). Overall, Africa’s combination of tech-savvy youth
and economic need makes it fertile ground for stablecoin-driven financial leapfrogging.
• Middle East and South/Central Asia: These regions see stablecoin use where there’s either
economic uncertainty or a large migrant labor population. Turkey (straddling Europe/Asia) became
one of the highest crypto-using countries; rampant inflation of the lira has led many Turks to convert
savings to USDT or USDC. Stablecoins are actively traded on Turkish exchanges and used in
commerce by agreement (e.g. for car sales or rent, parties might settle in USDT to avoid lira
volatility). In Lebanon, during its banking crisis, citizens turned to stablecoins (and physical dollars)
when banks froze withdrawals – USDT on Tron, for instance, became a popular way to move money.
Iran has reportedly seen growing USDT usage for cross-border trade to work around sanctions on its
banking (though this is informal and carries its own risks). In the Gulf countries, where many
foreign workers from South Asia send money home, stablecoin remittances are emerging. For
example, Filipino and Indian workers in the UAE have begun experimenting with sending USDC back
home through crypto exchanges or OTC brokers, which is faster than traditional channels. The UAE
itself (Dubai in particular) is positioning as a crypto hub and tolerating stablecoins – local exchanges
11
pair UAE dirham to USDT for easy conversion, and some free zones allow businesses to transact in
crypto. South Asia: Pakistan and Bangladesh see some stablecoin usage especially as authorities
cracked down on other channels for USD access – many turned to P2P USDT to hedge the
depreciating rupee/taka. Central Asia: In countries like Kazakhstan and Afghanistan, the unstable
banking situation has pushed NGOs and individuals toward stablecoins for receiving aid or storing
wealth (e.g. some Afghan refugees and citizens received relief funds in USDC when the banking
system collapsed in 2021). Across these regions, stablecoins essentially play the role of digital
dollarization – giving people in distressed economies access to a stable currency, and enabling cross-
border flows in a common unit (USD) without relying on U.S.-controlled banking. This can raise
regulatory eyebrows (concerns about sanctions evasion, etc.), but on the ground it’s often seen as a
financial lifeline.
• East Asia: Notably, China has a huge albeit somewhat underground stablecoin usage. Despite strict
bans on crypto trading, Chinese merchants and investors use USDT for capital flight and payments in
the grey market. It’s reported that a significant portion of Tether’s volume is driven by Chinese users
moving yuan into USDT to preserve value or to gamble/invest overseas 63 . Tether became a kind of
shadow USD in China’s economy for those who want to bypass capital controls (the scale of this is
hard to measure due to its illicit nature). Hong Kong, while planning regulations, currently sees
stablecoins used in OTC trading and fintech experimentation, given its role as a finance hub – some
shops in Hong Kong’s electronics markets accept USDT for ease of cross-border customer deals.
Japan only recently allowed certain stablecoins under new law, so usage there is still low and
controlled (focus is on banks issuing yen stablecoins). South Korea uses stablecoins mostly in the
crypto trading context (the “Kimchi premium” arbitrage often involved moving USD via stablecoins to
Korean exchanges to profit off price differences).
• North America and Europe: In developed markets, stablecoin usage is more about trading, DeFi,
and specific niches rather than necessity, but it’s growing in payments too. US and Canada: Many
crypto holders treat stablecoins as a parking spot during volatility or a on/off-ramp medium (e.g.
someone might sell Bitcoin into USDC and then withdraw USDC via a platform like Coinbase, or
spend it via a card). Merchants in the US have little need to accept stablecoin from domestic
customers (since dollar electronic payments are easy), but B2B settlements are seeing adoption. For
instance, Circle has business clients that use USDC for international invoice payments or treasury
operations (one reason USDC is considered enterprise-friendly 23 ). The US is also home to many
stablecoin issuers, and regulatory moves there strongly influence global trends (discussed in the
next section). In Europe, the Euro’s stability means consumer need for stablecoins is low, but interest
is rising in using EUR-pegged stablecoins (like EURT, EURS) for intra-Europe transfers and eventually
DeFi denominated in EUR. Still, USD stablecoins are used even in Europe’s crypto scene as the
standard dollar liquidity. Countries like Ukraine during the war saw a spike in stablecoin use: NGOs
and individuals received donations in USDT/USDC (because traditional routes were disrupted), and
many Ukrainians fleeing carried part of their savings in stablecoins on a USB wallet. Russia
post-2022 sanctions also had increased use of USDT (since many banks were cut off from SWIFT,
some Russians turned to crypto to move money – USDT on Tron was reportedly one tool used due to
its low fees and the fact that Tether did not immediately sanction Russian users). This is
controversial, but highlights that stablecoins can flow into any corner of the world where dollars are
needed. Summing up, stablecoins have achieved truly global reach: from high-tech economies to
conflict zones, from Wall Street trading firms to street market vendors in Lagos, the demand for a
stable digital currency unit is universal. Different regions have distinct drivers (hedge inflation,
remittance, trading, etc.), but the common thread is trust in the value stability and relative
accessibility of these tokens versus local alternatives.
12
• Key Remittance Corridors: Some specific remittance corridors have become known for stablecoin
usage. US–Mexico is one, given the large volume and historically high fees; stablecoins are cutting
into that market by offering near-zero fee transfers 33 . Europe–Africa corridors (e.g. UK/France
sending to West Africa, or EU to North Africa) see tech-savvy diasporas adopting crypto to avoid high
remittance costs and currency conversions 31 . Intra-African transfers (South Africa to Zimbabwe,
Nigeria to Ghana, etc.) also benefit since regional banking networks are underdeveloped and often
require going through USD anyway. Gulf–South Asia is another corridor: Indian, Pakistani, Filipino
workers in the Middle East send billions home; while traditionally via exchange houses, now some
are trying stablecoin routes (anecdotal evidence of workers pooling to have one person convert
dirhams to USDT and distribute to others’ families). US/Europe–Ukraine emerged due to war-
related aid and migrant support, with stablecoins used to send donations and support funds directly
to Ukrainians (several relief organizations advocated crypto donations for speed). China–Africa
trade: Chinese exporters have used USDT to receive payments from African importers who can more
easily get USDT than USD due to local restrictions – this corridor (e.g. China to Nigeria) has
stablecoins quietly greasing commerce where banking is clunky or subject to capital controls. As
noted earlier, stablecoin adoption tends to concentrate in “high-volume, high-friction corridors” 64 –
basically where there is significant money flow but traditional methods are expensive or slow. It’s in
those channels that stablecoins have a clear value proposition, and we’re seeing early signs of that
potential being realized.
Regulation and Policy Landscape
• United States: The U.S. is moving toward a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins. In
2025, Congress passed the “GENIUS Act”, the first federal law regulating payment stablecoins 65 . It
limits issuance to permitted entities (like insured depository institutions or licensed non-banks) and
requires that any stablecoin offered to Americans be from a regulated issuer 66 . The law set strict
operational standards: issuers must hold 100% reserves in approved assets (cash, Treasuries) at
all times 17 , provide clear redemption rights (users can redeem 1 token for $1 within a short
timeframe) 29 , undergo monthly attestations by certified firms, and maintain capital and risk
management policies. Unlicensed issuance becomes illegal (with heavy fines and even prison for
violation) 67 . The act provides three pathways: federal licensing via OCC, state licensing (with
equivalent standards), or registering as a compliant foreign issuer 68 69 . After a transition,
exchanges in the U.S. can only list stablecoins from these regulated issuers 66 . This essentially
brings stablecoins into the banking perimeter. Even before federal law, U.S. regulators took action:
the NY Attorney General in 2021 settled with Tether, barring it from New York and mandating
reserve disclosures due to past misrepresentations 70 ; the CFTC fined Tether $41M for claiming
USDT was fully backed when it wasn’t always 21 . In early 2023, the NYDFS ordered Paxos to halt
issuing Binance’s BUSD, citing regulatory concerns – a notable enforcement showing regulators can
shutter a major stablecoin overnight. U.S. policymakers (Treasury, Fed, SEC) have repeatedly flagged
stablecoin risks (runs, systemic risk if they grow huge, illicit finance) and called for legislation. Now
with the GENIUS Act, the U.S. is going towards treating stablecoin issuers like narrow banks. On the
flip side, innovation continues via sandbox: some U.S. states (e.g. Wyoming) created digital asset
frameworks friendly to stablecoin projects (like Wyoming’s SPDIs – special banks that can hold crypto
reserves). Overall, U.S. policy is becoming clear: stablecoins are to be robustly backed, transparent,
and issued by supervised entities – aiming to mitigate risks while not banning the technology. This
clarity is expected to spur wider corporate adoption (as legal uncertainty lifts) but also raises
compliance costs that smaller or decentralized projects will struggle to meet.
13
• European Union: The EU has enacted a sweeping crypto regulation called MiCA (Markets in
Crypto-Assets Regulation), which includes a dedicated stablecoin regime effective 2024 71 72 .
MiCA defines two types of regulated stablecoins: Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs) – those
referencing multiple assets, commodities, or non-fiat values (including algorithmic designs or
currency baskets) – and E-Money Tokens (EMTs) – those referencing a single fiat currency 73 . In
essence, single-currency stablecoins like EUR-backed or USD-backed are EMTs, while anything else
(be it backed by crypto, gold, or a mix of currencies) is an ART 74 . Issuers of either must be
authorized by a EU member state regulator, meet prudential and governance requirements, and
publish a detailed white paper. Reserves: MiCA mandates full reserve backing – ARTs and EMTs need
liquid, low-risk reserves equal to outstanding tokens, with custody and audit requirements. EMT
issuers effectively need an e-money or banking license and must guarantee redemption at par in fiat
75 76 . ART issuers have extra rules given their more complex reference baskets (for instance, they
can’t reference algorithmic mechanisms alone; even algo stables fall under ART and must comply or
else be treated as unregulated “other tokens”) 20 . There are also provisions for “significant”
stablecoins (those large in circulation or usage) which trigger stricter supervision by the European
Banking Authority and caps on daily transaction volume to limit systemic risk. For example, a euro
stablecoin above certain thresholds might face limits on how many transactions per day it can
process (this was a debated part of MiCA, aimed at things like Diem initially). Another noteworthy
part: MiCA prohibits interest on stablecoins (to clearly separate them from deposit accounts), which
has implications for yield-bearing stablecoins in the EU. With MiCA, Europe has one of the most
comprehensive frameworks: by mid-2024, any stablecoin offered in Europe must have an entity that
is licensed, publishing regular reserve reports, and complying with consumer protection rules. This
regulatory clarity is expected to foster a legal market for euro stablecoins (EMT) and maybe multi-
asset coins (ART) within EU’s oversight. Indeed, companies like Circle have already announced intent
to register USDC under MiCA’s provisions. MiCA also effectively outlaws uncontrolled algorithmic
stablecoins – any such project in Europe would either have to become an ART/EMT with full
compliance or cease offering to EU users 20 .
• United Kingdom: Post-Brexit, the UK is crafting its own stablecoin rules, aiming to make the UK a
hub for crypto while managing risks. The UK plans to regulate stablecoins used for payments under
existing e-money and payments legislation, with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) overseeing
conduct and the Bank of England overseeing systemic stablecoin firms. By 2024, the UK is expected
to introduce a licensing regime for stablecoin issuers (especially for sterling-referenced
stablecoins), including capital and liquidity requirements. A proposal is to have a “systemic
stablecoin” designation for those reaching scale, which would put them under BoE supervision
similar to payment systems 77 . The UK Treasury indicated that stablecoins could be recognized as a
valid form of payment, and they have already amended the Electronic Money Regulations to
encompass stable tokens. A code of practice is being developed to cover governance, transparency
of reserves, redemption rights, and operational resilience for issuers 78 . The UK is also looking at
insolvency procedures specific to stablecoin firms (so an implosion like Terra can be handled). While
final laws are pending (as of early 2026), the trajectory is clear: the UK will allow stablecoin
innovation but under robust oversight. Meanwhile, the Bank of England is separately exploring a
retail CBDC (“digital pound”), but has stated it sees a role for private stablecoins too. Notably, the UK
already used regulatory sandbox programs – e.g. the FCA sandbox has hosted stablecoin payment
trials, and HM Treasury ran a Cryptoasset Taskforce that identified stablecoins as a priority.
Enforcement-wise, we haven’t seen major UK actions against stablecoin issuers yet, partly because
few are based there (except some like TrustToken had operations). But the UK did recently consult on
bringing algorithmic stablecoins under enforcement by not considering them “stable” – meaning
advertisers can’t call an unbacked token a stablecoin. The legislative changes via the Financial
14
Services and Markets Act will likely treat all stablecoins that reference fiat as “Digital Settlement
Assets (DSAs)”, making them subject to rules on issuance and servicing. In sum, the UK is aligning
with global standards (like requiring 1:1 backing and prudential regulation) and is eager to attract
stablecoin businesses to London under a regulated environment.
• Singapore: Singapore’s central bank (MAS) has been proactive in stablecoin regulation. In 2022, MAS
released proposed requirements for single-currency stablecoins (SCS) pegged to SGD or G10
currencies when issued in Singapore above a certain circulation size. These proposals include:
reserve assets must be of high quality and equal to 100% of outstanding coins, with a minimum
base capital for issuers and prompt redemption (within 5 days of request) 79 . They also want
issuers to publish a white paper and attain MAS license (likely under the Payment Services Act, as e-
money issuers). Importantly, MAS differentiates stablecoins from other digital payment tokens and
seeks to craft a “regulatory sandbox” where new stablecoin arrangements can be tested under
supervision. While final legislation is pending (as noted in Opendue’s guide, Singapore’s framework
is proposed as of Jan 2026 80 ), the direction is clear: Singapore sees potential in stablecoins for
innovation but will demand rigorous standards (similar to banking rules) for any widely used
stablecoin. Singapore already approved a few stablecoin-related licenses (Circle obtained in-principle
approval to operate in Singapore, Paxos as well). The city-state is also exploring wholesale CBDC, but
for retail stablecoins it likely will allow private players under these strict rules. One unique aspect is
MAS’s emphasis on value stability – they might require mechanisms to maintain parity (e.g. if an
SGD stablecoin deviates, issuers might need to have policies to restore the peg). Singapore’s moves
are influential in Asia, often seen as setting a high regulatory bar that could become a benchmark.
• Hong Kong: After initially being cautious, Hong Kong announced plans to regulate stablecoins by
2024. The HKMA published a policy stance that only licensed institutions will be allowed to issue
stablecoins or operate major arrangements, and importantly, they signaled they will not allow
algorithmic stablecoins – every stablecoin must be fully backed by appropriate assets. Hong Kong is
likely to require 1:1 reserve backing (full reserve) and local registration for any stablecoin that targets
HKD or is marketed in Hong Kong 81 . They set a timeline: by June 2024, stablecoin-related activities
will require a license, and by 2025 unlicensed stablecoin issuance is a criminal offense 82 . This
aggressive stance is partly to become a regulated crypto finance hub while avoiding the Wild West of
unregulated tokens. Hong Kong’s regime may also address wallets and custodial requirements,
given the city’s focus on investor protection. Already, some companies (like Circle and ZA Bank) are
partnering to introduce regulated stablecoin services in HK once the regime is live. Hong Kong’s
approach aligns with global norms: high-quality reserve assets, audits, management control
requirements, and possibly limits on what assets can peg (they might focus on fiat pegged only).
Given HK’s status, its strict regime will likely influence standards in Asian financial centers.
• United Arab Emirates: The UAE (especially Dubai’s VARA and Abu Dhabi’s FSRA) has embraced
crypto innovation but with clear rules. Dubai’s Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) in 2023
issued a comprehensive rulebook for crypto, including stablecoin provisions: stablecoin issuers must
be licensed and maintain full reserve backing at all times 81 . They also require redemption within
a short period (Dubai mandates redemption of stablecoin for fiat within (typically) T+1 day on
request) 82 . The UAE sees stablecoins as key for becoming a fintech hub, and rumor has it they are
open to allowing Dirham-pegged stablecoins and foreign currency stables under these rules. Abu
Dhabi’s ADGM already had a framework treating stablecoins as “store of value tokens” requiring
approval. The UAE is interesting because it fosters experimentation (e.g. many crypto firms relocated
to Dubai) but it also imposes compliance: for instance, VARA could penalize or shut down an issuer
that doesn’t meet audit or reserve standards. We haven’t seen a major UAE enforcement yet on
stablecoins, but they did caution about algorithmic ones post-UST. The UAE Central Bank is also
15
looking at wholesale CBDC for cross-border (Project mBridge with other central banks), which could
coexist with regulated private stablecoins for retail.
• Other Jurisdictions: Many other countries are adopting or refining stablecoin policies:
◦ Japan: Effective 2023, Japan legalized issuance of yen-pegged stablecoins but only by licensed
banks, trust companies, and certain licensed money transfer agents. They must guarantee
redemption at face value in yen. This law was a direct response to Libra and runs parallel to
Japan’s existing e-money rules. Foreign stablecoins were banned in Japan until they could
meet equivalent standards; now Japanese exchanges are preparing to list some like USDC
under new guidelines in 2024.
◦ Australia: Currently working on legislation (a draft bill in 2023 proposed a licensing regime
for stablecoin issuers and treating large ones like Stored-Value Facilities). Penalties under
consideration are severe (unlicensed issuance could mean up to 5 years jail) 83 . Australia’s
approach, as noted by Opendue, is trending similar to the U.S./UK (reserve requirements,
auditing, etc.), and they did an interim step of clarifying that certain stablecoins may fall
under existing payment system oversight.
◦ Switzerland: FINMA classifies stablecoins case-by-case under money transmission or banking
law depending on the design. For example, the proposed Libra (Diem) was analyzed as
potentially a payment system of systemic importance (which contributed to its demise). Yet,
Swiss crypto banks like Sygnum have issued stablecoins (e.g. Sygnum’s DCHF, a digital Swiss
Franc) under FINMA’s eye, demonstrating it’s possible via banking license. Swiss regulators
have generally allowed asset-backed tokens with full disclosure.
◦ China: Mainland China outright bans cryptocurrency trading and stablecoins by extension
(except the state’s e-CNY CBDC). So usage there is technically illegal, but enforcement is tricky
on P2P. If any stablecoin activity arises formally, it’d be heavily state-controlled or via Hong
Kong.
◦ Developing countries: Many are in observation mode or leveraging sandbox programs. For
instance, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia ran a joint sandbox that in one case trialed a USD-
backed stablecoin for cross-border transfers. Nigeria’s SEC has hinted at potentially
regulating stablecoins especially after launching their eNaira (which hasn’t stopped stablecoin
use informally). Argentina doesn’t have specific stablecoin rules, but given capital controls,
many transactions occur in a regulatory gray area. Turkey is working on a crypto law that
would include stablecoin oversight, particularly after local exchanges listing algorithmic
stables got burned by Terra’s collapse.
◦ Global Bodies: International regulators like the Financial Stability Board (FSB) issued high-
level recommendations for stablecoins (in 2020 and updated in 2022) advocating for same
business, same risk, same rules – essentially that stablecoins should meet equivalent
safeguards as traditional money. These include operational resilience, redemption rights,
clarity on reserve assets, and interoperability with anti-money laundering norms. The BIS and
IMF also published papers highlighting risks of “global stablecoins” (a term arising from
Libra), prodding jurisdictions to coordinate. This global pressure has pushed many countries
to not leave stablecoins unregulated.
• Regulatory Sandboxes and Pilots: A number of regulators have used sandboxes to safely test
stablecoin applications. The UK’s FCA sandbox saw projects like fintechs issuing GBP-backed coins
for limited user testing. Abu Dhabi’s RegLab admitted a project that used stablecoins for payroll.
The MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) has a FinTech Regulatory Sandbox where at least one
16
company tested a SGD stablecoin for settlements. These sandboxes typically allow temporary
exemptions from full regulation so long as firms report to the regulator, thus letting innovation
happen in a controlled environment. They have informed eventual rules (e.g. MAS’s proposals came
after observing sandbox trials). Enforcement Actions: Regulators haven’t shied from cracking down
when needed. Besides the Tether/Bitfinex fines mentioned, we also saw:
◦ The US SEC arguing in some cases that certain stablecoin-like products are investment
securities (e.g. they probed Terraform Labs pre-collapse; and after Terra’s collapse, Do Kwon
was charged by the SEC, alleging UST was an unregistered security in how it was marketed).
◦ Terra collapse fallout: prompted investigations in South Korea (where Do Kwon faced legal
actions) and a global call by the FSB for stricter stablecoin oversight.
◦ Blacklistings: U.S. Treasury’s OFAC sanctioned Tornado Cash in 2022 and as a result, Circle
blacklisted sanctioned Ethereum addresses, freezing their USDC 84 . This was effectively
enforcement of sanctions compliance in real-time by a stablecoin issuer. It raised debates
about centralization, but it demonstrated how issuers can be compelled by law enforcement
to act. Tether, although not U.S.-regulated, stated it would comply with lawful requests but
considered unilateral freezing “premature” without official notice 85 84 . Both USDC and
USDT issuers have now blacklisted addresses linked to crime or hacks upon request (over 800
combined addresses historically 86 ).
◦ Some states (like New York) directly ban or restrict certain stablecoins on a consumer
protection basis if they’re not satisfied with reserve audits – for example, NYAG’s settlement
prohibits Tether from operating in NY, and the state’s BitLicense regime effectively only
greenlisted certain coins (USDC, Gemini’s GUSD) for licensed entities.
◦ Consumer warnings: Regulators have issued warnings about stablecoins that aren’t actually
very stable (like basis cash types). In the EU, before MiCA, some countries like Spain required
crypto ads (including for stablecoins) to include disclaimers about risks.
In summary, regulatory regimes worldwide are converging on a few principles: full backing, redemption
assurance, capital and transparency requirements, and licensing/supervision. Jurisdictions differ in
timing and details (for instance, the EU allows non-fiat asset backing under ART with extra rules, whereas
the U.S. is focused on fiat-backed “payment stablecoins” only). But the trend is clear that the freewheeling
era is ending – major economies want stablecoins to operate in a regulated, safe manner akin to traditional
money services. This provides legitimacy for stablecoins to integrate deeper into finance (e.g. banks and big
fintechs are more willing to use them when regulated), but it also could push purely decentralized or fringe
stablecoins out of compliant markets. We will likely see a bifurcation: regulated stablecoins flourishing in
mainstream use, while unregulated ones (including algorithmic experiments) retreat to gray markets or
fade out due to lack of trust and legal acceptance.
Key Players: Companies, Consortia, and Initiatives
• Leading Stablecoin Issuers/Companies: The major issuers (Circle, Tether, Paxos, Binance via
partners, Coinbase via Centre, etc.) are obvious central actors – they not only issue coins but actively
engage with regulators and build ecosystems. Circle (USDC) has positioned itself as an enterprise-
friendly platform, providing business accounts, APIs, and even seed investments in startups that
drive USDC adoption 87 . Tether/Bitfinex, despite controversy, continues to be hugely influential,
especially in Asia – its choices in reserve management and chain support affect global markets (e.g.
Tether’s move to reduce commercial paper and increase T-bills in reserves was closely watched 88 ).
17
Paxos not only issues USDP and PYUSD, but provides white-label stablecoin services (it powered
BUSD for Binance until that partnership ended). These companies are effectively the central banks
of the stablecoin world, each with their own monetary policy (treasury management, blacklist
policies, fee structures). Their corporate decisions (like Circle deciding to hold more of its USDC
reserves at BlackRock’s fund or Tether deciding to allocate some reserves to Bitcoin) can have ripple
effects on trust and usage. They also lead industry groups to lobby or self-regulate – e.g. Centre
Consortium (Circle and Coinbase) created standards for USDC reserves and transparency, and
recently expanded governance to include other members.
• Crypto Exchanges and Fintechs: Exchanges are major distributors of stablecoins. Binance
promoted BUSD heavily (at one point auto-converting customer USDC to BUSD to concentrate
liquidity) – thus Binance was a key stablecoin actor until regulatory issues curbed BUSD. Now
Binance leans on USDT as primary. Coinbase similarly incentivized USDC use by waiving fees on
USDC purchase/redemption and paying interest to users; as a result Coinbase customers hold a
large portion of USDC circulation. Fintech and payments companies are joining in: PayPal launching
PYUSD in 2023 was a landmark showing a mainstream fintech issuing its own stablecoin for
payments 10 . Visa and Mastercard are partnering with stablecoin issuers for settlement pilots,
making them quasi-players in infrastructure. Stripe as a payments processor now enables
businesses to pay out in USDC, effectively making Stripe a stablecoin payout platform 87 .
MoneyGram and Western Union have dipped toes (MoneyGram’s USDC cash-out pilot is one
example of a traditional remittance giant integrating stablecoins). These companies adopting
stablecoin solutions validate the tech and will accelerate user-level adoption (a freelancer might start
receiving USDC via Stripe without even realizing it’s crypto under the hood).
• Banks and Financial Institutions: A number of banks are exploring or actively using stablecoins. JP
Morgan is the frontrunner with JPM Coin for institutional clients (settling inter-company USD
transfers on-chain). Silvergate and Signature (now defunct) had proprietary payment networks
(SEN and Signet) that functioned like stablecoin analogs (Signet was essentially tokenized deposits).
After their collapse in 2023, there’s a push for banks to re-enter the space with regulated stablecoins:
The USDF Consortium included banks like New York Community Bank and others to create a bank-
backed token, but its status is uncertain after some founders left – however, the concept of a bank
consortium stablecoin remains attractive to regulators (the Fed’s vice chair has spoken positively of
bank-issued tokens for stability). Custodia Bank (Wyoming SPDI) proposed a digital dollar token
(called Avit) but the Fed denied Custodia’s application, reflecting caution. Investment banks are
interested too for settlement of trades (Goldman’s Diginex platform experiments, and Broadridge
did a repo trade settled in USDC). Europe’s banks: Santander was involved in utility settlement coin
trials, and France’s Société Générale issued a EUR stablecoin (as a security token on Ethereum) under
pilot conditions. Asia’s banks: In Japan, MUFG bank created a stablecoin platform (Progmat)
anticipating issuance of JPY stablecoins by banks, and in 2022 Mitsubishi UFJ announced a
consortium for yen stablecoin standards. Central Banks indirectly shape stablecoin usage by their
stance: e.g. Swiss National Bank allowed two crypto banks that can issue stable tokens; People’s
Bank of China banned it in China proper, etc. In general, banks are cautious because stablecoins
could disintermediate them, but they also see an opportunity to use their trust to issue “safer”
stablecoins. If frameworks like the US GENIUS Act invite banks in, we might soon see big banks
launching their own branded stablecoins for clients.
• Decentralized Issuer DAOs and Communities: On the decentralized side, DAOs governing
stablecoins like MakerDAO, Frax, Terra Classic, Ampleforth community, etc., act as important
economic actors. MakerDAO not only issues DAI but has become a sort of community-run central
bank, diversifying DAI’s collateral into real-world assets (investing $500M of reserves into U.S.
Treasuries, for example) and even debating how to manage its USD peg dependency. Decisions by
18
MKR holders (like raising the DAI savings rate or adding new collateral types) affect DAI’s stability
and role in DeFi. These DAOs often interact with traditional finance: Maker has engaged with banks
(a deal with a U.S. bank to post collateral for DAI loans) and with funds (hiring investment advisors
for its reserve). Frax DAO steers not just FRAX stablecoin but a whole suite (FPI inflation-pegged
coin, frxETH, etc.), influencing stablecoin innovation. While Terra’s community collapsed in chaos, the
remnants (Luna Classic community) still manage a token (USTC) trying to re-peg in some form –
illustrating the long tail impact of a stablecoin failure being managed (or mismanaged) by a
community. There are also crypto foundations (not pure DAOs but entities like the Ethereum
Foundation or Algorand Foundation) that, while not issuers, often hold stablecoins in treasury and
fund ecosystem development around stablecoin use cases on their chains. These communities and
organizations collectively push forward new stablecoin models, advocate for decentralization (e.g.
Maker’s push to reduce reliance on USDC after Tornado sanctions led to debate of “free-floating
DAI”), and sometimes coordinate governance alliances (for instance, Fei Protocol and Rari Capital
communities merged in 2022 partly to bolster a stablecoin ecosystem – though that ended with Fei
winding down later).
• Governments and Central Banks: We touched on some (Marshall Islands, Palau, etc.). Another
example: El Salvador, while famous for Bitcoin, also implicitly uses stablecoins – its Chivo wallet
supports USDP (a Paxos stablecoin) behind the scenes for dollar transactions, demonstrating how
even a “Bitcoin standard” country leverages stablecoins for the USD part of its dual currency system.
Ukraine’s government during war solicited donations in crypto, including USDT, and integrated
with FTX (before its collapse) to convert some aid to fiat quickly. The IMF and World Bank have
mentioned possibly using stablecoins for quicker aid disbursements, although they also warn of
macro implications. Some national governments considered leveraging stablecoins for cross-border:
e.g. Thailand’s central bank trialed a “Thai Baht Digital” with an offshore Hong Kong trading firm,
effectively a stablecoin pilot. Also, Russia in late 2022 talked about allowing stablecoins for
international trade with friendly countries as a sanctions workaround, possibly via a supervised
platform – it’s unclear if that materialized, but it shows states view stablecoins as tools in geopolitical
finance as well. Finally, Libra/Diem’s saga had governments (from the US to EU to India) coordinate
to halt a perceived monetary threat – that consortium included many private actors (Facebook, etc.),
but it was government action that disbanded it. In the aftermath, governments are simultaneously
developing CBDCs (which can be seen as government stablecoins) and regulating private stablecoins
to maintain oversight on money.
• Notable VC Firms and Funds: Venture capital has heavily funded the stablecoin space. Andreessen
Horowitz (a16z) was an early backer – famously investing $15 million for a stake in MakerDAO in
2018 89 and also funding projects like Celo, Diem (they joined the Libra Association), and driving
governance in stablecoin protocols (a16z has delegates in Maker and others). Polychain Capital and
Paradigm invested in algorithmic stablecoins like Terra and Reflexer (RAI) respectively. Pantera
Capital and Jump Capital were big backers of Terra as well (Jump notably helped defend UST’s peg
early on until it failed). Coinbase Ventures has stakes in USDC’s consortium and in various DeFi
projects using stablecoins (Compound, Dharma, etc.). Traditional fintech investors (Ribbit Capital,
etc.) also participated in Circle’s funding rounds – Circle raised hundreds of millions, reaching a $9B
valuation in 2021, with investors like Fidelity, BlackRock (later in 2022, BlackRock invested and even
managed some USDC reserves 88 ), and strategics like Visa. Sequoia Capital invested in Polygon,
which indirectly supports stablecoin usage via scaling. There are also crypto-focused funds/DAOs
like StableNode (a collective focusing on stablecoin governance and investment) and Curve’s VC
arm (Curve the stable-swap AMM is pivotal in stablecoin liquidity, and its founders have an entity
19
that invests in stablecoin projects to bolster the Curve ecosystem). Investment DAOs such as
MetaCartel Ventures or The LAO have not specifically only focused on stablecoins, but they often
invest in DeFi protocols that heavily involve stablecoins. A newer trend is ecosystem funds by
chains: e.g. Near Protocol’s fund poured money into stablecoin projects on Near (like USN, which
unfortunately had issues). And franchise funds (like those by Binance or OKX) sometimes support
stablecoins to boost trading volumes on their platforms. Additionally, post-UST, VCs have been
funding “safer” stablecoin startups – e.g. projects creating fully reserved stablecoins for specific
currencies (a CAD stablecoin, etc.) or improved transparency tech (like Chainlink’s reserve oracles).
We also see community investment DAOs like those in Latin America (e.g. Reserve.org’s
community in Venezuela) evangelizing stablecoins as part of fintech acceleration in those regions,
though not investing in projects per se. In sum, venture capital has recognized stablecoins as a
foundational piece of the crypto economy (one VC report called stablecoins “the killer app of crypto so
far” with $9T+ in on-chain volume 90 ) and continues to allocate money into ventures that issue
stablecoins, build infrastructure around them, or use them in innovative ways. This funding drives
growth and competition – for example, multiple new algorithmic or forex-pegged stablecoins
launched in 2023-25 with VC backing promising a “next-gen” design (like Angle Protocol’s agEUR or
UXD on Solana). Not all will succeed, but the space remains well-capitalized.
• Infrastructure Providers: A robust ecosystem of service providers supports stablecoin usage:
• Custody and Security: Firms like BitGo, Fireblocks, Anchorage, Gemini Custody secure large troves
of stablecoins for exchanges, institutions, and issuers. For instance, BitGo holds reserves for some
stablecoins (it was the custodian for TrueUSD’s USD reserves and tokenized gold). Fireblocks
provides secure wallet tech used by dozens of fintechs to handle stablecoin transfers, ensuring keys
are safe. These custodians often integrate compliance features (like BitGo can automatically reject
sending to OFAC-sanctioned addresses for its clients) – effectively becoming gatekeepers in
institutional stablecoin flows.
• Compliance and Analytics: Since stablecoins are often under regulatory scrutiny, blockchain analytics
firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic, CipherTrace play a big role. They provide transaction monitoring
tools specifically tuned to stablecoins (given stablecoins are frequently used in illicit schemes due to
their fiat-like nature). Chainalysis data has shown patterns like 10% of stablecoin volume might be
linked to illicit use 91 ; such insights push issuers to incorporate AML controls. In fact, issuers and
exchanges use these analytics to blacklist stolen funds or suspicious activity (e.g., Tether and Circle
have used Chainalysis “Know Your Transaction” software). KYC/AML providers like Jumio, Onfido etc.,
are also indirectly critical – every fiat on/off ramp for stablecoins must KYC users. Even decentralized
issuers like MakerDAO had to consider “Know Your Vault” for real-world collateral partners. So
compliance tech ensures stablecoins don’t become vectors for laundering – this was emphasized by
regulators requiring issuers to have AML programs and follow travel rule (collect/transmit sender
and receiver info for large transfers) 92 93 .
• On/Off-Ramps: A network of exchanges (Coinbase, Binance, local exchanges worldwide) and fintech
APIs (MoonPay, Transak, Ramp Network) act as the fiat <-> stablecoin conversion points. They are
essential for non-crypto-savvy users to enter the stablecoin ecosystem. For example, Remitly (a
remittance company) now has a feature to send USDC to Nigeria, abstracting away the crypto part
from end-users 94 . ATM networks like Bitcoin ATMs increasingly support stablecoins – in Latin
America, some ATMs let you deposit cash and receive USDT on Tron, which is useful in places like
Argentina. Bridge services (as mentioned earlier) also count as infra: e.g., Axelar’s network that
20
allows a fintech on Polygon to send stablecoin to someone on Terra’s chain – these back-end
connections expand stablecoins’ reach.
• APIs and Developer Platforms: Companies like Circle and Stellar provide APIs for businesses to
integrate stablecoin payments easily (Circle’s API lets an e-commerce site accept USDC and settle in
bank accounts, handling all blockchain interactions under the hood). Stripe and PayPal have also
effectively become API providers for stablecoin capabilities (Stripe for payouts, PayPal potentially for
retail use of PYUSD). There are also startups offering “stablecoin as a service” – e.g. banking-as-a-
service platforms that let neo-banks offer stablecoin wallets to customers without building
blockchain tech themselves. These interfaces and developer tools are crucial for stablecoins to
penetrate traditional web and app ecosystems.
• Auditors and Attestation Providers: Firms like CertiK and Slowmist audit stablecoin smart contracts
for bugs (to prevent hacks like the $182M Beanstalk exploit 95 ). On the financial side, accounting
firms (Grant Thornton for USDC, Moore Cayman for Tether’s attestations historically) are part of the
ecosystem by providing reserve attestations or audits. As regulations demand monthly reserve
reports 17 , these third-party attesters are key to maintaining trust. New startups are even doing on-
chain proof-of-reserve solutions using cryptographic proofs (e.g. Chainlink’s Proof of Reserve feeds
that automatically verify if an issuer’s on-chain collateral matches tokens issued). This blend of
traditional audit and crypto oracle tech strengthens stablecoin credibility.
• Smart Contract Platforms for Insurance, etc.: Infrastructure also includes insurance protocols (e.g.
Nexus Mutual offers coverage that can include protection against major stablecoin depegs or
custodian failures), rating agencies (new crypto rating sites and even S&P has explored rating
stablecoins on quality of reserves), and bridges and Layer-0 networks as earlier noted. Additionally,
liquidity providers (market makers like Cumberland, Jump Trading) are infrastructure in a sense:
they commit capital to make markets for stablecoins on exchanges and DeFi, ensuring convertibility
(Jump famously injected capital to defend UST at $1 until it couldn’t). Their role is crucial in normal
times too for tight peg maintenance.
In short, a wide web of services – from compliance software to APIs to market makers – underpins the
stablecoin ecosystem, often behind the scenes. These players ensure stablecoins remain stable (via market
support), trusted (via audits and compliance), and usable (via wallets and APIs).
Ecosystem Roles and Economic Actors
• Issuers and Administrators: The core role – entities (or contracts, in decentralized cases) that create
and destroy stablecoins and manage the backing collateral. They set the rules for minting/
redeeming. For fiat-backed coins, issuers like Circle or Tether handle issuance when users deposit
dollars and redemption when they withdraw 55 . They maintain the peg by ensuring 1 token is
always roughly $1 through redemption arbitrage (if market price < $1, people can buy cheap tokens
and redeem with issuer for $1, shrinking supply; if >$1, they can issue new at $1 and sell). Issuers
also invest reserves (within allowed assets) to generate yield that often funds operations. In
decentralized setups, the “issuer” is a smart contract system (governed by a DAO) – e.g. MakerDAO’s
contracts issue DAI when collateral is locked and automatically liquidate collateral to maintain
solvency. Issuers have enormous responsibility: keeping collateral safe, transparent, and liquid. They
also often serve as lenders of last resort for their coin’s peg (e.g. during market stress, issuer might
utilize reserve tools or new policies to restore parity). The issuer’s reputation is crucial; trust in Tether
or Circle itself can impact market price of USDT/USDC during crises. Under regulatory regimes,
issuers will be licensed entities akin to banks, emphasizing their role in consumer protection.
21
• Redeemers (Authorized Participants & Users): Redeemers are those who can exchange
stablecoins for the underlying asset directly with the issuer. In many fiat stablecoin systems,
Authorized Participants (APs) – typically large market makers or institutions – have direct redeem/
mint access, which they use to arbitrage the peg. For instance, if USDC is >$1 on exchanges, APs will
deliver USD to Circle to mint USDC and sell it, driving price down; if USDC < $1, they buy it up and
redeem with Circle for a profit, driving price up. This arbitrage by redeemers keeps the stablecoin
tightly pegged. Retail users in some cases also have redemption rights (Circle and Paxos allow any
verified customer to redeem 1-for-1 in fiat, no minimum; Tether historically had high minimums/fees
but has been lowering them). Redeemers realize the fundamental promise of stablecoins:
convertibility. They are also the canary in the coal mine – if they lose confidence and stop
arbitraging (or can’t redeem due to suspensions), the peg can break. In decentralized contexts,
redeemers are users closing out positions (returning DAI to get their ETH back, etc.) – their behavior
(do they rush to close and pull out collateral?) can also stress the system. Some stablecoins rely on a
smaller set of redeemers (like only the issuer or a few custodians can directly handle reserves), while
others like DAI allow anyone to redeem by paying back the loan. Under new laws, prompt
redemption is mandatory – e.g. UAE VARA requires redemption processed within one day 82 , MAS
proposed within 5 days 79 . This ensures redeemers can act and keeps market prices anchored.
• Users (Retail and Institutional): Stablecoin users span retail individuals, traders, businesses, and
protocols. Retail users use stablecoins for myriad reasons discussed: holding value (savings), sending
money, trading on exchanges, DeFi yield farming, etc. Retail usage tends to be in smaller
denominations – Chainalysis noted 91% of stablecoin transfers are under $10k, indicating a huge
volume of everyday users globally 96 . These users value stability and accessibility: many might not
even realize they’re using stablecoins (e.g. a migrant using an app just sees “digital dollars”).
Institutional users include crypto funds, hedge funds, and companies using stablecoins for
settlements or treasury. They move the large sums – even some traditional corporates have dipped
in (we saw Tesla mention handling crypto payments, MicroStrategy at one point shifted between
cash and stablecoin yields, etc.). Institutions demand reliability – one reason they pushed for
stablecoin audits and now favor ones like USDC seen as safer. Interestingly, protocols themselves are
users: for example, Uniswap’s smart contracts hold large stablecoin liquidity, and lending
platforms use stablecoins as base assets. MakerDAO (issuer) is also a user of other stablecoins: it
holds USDC and others in reserves, and invests them – making Maker both an issuer and a heavy
user of stablecoins in DeFi. Another emerging user group is governments – some central banks use
stablecoins in pilot cross-border projects (Bank of Thailand’s Inthanon-LionRock project utilized a
stablecoin representation of CBDC for regional transfers).
• Exchanges and Market Makers: Crypto exchanges (centralized and decentralized) are vital actors in
the stablecoin economy. They create liquid markets for stablecoins versus other assets. Market
makers on these exchanges (like Alameda, Cumberland, Jump) provide continuous buy/sell quotes
near $1 for stablecoin trading pairs, which helps maintain the peg externally. Exchanges like Binance
and OKX often have their own market-making desks ensuring their listed stablecoins trade at parity.
Additionally, exchanges are where price discovery for non-USD pegged stablecoins happens (e.g.
how much is 1 EURT in USD, or how is an algorithmic stable trading). When Terra’s UST started to
slip, it was the market makers withdrawing support (because they lost faith in collateral) that
accelerated the death spiral – highlighting their role. They also perform cross-market arbitrage: if
USDT is $0.999 on Coinbase and $1.001 on Binance, arbitragers will move funds until prices align.
Some high-frequency firms arbitrage between stablecoin curves on DeFi platforms too, tightening
spreads. Essentially, these actors enforce the peg in secondary markets. Exchanges themselves often
hold large inventories of stablecoins as part of operating capital or user balances (as seen when FTX
collapsed, they had lots of user stablecoin funds which then got stuck in bankruptcy). So exchanges
22
can be points of failure or contagion – e.g. if an exchange halts stablecoin withdrawals (perhaps
under regulatory pressure), it can cause a discount on that platform’s stablecoin price.
• DeFi Platforms and Smart Contracts: In decentralized finance, stablecoins are the lifeblood, and
various protocols assume roles like banks did. Lending platforms (Compound, Aave) act as the
savers and borrowers marketplace for stablecoins (with interest rates dynamically set). They are not
issuers, but they effectively expand stablecoin utility by giving them a yield/loan function akin to
money markets. Decentralized exchanges like Curve are specialized for stablecoin<>stablecoin
swaps with low slippage – they help maintain parity among different stablecoins (so if one slips,
arbitragers on Curve can swap it for another if they expect recovery). Yield aggregators (Yearn, etc.)
funnel stablecoins into strategies, acting as wholesale investors – they decide where to deploy
liquidity, often becoming large stakeholders in lending or liquidity pools. Insurance protocols
(Nexus Mutual) provide risk pooling for stablecoin users (covering, say, risk of a major depeg event
or protocol hack affecting a stablecoin pool). And governance token holders of platforms like Curve
or Maker have indirect influence – e.g. Curve’s CRV holders decide which stablecoin pools get
incentives, affecting stablecoin’s liquidity and popularity; Maker’s MKR holders decide on adding
USDP or not in reserves, etc. All these smart contract entities and their participants form a web of
interdependence with stablecoins at the center. An example: an LP (liquidity provider) on Uniswap
might supply USDC-ETH liquidity – they are effectively using stablecoins as part of an investment
strategy, providing market depth. Meanwhile, their actions yield fees that attract more to do similar –
this self-reinforcing liquidity is why stablecoins are now deeply entrenched in DeFi. These on-chain
actors collectively function as the ecosystem infrastructure ensuring stablecoins circulate and
remain usable in varied ways (earning, swapping, borrowing, etc.). However, they also introduce
systemic risk – if a top DeFi platform holding lots of stablecoin liquidity gets exploited, it could
impact the peg or confidence in those coins (like if $100M USDC is suddenly stolen from a Curve
pool, users may worry about overall stability).
• Payment Processors and Merchants: There’s a growing group of payment gateways (BitPay,
CoinPayments, MoonPay’s merchant side, etc.) that specialize in helping merchants accept
stablecoins and settle in fiat if desired. They play the acquirer role in the stablecoin payments stack.
For example, a merchant signs up with BitPay and can then take USDC online; BitPay handles
converting that to USD in the merchant’s bank next day. These processors often hedge stablecoin
volatility risk (though minimal) and deal with technical integration. They also sometimes facilitate
payouts (e.g. a marketplace using Circle’s API can pay sellers in stablecoin automatically). Merchants
themselves who directly accept stablecoins (without conversion) become part of the actor landscape
– whether it’s a freelancer taking DAI for a project or a retailer in Venezuela listing prices in USDT,
they contribute to the stablecoin circular economy where coins can be spent as currency, not just
cashed out. The more merchants accept stablecoins, the stronger the argument that stablecoins
truly function as money. We already see stablecoins being used for B2B settlements between
merchants (one Shopify store paying a supplier in USDC, for instance). Some companies use
stablecoins to pay cloud service bills via crypto-friendly intermediaries. These end-users and service
providers are collectively the real economy layer of stablecoins, converting digital tokens into
goods, services, and wages.
• Risks and Adversarial Actors: Unfortunately, the ecosystem also includes those who exploit
stablecoins. Arbitrageurs we covered are usually stabilizing, but speculators sometimes attack pegs
(especially algorithmic ones) – e.g. short-sellers or “attackers” who tried to break UST’s peg by
draining liquidity 97 . Hackers target stablecoin protocols (Beanstalk’s hacker effectively became a
malicious actor with voting power 98 to steal reserves). Ponzi schemes in DeFi have used “fake
23
stablecoins” to lure users. And whales (large holders) can unintentionally pose risk – e.g. if one entity
holds a huge portion of a stable’s supply, their sudden move could impact the market (as seen when
Curve’s founder unwound a large CRV-backed loan, causing concerns for DAI which was tied up in
that). Regulators worry about concentration of power too (if a few big banks or tech companies
control stablecoin issuance, they become powerful economic actors themselves). The ideal
equilibrium is an ecosystem where many independent but interlinked actors keep each other in
check – issuers provide transparency to satisfy users, arbitragers and market makers keep price
stable for profit, regulators oversee issuers to protect users, DeFi protocols distribute risk and
provide alternative failsafes (like over-collateralization), and users have choice among competing
stablecoins (preventing any one from having absolute monopoly and abusing it).
Risks and Failure Modes
• Depeg and Market Confidence Crises: The most prominent risk is a stablecoin losing its peg
(trading significantly away from $1 or its target value). This can happen due to reserve problems,
panicked runs, or attacks. History provides stark examples: TerraUSD (UST) in May 2022 went from
$1 to 30¢ in a matter of days 5 , then effectively to $0 (complete collapse) – a result of an
algorithmic design that couldn’t handle a large sell-off. The UST collapse “wiped out billions” and
triggered contagion across crypto markets 99 100 . Even well-collateralized stablecoins have
wobbled: Tether (USDT), amid market panic and questions about reserves, briefly fell to ~$0.95 on
exchanges on May 12, 2022 101 88 . It quickly recovered, but that depeg highlighted how even the
biggest coin can be vulnerable if traders fear it might not redeem 1:1. USDC saw a dramatic (if short-
lived) depeg in March 2023, dropping to ~$0.87 when its issuer Circle announced a portion of
reserves were stuck in a failing bank (Silicon Valley Bank) – a classic crisis of confidence. Once
regulators backstopped the bank, USDC repegged within days, but the incident underscored how
real-world banking issues can transmit to stablecoins. Generally, a depeg occurs when there’s doubt
the issuer can or will honor redemptions at par. This doubt can be sown by reserve concerns,
banking outages, or technical issues (if a blockchain is halted, like Solana has been at times, a
stablecoin on it might trade at discount as funds are temporarily locked). The risk is especially high
for fractional/algorithmic coins – they can enter a death spiral if users lose faith (no one wants to
be last holding a possibly worthless token). But even fully backed coins can depeg if there’s a
perception issue or short-term liquidity crunch (a run faster than reserves can be liquidated). Depegs
harm users (who may incur losses) and can have systemic effects (if used in DeFi, loans can suddenly
be under-collateralized, etc.). Maintaining confidence via transparency and robust redemption
mechanisms is key to preventing depegs. Regulators compare this risk to bank runs – as Treasury
Secretary Yellen said, stablecoins present run-prone risks long known in banking 102 .
• Reserve Risk and Insolvency: Stablecoins are only as good as their reserves. If an issuer lies about
or mismanages reserves, the coin can become insolvent (not fully backed). Tether’s case from
2016-2019 is illustrative: they at times had as little as 27% in actual cash backing 103 , including
periods where reserves were commingled or in questionable assets 104 105 . While USDT didn’t
collapse, this revelation (via the NYAG and CFTC actions) showed a risk – had many holders tried to
redeem then, not everyone could get $1 for their token. Credit risk in reserves is an issue too: if
reserves include commercial paper or loans, those could default (Tether significantly reduced its
commercial paper exposure by 2022 to address this 88 ). Even holding reserves at a bank has risk:
the 2023 USDC incident happened because uninsured deposits at a bank were frozen during a bank
run scenario – if the FDIC hadn’t stepped in, USDC might’ve had a hole in backing. Rehypothecation
risk: If issuers lent out reserves (like how banks lend deposits), they could face a liquidity crunch –
24
most regulations now forbid this (e.g. GENIUS Act bars rehypothecating reserves except very narrow
cases 29 ). Operational insolvency: if an issuer company fails (e.g. goes bankrupt due to other
reasons, or a hack drains their treasury), stablecoin holders might be in trouble unless reserves are
bankruptcy-remote. Insolvency risk is higher for smaller or unregulated issuers where oversight is
lax. We saw instances like Iron Finance (a partially collateralized stablecoin) that essentially became
insolvent when its collateral token TITAN hyperinflated to near-zero in 2021 – Iron holders couldn’t
be fully redeemed because the collateral value collapsed. Belance sheet transparency and
conservative reserve management are supposed to mitigate insolvency risk. As an aside,
decentralized stablecoins face collateral insolvency if their collateral assets tank – e.g., if ETH crashed
>50% quickly and Maker’s liquidation systems failed, DAI could become under-collateralized (this
nearly happened on Mar 12, 2020 “Black Thursday” when DAI had a shortfall; Maker had to do an
emergency auction of MKR to recapitalize the system). So insolvency can happen in centralized or
decentralized form, from either bad assets or poor liquidity risk management.
• Smart Contract Hacks and Exploits: Stablecoin protocols and their integrations in DeFi are subject
to hacking. A notorious example is Beanstalk (an algorithmic stablecoin protocol) which in April
2022 had its governance attacked – the hacker took a flash loan, gained 67% voting power, and
executed a proposal to send ~$182 million of collateral to their own wallet 98 106 . This drained
Beanstalk’s reserves, causing its bean stablecoin to lose its backing and crash to near $0 (it dropped
to $0.12 immediately 95 ). That exploit showed how governance and code vulnerabilities can
outright collapse a stablecoin even if the economic design was working until then. Similarly, Cashio
(a Solana stablecoin) was hacked in 2022 due to a smart contract bug, minting infinite CASH
stablecoins and rendering it worthless. Even major protocols like Curve or Balancer that hold
stablecoin liquidity have had hacks; if those pools get drained, users holding LP tokens (or relying on
those pools for convertibility) suffer losses. Oracle manipulation is another exploit vector – some
algo stablecoins have been attacked by manipulating price oracles to trigger incorrect mint/burn
(e.g. an attacker fooled an oracle for Acala Dollar aUSD in 2022, printing a huge amount). Any smart
contract handling stablecoin minting or large collateral is a target. These technical risks often
translate into loss of peg or trust because the expected collateral or redemption mechanism gets
compromised. Robust code audits, bug bounties, and simpler designs can mitigate this, but DeFi is
an ongoing battle of wits. It’s worth noting that centralized stablecoins can also have “technical”
failures – e.g. a bug in the token smart contract (there was an incident in 2017 where a Parity multi-
sig bug froze some USDT on Ethereum; Tether had to coordinate a workaround via a token swap).
However, those are rarer compared to DeFi exploits. An exploit doesn’t necessarily have to attack the
stablecoin directly; it could attack a major holder of stablecoin (like an exchange hack) – if $100M
USDC gets stolen from an exchange, that could flood the market or cause a temporary dip (though
now issuers can blacklist stolen funds, ironically introducing centralization to address a hack).
• Centralization and Blacklisting Risks: Most fiat-backed stablecoins have centralized control, which
introduces censorship and counterparty risks. As mentioned, Circle and Tether can blacklist
addresses – Circle did so for at least 81 addresses after a US Treasury sanction, freezing ~$75k USDC
107 84 . While this was to comply with law, it demonstrated to users that their stablecoins can be
frozen by the issuer without their consent, effectively confiscating those funds. For users in
sanctioned countries or using privacy tools, this is a real risk – your assets might suddenly become
unspendable. Tether has also frozen addresses (over 700 to date, often at law enforcement request)
86 . Beyond law enforcement, issuers could freeze coins related to hacks (which they’ve done,
arguably to protect users). But in a worst-case scenario, what if an issuer freezes a whole region or is
forced by a government to disable all coins held by certain people? That’s a form of political or
compliance risk users bear when using centralized stablecoins. Another centralization risk: single
points of failure – the issuer’s bank, the issuer’s blockchain, etc. If an issuer’s primary banking
25
partner fails (like we saw with SVB and USDC), it can temporarily impair the coin. If an issuer’s
primary blockchain (say USDT on Tron) had a technical failure, that entire supply could be stuck or
need emergency moves. Also, upgrades or changes by issuers (like a contract migration) require
trust that they execute correctly. Administrative keys for stablecoin smart contracts can be a risk if
compromised – most issuers have an ability to mint new tokens (for legitimate redemptions, but a
hacker could potentially exploit that if they got the keys or governance control, as almost happened
with a fake law enforcement request to Tether that was luckily caught). For decentralized stablecoins,
centralization can still creep in: MakerDAO holds significant USDC in reserve (creating dependency
on Circle), and protocols often have admin keys or oracles controlled by a multi-sig that could
theoretically collude or be hacked to mismanage the system. The need for oracles (price feeds) itself
introduces a centralized component in many stablecoins – if an oracle fails or is manipulated, the
stablecoin can malfunction.
• Regulatory Crackdown and Legal Risks: Regulatory actions can rapidly change a stablecoin’s
prospects. We saw New York’s DFS ordering Paxos to stop issuing BUSD in Feb 2023 – overnight, a
$16 billion stablecoin was put into wind-down (no new issuance, only redemptions). BUSD gradually
diminished, disrupting many DeFi pools and user strategies. Another example: Libra in 2019 faced
global regulatory backlash (concerns about monetary sovereignty, KYC, etc.) and ultimately never
launched. Governments could outright ban certain stablecoins – e.g. if the US SEC decided USDT is
an unregistered security (something they have not done, but hypothetically) or if countries pass laws
favoring only state digital currencies. Even without bans, heavy compliance burdens can hurt: travel
rule enforcement means any business handling stablecoins above certain thresholds must collect
sender/receiver info 92 , which is operationally challenging especially for DeFi interfaces. That could
push stablecoin activity underground or to non-compliant venues. Regulatory inconsistency is also a
risk – a stablecoin considered legal in one jurisdiction might be blocked in another (for instance,
some Japanese exchanges list only JPYC or other local stablecoins because foreign ones aren’t
allowed yet). Also, the tax treatment of stablecoins can raise issues: if regulators treated stablecoin
transactions as taxable events (most don’t, since $1 = $1, but specific cases like meta-stablecoins or
interest-bearing might create complexity), that could hamper usage. Enforcement actions targeting
related parties can have knock-on effects: e.g. when the US sanctioned Tornado Cash, suddenly
Circle had to blacklist, and MakerDAO had emergency meetings about reducing USDC dependence –
regulatory action indirectly shook DAI’s model (they ultimately decided to diversify collateral
somewhat). Legal risk also ties to reserve seizure – a regulator could freeze an issuer’s bank
accounts in an investigation, making reserves inaccessible (this nearly happened in the Tether/
Bitfinex saga in 2018 when some funds were seized). Such an event could freeze redemptions and
cause a market panic. Investor lawsuits are another angle – if a stablecoin breaks peg and people
lose money, issuers might face class actions (there’s at least one ongoing against Terra’s backers).
These legal uncertainties form a cloud of risk that can materialize abruptly.
• Operational Failures: Stablecoins can suffer from more mundane yet damaging issues – technical
glitches, downtime, mistakes in smart contract operations. For instance, in 2020 Centre
Consortium accidentally blacklisted an address holding $100k USDC by mistake, and later reversed it –
an operational error. If an issuer’s systems for mint/redeem go down (say a custodian bank is offline
over a weekend or a blockchain congestion prevents timely redemption), market makers could get
spooked and the price might drift. On decentralized sides, if governance cannot act quickly in a crisis
due to voting delays, that lag can be fatal (Terra’s governance tried last-minute measures but
couldn’t save UST). Key person risk: In smaller projects, if a founder/lead dev is the only one who
truly knows the system and they leave or lose keys (as happened in some algorithmic projects), the
stablecoin can slowly disintegrate. Fork risk: If the underlying blockchain forks (like a chain split),
stablecoins have to pick a side or risk existing in duplicate – when Ethereum forked to Ethereum and
26
Ethereum Classic in 2016, stablecoin issuers had to decide which chain’s tokens are valid; in that
case, Tether stuck with Ethereum mainnet, rendering any USDT on ETC worthless. That’s a risk in any
potential future fork (e.g. if a major chain had a contentious split, stablecoin stability could be
impacted depending on how issuers or the market chooses one fork over another).
• Market Abuse and Systemic Risk: As stablecoins integrate with broader markets, they could
theoretically contribute to systemic risk. For example, if a huge amount of short-term debt is held as
reserves (like tens of billions in commercial paper or treasuries for a coin like Tether), sudden
redemption shocks could force fire-sales of those assets, potentially impacting traditional markets
(FSB has warned of this scenario if stablecoins scale even larger). On the flip side, reliance of crypto
markets on stablecoins means any major stablecoin failure could crash the whole crypto market and
related sectors. This was seen in mini-form with UST – its collapse erased $40B of value and hurt
many funds and protocols. If USDT or USDC failed, the cascade across exchanges, DeFi, and holders
worldwide would be severe (people reference a “stablecoin Lehman moment” possibility).
Interconnectedness amplifies this: many DeFi loans are collateralized by stablecoins or pay out in
stablecoins, centralized lenders held stablecoins, etc. A stablecoin breaking can cause margin calls,
insolvencies (like some firms went under due to UST holdings). Another risk is yield-driven bubbles
– e.g. if a stablecoin offers high interest (like Anchor protocol did 20% on UST), it can grow too fast
with unsustainable yields, and when it crashes, cause outsized damage. Moral hazard: if users
wrongly assume all stablecoins are “safe as cash”, they might not do diligence – a scenario where a
less-sound stablecoin could grow and then collapse, hurting general confidence (Terra’s marketing
and perceived backing by VCs gave users false confidence, arguably).
• Innovation Risk (Competitive Disruption): Interestingly, one risk is a better technology making
current stablecoins obsolete – for example, if central bank CBDCs roll out widely and offer what
stablecoins do but with state backing, demand for private stablecoins might drop (or governments
might disallow private ones in favor of CBDC). Or if some new model (say a truly decentralized,
unbreakable stablecoin or a new type of digital money) emerges, it could cause rapid shifts (though
existing big issuers would likely adapt or partake).
In conclusion, while stablecoins have proven immensely useful, they concentrate a variety of risks from
both the crypto world and traditional finance world. Mitigating these requires a combination of good design
(over-collateralization, decentralization where possible, or strict compliance and transparency for
centralized ones), prudent regulation (to enforce best practices without stifling utility), and user education
(so people understand that not all “stable” coins are created equal). The failures and near-misses so far –
from UST’s collapse to USDC’s bank scare – have been painful lessons that are shaping a more resilient
stablecoin ecosystem moving forward 108 109 .
1 2 4 10 23 55 Modern Treasury
https://www.moderntreasury.com/learn/top-stablecoin-issuers
3 6 What Are Stablecoins and How Do They Work? | Gemini
https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/what-are-stablecoins-how-do-they-work
5 88 99 100 101 102 108 109 Crypto collapse intensifies as stablecoin Tether slides below dollar peg |
Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/crypto-collapse-intensifies-stablecoin-tether-slides-below-dollar-peg-2022-05-12/
7 Frax Finance — The Protocol That Broke the Stablecoin Trilemma
https://medium.com/coinmonks/defi-weekly-frax-finance-the-protocol-that-broke-the-stablecoin-trilemma-8a3e36cf23e7
27
8 'Flatcoin' Targets Inflation With Collateral-backed Arbitrum Stablecoin
https://blockworks.co/news/nuon-flatcoin-targets-inflation
9 We need a crypto-native stablecoin rating system. - Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmosnetwork/comments/13j8sw9/we_need_a_cryptonative_stablecoin_rating_system/
11 13 Stablecoins for Faster Payments
https://fasterpaymentscouncil.org/blog/15401/Stablecoins-for-Faster-Payments
12 28 Stablecoins payments infrastructure for modern finance - McKinsey
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-stable-door-opens-how-tokenized-cash-enables-next-
gen-payments
14 Marshall Islands launches world’s first universal basic income scheme offering cryptocurrency |
44
Marshall Islands | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/17/marshall-islands-launches-universal-basic-income-scheme-offering-
cryptocurrency-in-world-first
15 Palau CBDC
https://cbdctracker.hrf.org/currency/palau
16 Palau Stablecoin (Republic of Palau): GovCoin, not CBDC
https://cbdctracker.org/currency/republic_of_palau-palau_stablecoin
17 29 65 66 67 68 69 Stablecoin Framework Signed into Law
https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2025/07/Stablecoin-Framework-Signed-into-Law
18 Frax: Fractional-Algorithmic Stable Coin Risk Modeling - Irulast
https://irulast.com/blog/frax-collateralization-analysis
19 FRAX AND THE TOOLS FOR DEFI REVOLUTION :An Introduction to ...
https://medium.com/@webmasterglitzblockonomics/frax-and-the-tools-for-defi-revolution-an-introduction-to-the-basics-of-the-
frax-protocol-9a4d4c25846d
20 71 72 73 74 96 MiCA's Stablecoin Regime and Its Remaining Challenges: Part 1
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/mica-stablecoin-regime-challenges-part-1/
21 103 104 105 CFTC Orders Tether and Bitfinex to Pay Fines Totaling $42.5 Million | CFTC
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21
22 [PDF] Stablecoin-related yields: some regulatory approaches
https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsibriefs27.pdf
24 Tether vs Tron 2026: Key Differences & Price Performance
https://ventureburn.com/tether-vs-tron-2026-differences-price-performance/
25 31 32 33 34 36 37 39 59 92 93 How Stablecoins Can Transform Remittance | Plasma
https://www.plasma.to/learn/stablecoins-for-remittance
26 27 Visa crypto chief bets on stablecoin settlement, sees volumes growing
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/visa-crypto-chief-bets-stablecoin-settlement-sees-volumes-growing-2026-01-14/
30 The future of cross-border payments: Market expansion, CBDCs ...
https://thepaymentsassociation.org/article/the-future-of-cross-border-payments-market-expansion-cbdcs-and-real-time-systems/
35 Stablecoin Remittances: The Cross-Border Payments Opportunity | Axelar Blog
https://www.axelar.network/blog/stablecoin-remittances-cross-border-payments-opportunity
28
38 Why Journalism's Future May Depend on Stablecoin Micropayments
https://www.ccn.com/opinion/business/why-journalism-future-depends-on-stablecoin-micropayments/
40 41 42 48 49 87 How B2B stablecoin payments work | Stripe
https://stripe.com/en-pl/resources/more/b2b-stablecoin-payments
43 The Peso Crisis in Argentina and the Rise of Stablecoins in USD
https://www.transfi.com/blog/the-peso-crisis-in-argentina-and-the-rise-of-stablecoins-in-usd
45 UNICEF CryptoFund to use stablecoins for humanitarian action
https://www.unicef.org/innovation/unicef-cryptofund-use-stablecoins-humanitarian-action
46 The UN Refugee Agency Accepts First Stablecoin Crypto Donation ...
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/the-un-refugee-agency-accepts-first-stablecoin-crypto-donation-of-25m-from-binance-charity-
to-support-ukraine-efforts/
47 Stablecoins in Humanitarian Aid: Potential Savings in Billions
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sophia-furber-07832212_yesterdays-crypto-for-good-conference-was-
activity-7422755980444225536-87qQ
50 51 52 53 56 Approvely: the pace of payments innovation will never slow
https://paymentexpert.com/2025/10/08/approvely-stablecoins-gaming/
54 Thunes and Circle: Stablecoin liquidity for real-time settlements
https://www.thunes.com/insights/solutions/thunes-circle-stablecoin-liquidity/
57 58 60 2025 LATAM Crypto Adoption: Latin America Emerges as Crypto Powerhouse
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/latin-america-crypto-adoption-2025/
61 Stablecoin Adoption in Nigeria - Plasma
https://www.plasma.to/learn/nigeria-stablecoins
62 Nigeria forms task force to study stablecoin adoption - CoinGeek
https://coingeek.com/nigeria-forms-task-force-to-study-stablecoin-adoption/
63 USDT on TRON surpasses $80B, strengthening TRON's position as ...
https://trondao.medium.com/usdt-on-tron-surpasses-80b-strengthening-trons-position-as-the-leading-stablecoin-
network-522d224fe166
64 Stablecoins Are Transforming Cross-Border Payments, And ... - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2026/02/05/stablecoins-are-transforming-cross-border-payments-and-
traditional-remittance-giants-are-racing-to-catch-up/
70 Bitfinex, Tether owner pays $18.5 mln fine to settle NYAG ... - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bitfinex-tether-owner-pays-185-mln-fine-settle-nyag-cryptocurrency-cover-
up-2021-02-23/
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Stablecoin Regulation by Country: 2026 Compliance Guide
https://www.opendue.com/blog/stablecoin-regulation-compliance-guide
84 85 86 Tether Won't Freeze Sanctioned Tornado Cash Addresses Without Authorities' Request -
Blockworks
https://blockworks.co/news/tether-wont-freeze-sanctioned-tornado-cash-addresses-without-authorities-request
89 Two Explanations For Venture Capital's Inexplicable Interest In ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2018/09/25/two-reasons-for-venture-capitals-inexplicable-interest-in-stablecoins/
29
90 State of Crypto 2025: The year crypto went mainstream
https://a16zcrypto.substack.com/p/state-of-crypto-2025-the-latest-data
91 Stablecoins Power Billions in Payments. One in Ten Could Be Illicit
https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2025/stablecoins-power-billions-in-payments-one-in-ten-could-be-illicit/
94 Stablecoin Brief: cNGN Could Intensify Payment Co - S&P Global
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/250214-stablecoin-brief-cngn-could-intensify-payment-competition-in-
nigeria-s101613758
95 98 106 Beanstalk cryptocurrency loses $182m of reserves in flash ‘attack’ | Cryptocurrencies | The
Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/18/beanstalk-cryptocurrency-loses-182m-of-reserves-in-flash-attack
97 [PDF] Interconnected DeFi: Ripple Effects from the Terra Collapse
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2023044pap.pdf
107 In response to Tornado Cash's sanctions, Circle has blacklisted ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/wjjxk1/in_response_to_tornado_cashs_sanctions_circle_has/
30