Artemis: Why We Are Bullish on Circle?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-08-21Actualizado a 2026-08-21

Resumen

Artemis argues that the market underestimates Circle (CRCL) due to three key drivers: 1) The stablecoin market is expected to grow at a 40% CAGR, reaching over $1 trillion by 2030 and has decoupled from crypto price cycles. 2) Winner-takes-most dynamics, driven by liquidity and network effects, protect incumbents like Circle (USDC) and Tether, making it difficult for new entrants like the Open Standard Alliance's OUSD to gain significant share. 3) The market misprices Circle as a mere "stablecoin issuer" reliant on interest income, rather than a "full-stack money platform" with growing payment network and blockchain revenue streams. The recent 17% drop in CRCL's price following the OUSD announcement represents a market overreaction, in Artemis's view. Historical precedent and the inherent challenges of large consortia suggest OUSD poses a limited threat to Circle's dominant position. Looking ahead, if USDC captures 20% of a $1T stablecoin market with a 2% interest rate, it could generate $4B in interest revenue. Combined with projected growth from the Circle Payments Network and the Arc blockchain, total revenue could reach ~$5B by 2030. As Circle diversifies its revenue away from pure interest dependence, its valuation multiple should expand from the current ~6.7x P/S to a more justified 10x, supporting a potential $50B market capitalization.

Author: Artemis

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: Last week, ARK Invest's Lorenzo Valente discussed in a podcast why the market is undervaluing Circle. This week, Artemis's Thesis pushes this logic to its conclusion: the market thinks Circle has a weak moat, that stablecoins are a commodity, and that the Open Standard alliance composed of over 140 companies will seize most of the market share. However, Artemis believes Circle's first-mover advantage and network effects are severely underestimated. Three core statements: stablecoins will grow at a 40% CAGR to exceed 1 trillion dollars by 2030; winner-takes-all liquidity makes it difficult for alliances to steal market share; the market mistakenly prices Circle as an 'issuer' rather than a 'full-stack money platform'. When the 'shock' from Open Standard pushed CRCL to historic lows, it might be the moment of greatest market mispricing.

Core Drivers

There are three core drivers supporting this view:

Stablecoins will expand at a 40% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), surpassing 1 trillion dollars by 2030.
In a market dominated by liquidity and network effects, the winner takes all. Alliances like OUSD will struggle to capture significant share.
The market anchors Circle's valuation as a 'stablecoin issuer,' not a 'full-stack money platform.'

Why Now? The 'Shock' from Open Standard

Circle's second-worst trading day in history occurred precisely on the day Open Standard announced its formation. The launch of this alliance stablecoin project, backed by over 140 companies including giants like Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, and Google, sent Circle's stock price tumbling 17%. The market's reaction was telling: Stripe is restructuring the 'band' to overthrow the duopoly of Circle and Tether and distribute stablecoin revenue among members proportionally. This news pushed CRCL's stock price near its all-time low.

Stablecoin Growth: Decoupled from the Crypto Cycle

We believe many investors doubt stablecoins can reach 1 trillion dollars by 2030, pointing to stagnation in stablecoin growth. But for the first time ever, stablecoin supply has decoupled from crypto prices. While crypto assets are down 50%–70% from their highs, stablecoin supply remains steady, indicating it has become an independent asset class. If stablecoin supply continues its growth rate of the past 3 years, global supply will surpass 1 trillion dollars by 2030 (projected).

Winner Takes All: Deep Moats Built on Liquidity and Network Effects

Over the past few years, dozens of issuers have tried to dismantle the Circle and Tether duopoly. Despite hundreds of stablecoins being issued today, these two giants still control over 80% of the supply share. The first-mover advantage is extremely difficult to overcome—building cross-chain, cross-application, cross-exchange liquidity from scratch is a monumental task, and Circle has already left challengers far behind.

Can the OUSD Alliance Succeed?

Specifically regarding OUSD, the market clearly sees it as a major threat to Circle's business. However, history shows that alliances rarely succeed. A successful alliance requires:

Aligned Member Incentives — OUSD has this to some extent through interest income sharing;
Clear Governance — Open Standard appears weak here, with several 'announced partners' disclosing they were not consulted and their stance is unclear;
Existential Pressure — I believe most institutions do not yet view stablecoins as a matter of survival, although Stripe might.

Based on current information, Open Standard meets only about one-third of the necessary conditions.

Market Misjudgment: Circle is Not an Issuer, but a Full-Stack Money Platform

The market views Circle merely as the issuer of USDC, because almost all its revenue comes from interest income dictated by the Federal Reserve, leading to a discounted valuation.

In reality, Circle is building a full-stack suite of monetary products for the future of the internet; at its core, it is a technology company.

A comparison of Circle's valuation with its payment peers clearly shows the valuation gap between card networks and other players. If Circle truly builds the next-generation full-stack payment system, its market cap and valuation should align more closely with card networks—charging fees based on transaction volume (bps), not profiting from float spreads.

Imagining a $50 Billion Circle

Currently, Circle's revenue run rate is approximately $2.8 billion, with a market cap of about $18 billion, giving it a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of only 6.7x. This is far below payment networks (14x) and high-growth fintech companies like HOOD (17x).

Its multiple is almost identical to Coinbase's—which the market primarily views as a crypto exchange.

The market prices Circle as a business correlated with the crypto cycle and sensitive to interest rates. But Circle will outperform both of these labels and those fragile revenue sources, earning a higher multiple—10x is conservative and reasonable.

If our judgment is correct, and liquidity and network effects are indeed solid moats, then under a scenario where stablecoin supply reaches 1 trillion dollars by 2030, USDC holds a 20% share, and interest rates are at 2%, CRCL could generate approximately $4 billion in interest income.

Regarding revenue diversification, Circle is already seeing results from key growth products like the Circle Payments Network. Despite ongoing pressure on crypto prices and flat stablecoin supply, transaction volume on the Circle Payments Network is exploding—latest disclosure as of end-July 2026 shows an annualized scale of $23 billion, a 6.8x year-over-year increase (albeit from a small base) and a 70% quarter-over-quarter growth. If growth maintains a 60%–65% CAGR, transaction volume could approach $200 billion by 2030; at a 20 basis point take rate, this would contribute an additional $400 million in revenue.

Looking at the Arc blockchain: if it can achieve the scale of another stablecoin-focused chain like Tron, Arc could generate around $500 million in fee revenue.

The above calculations push CRCL's revenue to roughly $5 billion, with 20% coming from rapidly growing payment/settlement-related business lines. Investors can fully understand and assign a higher multiple to such a mix. Combining revenue growth and multiple expansion, we get $5 billion × 10 = $50 billion. A $50 billion CRCL is not far-fetched.

Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what is the primary reason the market undervalues Circle, and how does the author counter this perception?

AThe market undervalues Circle because it views it as a mere stablecoin issuer whose revenue is tied to interest rates, giving it a discounted valuation. The author counters this by arguing that Circle is actually building a full-stack monetary platform for the internet's future, positioning it as a technology company with a more sustainable and diversified revenue model akin to a payment network.

QWhat key event led to a significant drop in Circle's stock price, and what does this market reaction signify according to the analysis?

ACircle's stock price dropped 17% following the announcement of the Open Standard Alliance (OUSD), backed by over 140 companies. This market reaction signifies that investors perceived OUSD as a serious threat capable of disrupting the Circle/Tether duopoly by redistributing stablecoin revenue among its members, pushing CRCL to near its historical lows.

QThe article presents two main structural advantages for incumbent stablecoins like Circle's USDC. What are they?

AThe two main structural advantages are network effects and liquidity. The article argues that these create a winner-takes-most dynamic, making it extremely difficult for new entrants to compete because building cross-chain, cross-application, and cross-exchange liquidity from scratch is a formidable barrier.

QBased on the author's 2030 projections, what are the three main sources of Circle's potential $5 billion revenue?

AThe three main sources are: 1) Approximately $4 billion in interest income from USDC (assuming a 1 trillion stablecoin market, 20% USDC share, and 2% interest rate). 2) Around $4 billion in revenue from the Circle Payments Network (projecting ~$2 trillion in transaction volume with a 20 bps take rate). 3) Approximately $5 billion in fee revenue from the Arc blockchain (if it scales to the size of the Tron network).

QWhat does the author point out about the recent relationship between stablecoin supply and cryptocurrency prices to support the growth thesis?

AThe author points out that stablecoin supply has decoupled from cryptocurrency prices for the first time. While crypto asset prices fell 50-70% from their highs, stablecoin supply remained steady. This indicates stablecoins have become an independent asset class, and if the supply continues its growth rate of the past three years, it is projected to surpass $1 trillion by 2030.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Is RWA Still Meaningful Without DeFi?

The article "Would RWA Still Matter Without DeFi?" argues that tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) alone, like putting a barcode on a container, is not transformative. True value emerges when these tokenized assets are integrated into decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems, enabling valuation, financing, hedging, trading, and loss management in a programmable, automated manner. Tokenization provides digital representation, but DeFi provides utility through leverage, liquidity, and composability. The core challenge lies in aligning the different "time clocks" of blockchain (fast, 24/7), traditional markets (limited hours), and asset redemption (slow processes), which creates liquidation risks and gaps. Effective RWA integration requires more than a token; it needs a full stack: legally enforceable rights, reliable data oracles, clear transfer rules, executable secondary liquidity, appropriate collateral parameters, and credible loss resolution paths. Liquidity is defined not by total value locked (TVL) but by the ability to exit a position under stress within a required timeframe. Risk management for RWAs must be modeled as a dependency graph, monitoring interconnected nodes like issuers, custodians, oracles, and liquidity pools for early warning signs beyond just price data. While tokenized government bonds serve as an initial "ping test," the future lies in more complex assets like computing power and energy, which require bespoke risk models. Tokenized stocks paired with perpetual futures present a major test, combining global equity ownership with crypto-native leverage, necessitating robust architectural safeguards like isolation and dynamic collateral rules. The conclusion is that without DeFi, RWA tokenization offers limited value—improving distribution and transparency. The significant opportunity arises when tokenized assets become functional components within open, programmable capital markets, where they can be used as collateral and facilitate complex financial strategies. The token is merely the barcode; the market operating system is the real machine.

marsbitHace 9 min(s)

marsbitHace 9 min(s)

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Treasury unexpectedly announced it would at least double the size of its long-term Treasury buyback operations, starting September 9. The move triggered an immediate market reaction, with the 30-year yield falling 9 basis points. This intervention came against a backdrop of the 30-year yield hitting a 19-year high of 5.34% the previous day, driven by persistent inflation, high oil prices, deteriorating U.S. fiscal health with public debt surpassing $40 trillion, and a global "buyers' strike" for long-dated bonds. Treasury buybacks involve the government repurchasing older, less liquid bonds from the market via reverse auctions to improve market functioning, not to reduce overall debt. While the action provided tactical relief and signaled the Treasury's willingness to intervene, analysts caution it does not address core structural issues: massive fiscal deficits, high borrowing needs, and fading demand from traditional buyers like foreign central banks. For investors, the announcement offered short-term support for long-duration bond ETFs and boosted assets like gold, which rose 2.7%. However, it's unlikely to significantly lower mortgage rates or alter the challenging environment for long-term bonds. The key takeaway is the distinction between a tactical market operation and the unresolved structural pressures that continue to push yields higher, requiring close monitoring of upcoming economic data, Treasury auctions, and potential signals of more aggressive policy measures.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

Following an unscheduled announcement from the U.S. Treasury Department on August 19th, investor discussions have intensified regarding the potential for future policy interventions in long-term bond markets. The Treasury increased the maximum size of its regular buyback operations for 10-to-30 year bonds from $2 billion to $4 billion, citing a desire to improve liquidity. This move came shortly after a surge in long-term yields, with the 30-year Treasury yield briefly touching 5.34%. Market analysts, rather than focusing on the modest operational size, have interpreted the timing—outside the normal quarterly communication window—as a significant signal. The move has been dubbed the "Bessent Put," implying the market's growing expectation that Treasury officials, led by Deputy Secretary Josh Bessent, may act to prevent a disorderly rise in long-term borrowing costs. This perception represents a potential shift in the market's view of the government's "policy reaction function." The underlying pressures on long-term bonds are multifaceted, including large fiscal deficits, increased Treasury supply, a rise in corporate debt issuance for AI infrastructure (creating a "crowding out" effect), and uncertainty around foreign holdings, particularly from Japan. Geopolitical risks in the Middle East further complicate the policy landscape, potentially creating conflicting pressures between fighting inflation and managing financing costs. However, the article clarifies that this Treasury buyback program is distinct from Quantitative Easing (QE). It is a debt management operation, not a Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion. While the announcement opens the door for market speculation about more forceful tools like Yield Curve Control (YCC) or a return to QE, analysts note that conditions would need to deteriorate significantly for such measures to be implemented. For now, the "Bessent Put" reflects a change in market expectations about possible policy boundaries, not an imminent launch of new monetary stimulus.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

"Is Stablecoin Truly Necessary for Cross-Border Payments? While stablecoins are often praised as superior for cross-border transfers—especially if the recipient desires crypto—their advantage is less clear in traditional cross-currency scenarios (e.g., USD to Mexican Peso). The existing correspondent banking system is slow and costly (≈15% fees) due to multiple intermediaries. Modern fintech solutions like Wise have dramatically improved this by using a netting model: they hold local currency pools and settle payments domestically, avoiding actual cross-border fund movement. This offers near-instant transfers with low, transparent fees (averaging ~0.52%). The 'stablecoin sandwich' model (convert fiat to stablecoin, transfer on-chain, convert to local fiat) offers similar user experience but doesn't inherently provide major cost or speed advantages over fintech. Its on-chain transfer is cheap, but fiat conversion spreads remain. Stablecoin's real innovation is 'unbundling' the cross-border payment stack. Instead of requiring a proprietary global network like Wise, businesses only need reliable on- and off-ramps in specific corridors. This lowers market entry barriers, fosters competition among local providers, and can drive down costs, particularly for niche or underserved corridors (e.g., US to Africa). While vertical integration may reoccur, the open, permissionless nature of the underlying blockchain layer makes monopolistic pricing difficult. The long-term benefit is the potential redistribution of value—previously captured as intermediary rents—to consumers through lower costs."

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

Ethereum has surged above $2,300, a level not seen in over three months, marking a significant recovery and technical breakthrough by reclaiming key resistance levels, including the weekly EMA50 for the first time in the current bear market. The rally has been fueled by a combination of factors: improved market risk appetite, positive regulatory sentiment, and a major short squeeze where over 88% of recent ETH liquidations were short positions. The ETH/BTC ratio has also broken its long-term downtrend, indicating renewed strength for Ethereum relative to Bitcoin. Fundamentally, Ethereum spot ETFs have shown strong inflows, outperforming their Bitcoin counterparts in recent months. Wall Street institutions like Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have notably increased their ETH exposure, while several banks have added or expanded positions in ETH ETFs. On-chain fundamentals remain robust, with the proportion of staked ETH reaching a new all-time high of nearly 33.7%. Data indicates long-term holding sentiment, as small wallet holdings increased while large outflows were often directed towards staking or contracts, not selling. However, potential headwinds include declining staking yields and community debate over proposals to adjust staking rewards at high participation levels. The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade, featuring improvements to validator exit efficiency, could enhance liquidity and further attract institutional stakers. While the rebound is supported by sentiment, capital flows, and fundamentals, its sustainability hinges on continued positive developments.

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

Trading

Spot