Circle: Why Do 95% of Stablecoins Ultimately Fail?

marsbitPublished on 2026-02-03Last updated on 2026-02-03

Abstract

The article "The Stablecoin Trap: Issuing a Stablecoin Without the Infrastructure to Run One" by Kash Razzaghi of Circle discusses the critical considerations for companies interested in stablecoins. While many executives are drawn to the idea of issuing their own stablecoin due to the market's growth (from $2050B to over $3000B in 2025), the author argues this is a strategic, not just technical, decision. Creating a stablecoin is relatively simple from an engineering perspective, but operating a trusted, regulated one requires a robust, 24/7 financial infrastructure. This includes real-time reserve management, daily bank reconciliations, independent audits, compliance reporting, and risk management systems. These operational burdens are complex, costly, and amplify reputational risk. The market has seen hundreds of stablecoin projects, but approximately 95% fail to achieve lasting, global scale. The key differentiator is not technology but trust, built through transparency, consistent redeemability, and proven performance across market cycles. Incidents like accidental trillion-dollar mints or temporary de-peggings highlight the severe consequences of operational flaws. Instead of building their own, most companies should focus on integrating existing, established stablecoins like USDC or EURC into their businesses. This allows them to benefit from instant settlement, global reach, and interoperability without the immense operational overhead. The industry is converging o...

Original Title: The Stablecoin Trap: Issuing a Stablecoin Without the Infrastructure to Run One

Original Author: Kash Razzaghi, Circle

Compiled by: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: As regulatory clarity improves and institutional participation increases, stablecoins are evolving from technical tools into critical financial infrastructure. This article points out that issuing a stablecoin is not merely a technical choice but a long-term strategy centered on trust, liquidity, and compliance capabilities. Most projects fail to scale, and the market is naturally converging toward a few mature networks. For most businesses, the real question is not "whether to issue a coin" but "how to effectively use stablecoins" to create growth opportunities for their operations.

Below is the original text:

In recent months, I have repeatedly had familiar conversations with executives from some of the world's largest companies. They have shown strong interest in stablecoins like USDC and EURC—digital versions of the US dollar and euro—that enable near-instant, cross-border transfers. Many of them are also considering: Should we issue our own stablecoin?

This impulse is understandable. The market has already achieved significant scale and sustained growth momentum. In 2025, the total market capitalization of stablecoins grew from approximately $205 billion on January 1, 2025, to over $300 billion by December 31, 2025. USDC, issued by Circle, remains one of the core assets in this category, closing out 2025 with a market cap exceeding $75 billion.

However, before entering the market, every company should first ask itself: Do you simply want to use stablecoins for your business, or do you intend to enter the "business of issuing stablecoins"?

This is not a technical question but a strategic one: Is issuing currency a core part of your business model?

Relatively speaking, creating a stablecoin on a blockchain is the easiest part. Essentially, it is a software engineering exercise: writing and deploying a token contract on a blockchain. With an engineering team or, in some cases, leveraging white-label partners, a token can be launched in a relatively short time. But once the product is live, operating a stablecoin means supporting a 24/7 financial infrastructure.

To operate a trusted, regulated stablecoin—one that meets the expectations of institutions, regulators, and millions of users—requires real-time reserve management across different market cycles, daily reconciliation with multiple banking partners, independent audits, and compliance and regulatory reporting across multiple jurisdictions. This means building round-the-clock compliance, risk management, treasury management, and liquidity operations systems, with clear escalation and resolution mechanisms in stress scenarios and zero tolerance for errors. These capabilities are not something that can be "outsourced once and forgotten"; as scale increases, they accumulate and amplify in cost, complexity, and reputational risk.

From a systemic perspective, each new, closed-loop proprietary stablecoin further fragments liquidity and trust. Each issuer is redundantly building reserves, compliance systems, and redemption channels, ultimately weakening the overall depth and resilience that stablecoins rely on during times of stress. In contrast, integrating USDC allows for the consolidation of liquidity, standards, and operational capabilities into a widely adopted, unified network from day one.

For corporate executives evaluating this decision, the differences between these two paths become particularly clear when viewed from an operational perspective:

The Temptation of Shortcuts

Currently, a wide range of newcomers—from fintech companies and payment institutions to crypto projects—are exploring or directly launching their own stablecoins. The growth of the stablecoin market in 2025 reflects both the gradual clarity of the regulatory environment and rising institutional interest. But the reality is that, although hundreds of stablecoin projects have been launched, about 95% have never achieved lasting, global scale.

Some believe it is possible to replicate the same economic returns without bearing the heavy operational costs. The reality, however, is not so romantic. Whether issuing a stablecoin on your own or through a white-label service, you are entering an industry where trust, liquidity, and scale are matters of survival.

Sometimes, the cost of mistakes is measured in "trillions." According to media reports earlier this year, one issuer accidentally minted 300 trillion tokens due to an operational error. Although it was fixed within minutes, it was enough to make headlines. On another occasion, a well-known stablecoin briefly depegged during a period of extreme market volatility, again demonstrating that even minor infrastructure flaws can be amplified and transmitted under pressure.

These incidents serve as reminders that the viability of a stablecoin depends on operational rigor in high-pressure environments. Markets and policymakers are watching closely.

Trust Is the Real Network Effect

Anyone can create a token on a blockchain. In fact, thousands already exist—most minted in minutes and forgotten just as quickly. Even in the stablecoin niche, over 300 projects have been launched, but only a handful carry almost all real-world usage and value; the vast majority, about 95%, have never truly succeeded.

The difference lies not in technology but in scale and trust. The real challenge for stablecoins begins during the expansion phase: how to sustain liquidity, redeemability, compliance, and system availability as transaction volumes grow across different markets and cycles.

You can mint a token in minutes, but you cannot mint trust in minutes. Trust stems from transparency, scale, and consistent redeemability across market cycles, accumulating over time. This is why the stablecoin market has ultimately concentrated in the hands of a few issuers—and why, as of January 30, 2026, USDC's cumulative historical settlement volume has exceeded $60 trillion.

Rather Than Reinventing the Wheel, Choose Collaboration

For most businesses, the right question is not "How should we issue our own stablecoin?" but "How can we integrate stablecoins into our business to unlock new growth?"

With USDC and EURC, companies can today embed digital dollars and euros, gaining near-instant settlement, global reach, and interoperability across dozens of blockchains, without having to bear the complexities of reserve management and regulatory compliance themselves.

Writing the Next Chapter Together

The stablecoin industry is entering a new phase. Policymakers are establishing clearer rules, institutions are raising their standards, and the market is gradually converging on a simple consensus: trust, liquidity, and compliance are the real moats.

The goal is not to have more stablecoins but to have fewer and better ones—ones that can meet current demands with shared liquidity, transparent reserves, and proven performance across cycles.

For institutions formulating their stablecoin strategies, the first step should not be to decide "what to build" but "whom to build with." If you want stablecoins to empower your business but do not want to become a stablecoin issuer yourself, the time-tested choice is clear: talk to Circle and use USDC.

Related Questions

QAccording to the article, what is the main reason why approximately 95% of stablecoin projects fail to achieve lasting, global scale?

AThe main reason is not a technical failure, but the immense operational challenge of scaling. This includes the inability to continuously maintain liquidity, redemption capabilities, regulatory compliance, and system availability across different markets and market cycles. Trust, which is built on transparency, scale, and consistent redeemability over time, is the true barrier to success that most projects cannot overcome.

QWhat key operational capabilities does the article state are required to run a trusted, regulated stablecoin?

AThe key operational capabilities include real-time reserve management across market cycles, daily reconciliation with multiple banking partners, undergoing independent audits, and fulfilling compliance and regulatory reporting across multiple jurisdictions. This requires building 24/7 systems for compliance, risk management, treasury operations, and liquidity, with clear escalation and resolution mechanisms for stress scenarios and a zero-tolerance policy for errors.

QWhat strategic question should a business ask itself before deciding to issue a stablecoin, as suggested by the Circle executive?

AThe business should ask itself: 'Do you simply want to use stablecoins for your business, or do you intend to go into the *business* of issuing a stablecoin?' This reframes the decision from a technical one to a strategic one, questioning whether issuing currency is core to its business model.

QWhat is the article's view on the proliferation of new, closed proprietary stablecoins from a system-wide perspective?

AThe article argues that each new, closed proprietary stablecoin further fragments liquidity and trust. Each issuer is duplicating the work of building reserves, compliance systems, and redemption channels, which ultimately weakens the overall depth and resilience that stablecoins rely on, especially during times of market stress.

QWhat alternative does the article propose for companies that want the benefits of stablecoins without the burden of issuing their own?

AThe article proposes that companies should integrate existing, large-scale stablecoins like USDC and EURC into their businesses. This allows them to gain access to near-instant settlement, global reach, and interoperability across dozens of blockchains without having to shoulder the complexities of reserve management and regulatory compliance themselves.

Related Reads

After Three Consecutive Quarters of Decline, Can the Crypto Market Find a Window for Stabilization in Q3?

The cryptocurrency market has just concluded its worst-performing quarter since 2022, with total capitalization dropping 12.6% to $2.1 trillion. All core metrics indicate capital is leaving the sector, not just rotating within it. Bitcoin fell 14.2% and Ethereum dropped 25.4% in Q2, breaking their previous correlation with US tech stocks. A key driver is the reversal in US spot Bitcoin ETF flows, which saw a net outflow of approximately $4.67 billion in Q2, including a record monthly outflow near $4.5 billion in June. While recent data suggests long-term holders are accumulating again, sustained ETF outflows mean continued selling pressure. Market focus is now singularly on the Federal Reserve. The upcoming July FOMC meeting is seen as the most critical event for Q3. A dovish signal could support Bitcoin reclaiming a $68,000-$84,000 range, while a hawkish stance might establish a new trading band around $50,000-$56,000. Additionally, regulatory uncertainty persists, with the progress of the crucial *CLARITY Act* stalling in the Senate, reducing its perceived 2026 passage probability to 40-45%. Despite the broad downturn, a few sectors showed growth. Prediction markets saw nominal volume surge 48.7% year-over-year to $113.8 billion, and tokenized collectibles transaction volume rose 143% quarterly to $1.4 billion. The Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization sector also continued steady growth, now representing ~$28.1 billion in on-chain value. The market's foundation for an extreme crash appears limited, with Bitcoin price hovering near its 200-week moving average. However, the trading paradigm has shifted from narrative-driven speculation to decisions based on price action, policy developments, and interest rate expectations, making a broad sentiment-driven rally unlikely in the near term.

marsbit22m ago

After Three Consecutive Quarters of Decline, Can the Crypto Market Find a Window for Stabilization in Q3?

marsbit22m ago

BIT Trading Moment: BTC Still Suppressed by Weekly 200 EMA, Rejection May Restart Decline; Storage and Semiconductors that Surged Last Night Begin Falling in Evening Trading

**Crypto & Stock Market Wrap: Bitcoin Tests Resistance, Stocks Retreat After AI Surge** Bitcoin consolidates around $66,000, facing key resistance near $68,000—an area seen as a major psychological and technical hurdle where previous rallies have failed. Analysts note the cryptocurrency is caught between its 200-week moving average (~$63,333) and 200-week EMA (~$68,328). A clear break above $68k is needed to signal a stronger bullish trend, while a rejection could lead to a retest of $63k support. Market sentiment remains cautious, with low futures open interest pointing to a low-liquidity rebound rather than a full bull market. Bitcoin spot ETFs saw another $203 million inflow. US stock futures pointed lower after a strong Tuesday session led by a massive rebound in semiconductors and memory stocks. The rally was fueled by renewed optimism about AI-driven hardware demand, with Micron, SanDisk, and SK Hynix surging. However, those gains reversed in pre-market trading. Super Micro Computer (SMCI) soared over 20% after hours on strong guidance and a record backlog. Other standouts included Rocket Lab and nuclear energy plays Oklo and X-Energy. Rising oil prices (Brent above $91) and climbing Treasury yields (10-year near 4.64%), however, are reigniting inflation concerns and acting as a headwind for equities. In Asia, markets were mixed. South Korea's KOSPI pared early gains to close slightly higher as semiconductor stocks like SK Hynix gave back initial surges. Japan's Nikkei edged lower as the yen hit a fresh 38-year low against the dollar, raising fears of potential market intervention. Key events to watch include the Samsung Galaxy launch, AMD's AI event, and a slew of major tech earnings from Alphabet, Tesla, and IBM after the close on Wednesday, followed by the ECB meeting and Intel's earnings on Thursday.

marsbit30m ago

BIT Trading Moment: BTC Still Suppressed by Weekly 200 EMA, Rejection May Restart Decline; Storage and Semiconductors that Surged Last Night Begin Falling in Evening Trading

marsbit30m ago

Former CFTC Chairman, Circle President Tarbert: Preaching Long-Termism While Cashing Out $30 Million Himself

Former CFTC Chairman and Circle President Heath Tarbert has consistently advocated for a long-term vision in public, urging patience from investors as Circle’s stock price has fallen significantly from its peak. However, it has been revealed that since Circle’s IPO, Tarbert has continuously sold his CRCL shares through pre-arranged trading plans, cashing out approximately $30 million, without making any public market purchases. This contrast between his public messaging and personal actions has drawn criticism. Tarbert joined Circle in July 2023 as Chief Legal Officer, leveraging his regulatory experience to help guide the company through its IPO and expansion. Despite promoting stablecoins as long-term infrastructure, he established a 10b5-1 trading plan just before Circle went public, leading to substantial stock sales over the following year. In March 2026, he initiated another plan to sell more shares. His career trajectory highlights a pattern of moving between high-level regulatory roles and influential positions in the financial sector. After resigning as CFTC Chairman in early 2021, he joined Citadel Securities as Chief Legal Officer just 27 days later, during a period of intense regulatory scrutiny for the firm. He later joined Circle, aiding its efforts to navigate regulatory challenges for its public listing. While Tarbert's expertise in policy and compliance is valuable to companies like Circle, his actions—advocating long-term confidence while personally divesting—raise questions about the alignment between his public statements and his private financial decisions, leaving investors who followed his advice to bear the market risks.

marsbit53m ago

Former CFTC Chairman, Circle President Tarbert: Preaching Long-Termism While Cashing Out $30 Million Himself

marsbit53m ago

Gate Research Institute: The 'Wall Street-ization' Wave of Crypto Financial Products – Competition or Integration?

The article titled "Gate Research Institute: Are Crypto Financial Products Sparking a 'Wall Street' Wave—Competition or Convergence?" explores the evolving relationship between the crypto ecosystem and traditional finance (TradFi). The piece begins by reflecting on Bitcoin's original 2009 vision of decentralization, disintermediation, and moving away from banks. It then contrasts this with the 2024 landscape, where key crypto assets like Bitcoin are increasingly held through Wall Street products like ETFs issued by giants like BlackRock. The article questions whether this signifies that TradFi is systematically taking over the rights to issue, price, custody, and distribute crypto financial assets. The core argument is that this is not a zero-sum takeover but rather a bidirectional convergence where each side addresses the other's weaknesses. Crypto offers 24/7 global markets, programmable settlement, and open access but lacks compliant channels, institutional-grade custody, deep fiat liquidity, and mainstream distribution. TradFi possesses these but is constrained by legacy systems, limited operating hours, and slow settlement. Two primary convergence paths are highlighted: * **Path A (CEX to TradFi):** Exemplified by Gate, which has progressed from offering tokenized stocks and CFDs to providing direct, real stock trading (US, Hong Kong, South Korea) within its platform, using USDT. * **Path B (TradFi to Crypto):** Exemplified by Robinhood, which has integrated crypto trading, acquired exchanges like Bitstamp, and is moving traditional assets like stocks onto the blockchain via tokenization and its own Layer 2. Both paths are ultimately competing to become the next-generation, unified financial account—a "super account" where users can seamlessly trade cryptocurrencies, stocks, ETFs, RWA (Real World Assets), and tokenized treasury products in one interface. The growth of RWA and tokenized treasuries (e.g., BlackRock's BUIDL) is presented as the asset-layer fusion, providing stable, yield-bearing assets on-chain and acting as a bridge between the two worlds. In conclusion, the "Wall Street-ization" of crypto is framed as a mutual transformation. Decentralized ideals persist in the protocol layer, while at the application layer, a more efficient, global, and accessible unified capital market is emerging from this convergence. The future competition lies not between crypto exchanges and stockbrokers, but between platforms vying to offer the most comprehensive asset coverage, liquidity, and user experience within a single account.

marsbit57m ago

Gate Research Institute: The 'Wall Street-ization' Wave of Crypto Financial Products – Competition or Integration?

marsbit57m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片