BVNK 创始人:稳定币发展的三个阶段

marsbitPublished on 2026-05-03Last updated on 2026-05-03

作者:Jesse Hemson Struthers,BVNK 首席执行官兼创始人

编译:佳欢,ChainCatcher

关于稳定币,目前有一个相当普遍的说法:它是新兴市场个人对冲货币波动的工具。这确实是事实,也很重要,但这并不是全貌。

今天在 BVNK,我们处理着 360亿美元 的年化稳定币交易量。我们只是这个庞大生态系统中的一员,但我们从交易量数据中发现了一些有意思的规律,它们指向一个三阶段的演变过程。

这一切始于2022年,当时券商平台及其散户用户开始用稳定币给账户充值。一路发展到今天,企业级平台正在把稳定币钱包嵌入自己的产品中。

360 亿数据里的三阶演进

第一阶段(2022-2024年):券商破局与模式验证

BVNK 最早的交易量来自券商平台,核心用例是账户充值。散户用户存入稳定币为账户充值,随时随地进行股票、加密货币和其他资产的交易,我们自动兑换为法币,与平台完成结算。

这种用例有时会被轻视,觉得不算"真实世界"的应用。但想想它意味着什么:跨境、全天候、即时结算。一个巴西用户可以在周日凌晨2点给券商账户充值。这就是资金流转的未来,只是发生在一个没有因此得到足够认可的行业里。

2023-2024年,这一用例大约占我们总交易量的50%。业内已有公开信息显示,Bridge 和 Zerohash 等公司在 Bitso、tastytrade 等客户身上看到了同样的趋势。

第二阶段(2024-2025年):机构接力与生态扩容

这是真正有意思的阶段。大型支付服务商开始为客户接入稳定币支付通道:dLocal、Worldpay、Thunes、Visa 以及其他公司。应用场景不断拓展:商户结算、B2B 应付账款、资金库运营。

BVNK 按用例划分的年化交易量

2025年,B2B支付占我们总交易量的44%,成为最大类别,超过了账户充值。

值得注意的是,很多在交易平台上找到 PMF(产品市场契合)的稳定币支付服务商,并没有成功跨越到 B2B 支付这个赛道。

在此期间,我们还看到了几个高增长用例的起飞。

第一个是 B2C 薪资和零工支出。像 Deel 和 Ontop 这样的公司正在用 BVNK 的基础设施,实时向全球各地的员工、卖家和创作者发放薪酬。

第二个是嵌入式稳定币钱包的需求激增。我们的交易量在一年内从接近于零增长到34亿美元,增幅达263倍。

金融科技公司和全球性平台意识到,稳定币不只是用来收付款的,它可以作为钱包层直接嵌入产品中。我们已经从简单的"发送/接收",进入了把稳定币当作基础设施来用的阶段。

对这些企业来说,拥有钱包就意味着拥有客户关系和价值流动的控制权。

按稳定币用例划分的增长率

第三阶段(2026年及以后):企业押注与基建重构

去年,我们接入的企业客户比过去所有年份加起来还多,而2026年的客户储备显示出用例正在发生明显转变。

几乎每4个新客户中就有1个(23%)要求嵌入数字美元钱包,几乎追上了 B2B 支付(占新客户的32%)。这些钱包就是嵌在平台里的全球支付基础设施,背后是数百万终端用户。

2025年与2026年按用例划分的 BVNK 客户数量对比

平台嵌入稳定币钱包,不只是多了一种支付方式,而是在搭建基础设施。当一个市场平台嵌入钱包,或者一家科技巨头把稳定币支出能力内置到平台中,你看到的是:企业正在押注稳定币,把它作为未来资金流转和价值存储的基石。

2026年,我们还看到另外两个新兴用例的需求在增长:

B2C 稳定币结账已经成为一个独立的应用场景(占新客户的7%),主要是奢侈品、旅游和大型科技公司在传统支付方式之外增加稳定币结账选项。

B2C 薪资和市场平台支出继续增长(占新客户的8%)。

演进背后的必然性

券商平台最先证明了稳定币支付的价值:用户往往是加密原住民(不需要市场教育),从第一天起就需要全球覆盖,而且和国际电汇相比,稳定币的优势立竿见影。

但同样的优势(速度快、全球可达、全天候可用)同样适用于 B2B 支付、B2C 支出,以及如今企业平台内部的嵌入式钱包体验。

另外一点,像 BVNK 这样早在2022年就大规模跑通了早期用例的稳定币支付基础设施提供商,已经积累了过硬的运营能力和合规框架,而这正是今天的支付公司和企业所需要的。这份实战记录,成了后续一切发展的基础。

飞轮才刚刚转动

整个市场的增长势头很明显,但要记住,我们仍处于早期。

通过让支付变得更快、更便宜、全球互通,稳定币打开了新市场的大门,而这个市场有多大,今天很难估算。

Uber 的类比很有参考意义:它的市场不只是出租车,而是在出行变得便捷、随叫随到之后才涌现出的大量出行需求。

稳定币也是一样,它的独特优势在优化现有用例的同时,也会创造出全新的应用场景。

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片