One-Year Drop of 45.9%: Has the Fall Created a Buying Opportunity in Circle (CRCL)?

Pubblicato 2026-08-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-19

Introduzione

Over the past year, shares of Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL) have cumulatively declined by 45.9%. However, several valuation indicators suggest that the stock is now closer to a reasonable valuation range, rather than an obvious 'bargain' opportunity.

Over the past year, the share price of Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL) has fallen by 45.9%. However, multiple valuation metrics suggest that the stock is now closer to a reasonable valuation range rather than an obvious "bargain" opportunity.

Recent hot news in the cryptocurrency industry and Circle's new product launches continue to attract market attention, but from an overall valuation perspective, investors may still need to remain cautious.

The near-halving of the stock price over the past year has left Circle trading at a significantly lower price than its previous levels. This is a crucial point for investors trying to judge whether market expectations have been fully reset.

On the positive side, Circle's plan to launch the Arc institutional blockchain in collaboration with several major financial institutions could support market expectations for the company's future growth.

On the other hand, the cryptocurrency and stablecoin sectors still face regulatory uncertainty. This could limit the valuation premium investors are willing to pay for Circle's future cash flows.

Circle's Value Score is 2 out of 6, indicating that based on multiple valuation metrics, it is not yet significantly cheap.

The real question now is: Does the current stock price fully reflect the previous sharp decline, as well as the concurrent opportunities and risks in Circle's business model?

Over the past year, Circle's stock return was -45.9%, underperforming its peers.

Is Circle Fairly Valued Based on Profitability?

Since Circle is already profitable and analysts provide earnings forecasts, the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is an important metric for assessing whether its valuation is reasonable.

Circle's current P/E ratio is approximately 42.4x, which is higher than the software industry average of 32.8x but lower than the 51.2x average of comparable companies.

This places Circle's valuation between the two: it commands a certain premium compared to the entire software industry, but it is not particularly expensive relative to comparable companies facing similar growth opportunities and risks.

Calculated based on Circle's own growth, profitability, and risk factors, its fair P/E ratio is approximately 45.1x, only slightly higher than the current 42.4x.

Although the market is focused on the upcoming Arc institutional blockchain and policy uncertainties from the US CLARITY Act, Circle's current valuation already incorporates a significant portion of the growth opportunities and risks, placing it relatively close to its fair P/E.

Overall, investors are indeed paying a price higher than the software industry average for Circle, but considering the company's specific circumstances, this premium has not yet reached an extreme level.

From the P/E ratio perspective alone, Circle is currently roughly within a reasonable valuation range.

NYSE: CRCL P/E Ratio, as of August 2026

What growth story is needed to support the current stock price?

The investment narrative constructed by Simply Wall St for Circle aims to connect the current P/E-based valuation with the business developments the company might achieve in the future.

This analysis outlines the revenue growth, profit margins, and earnings assumptions required to support the valuation, helping investors understand what performance Circle needs to deliver in the future to justify the current stock price or support further price appreciation.

Currently, there is a clear divergence in investor opinion on Circle.

Some investors believe USDC and Arc could offer significant upside potential, while others warn that Circle's recent valuation reassessment may have gone too far.

Bullish View: Circle Could Be Undervalued by 68%

The Arc network is currently in public testnet, with participation from over 100 major financial and technology institutions. Circle is also evaluating the possibility of launching a native Arc token. This gives Circle the opportunity to become the underlying infrastructure for an on-chain monetary system, potentially not only expanding revenue sources beyond reserve interest income but also improving the company's profit margins...

Bulls argue that Circle's value should not stem solely from interest income generated by USDC reserve assets. If Arc can develop into critical infrastructure for institutional use of on-chain funds, Circle could gain new fee, network service, or other revenues and reduce its reliance on a single income source.

Under this scenario, Circle's current stock price might be undervalued by approximately 68%.

Bearish View: Circle Could Be Overvalued by 110%

Fundamentally, Circle's business model monetizes the market's demand for USDC. USDC is a fully reserved digital dollar, with its reserves primarily consisting of cash and short-term U.S. Treasury bonds...

Bears worry that Circle's core revenue remains highly dependent on the interest generated by USDC reserve assets. If market interest rates fall, stablecoin competition intensifies, or regulatory policies change, the company's revenue and profits could face pressure.

Under this more pessimistic scenario, Circle's current stock price might be overvalued by approximately 110%.

Conclusion: A Sharp Fall Does Not Equal Cheapness

From a P/E ratio perspective, Circle's current stock price is already close to what the market considers a reasonable level, largely reflecting the business risks and profitability of its operations in the cryptocurrency space.

However, other valuation metrics remain cautious. Therefore, even with the recent sustained market attention on USDC and Arc, Circle is still difficult to label as a high-conviction undervalued stock at present.

Moving forward, the key focus for investors should be: Can Circle achieve long-term, stable profit growth by relying on its on-chain financial infrastructure business, rather than continuing to depend primarily on interest income from stablecoin reserves?

Only by achieving this could Circle potentially maintain a valuation premium above the entire software industry over the long term.

Letture associate

Same $5 Rate, Bill Differs by 30%, OpenAI Exec: Token Pricing Is Never Directly Comparable

Here is a summary of the article in English: **Title: Priced at $5, Bills Vary by 30%. OpenAI Executive: Token Prices Are Not Directly Comparable** A key takeaway from OpenAI's Codex lead, Tibo, is that a "token" is not a standardized unit for comparing AI model costs, akin to grams or kilowatt-hours. He uses an analogy: two identical pizzas priced per slice can yield different total costs depending on how they're cut. Similarly, different models use different "tokenizers" to segment text, meaning the same input text can produce vastly different token counts. For instance, the same text was tokenized as 766 tokens by GPT-5.6 Sol and 1170 tokens by Claude Opus 5—a 34.5% difference—despite both models advertising the same input price of $5 per million tokens. This discrepancy arises because each company trains its own tokenizer based on its training data, affecting how common or rare word combinations are split. The problem isn't cross-vendor only. Even Anthropic warns that its newer models (Claude 4.7+) use a different tokenizer, producing roughly 30% more tokens for the same text than earlier versions, so cost estimates shouldn't be reused across model generations. Bill differences stem from four main factors: 1) Tokenizer efficiency (input token count), 2) Caching (e.g., GPT-5.6 Sol offers a much lower cache input rate), 3) Output pricing (which can outweigh input savings in agent workflows), and 4) Context length pricing tiers (e.g., GPT-5.6 Sol charges double the input rate for entire requests exceeding 272K tokens). Tibo also addressed user reports of GPT-5.6 Sol's context window being limited in practice, sharing configuration code to manually expand it to 1 million tokens. However, he cautioned that larger windows increase the risk of hitting higher pricing tiers as longer session histories are processed repeatedly. The article concludes that the true metric should shift from "price per million tokens" to "price per successful outcome." The most accurate way to compare costs is to run identical real-world tasks (with the same prompts, tools, and data) through different models, accounting for all variables like tokenization, caching, output length, and context pricing. Ultimately, what matters is the total cost to complete a specific job, not the nominal token price.

marsbit9 min fa

Same $5 Rate, Bill Differs by 30%, OpenAI Exec: Token Pricing Is Never Directly Comparable

marsbit9 min fa

Are Big VC Funds Monopolizing the Seed Round, Leaving Small VCs with No Choice but to Give Up?

**Title: Are Big VCs Monopolizing Seed Rounds? Is Giving Up the Only Path for Small VCs?** In a frank and critical commentary, the author argues that the venture capital landscape has shifted dramatically: large, multi-stage funds are aggressively moving into seed-stage investing, leveraging their brand recognition, massive capital, and resources to dominate deals. They outcompete smaller, specialized funds for stakes in even the earliest startups, as founders increasingly prefer established names. The piece asserts that success in VC now hinges almost entirely on securing a position in the handful of globally transformative companies each year (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic). For funds that miss these "winner-takes-most" opportunities, relevance fades. The author sarcastically suggests small fund managers should advise their portfolio companies to seek acquisition by such giants and then invest via SPVs, or abandon early-stage investing altogether to chase less ambiguous growth rounds. Further, the author claims the "best" founders—those from elite backgrounds—command premium valuations and align with top-tier funds, leaving little room for others. The relentless focus on AI is presented as another pressure point; not dedicating a fund entirely to AI is deemed a path to irrelevance, akin to missing prior cycles like SaaS or crypto. Ultimately, the letter delivers a cynical conclusion: with capital and power concentrating, true differentiation is nearly impossible. It suggests that for many small VCs, surrendering to this new reality—rather than evolving, competing, or trying something different—might be the most rational, if grim, course of action. The piece serves as a stark warning about capital concentration and the existential challenges facing smaller investment firms.

marsbit10 min fa

Are Big VC Funds Monopolizing the Seed Round, Leaving Small VCs with No Choice but to Give Up?

marsbit10 min fa

Bank of Russia: 12 Largest Banks to Connect Digital Ruble from September 1, 2026

The Central Bank of Russia (CBR) announced that all 12 of the country's systemically important banks will be ready to offer clients digital ruble accounts and transactions starting September 1, 2026. According to Alla Bakina, director of the CBR's national payment system department, these banks cover over 80% of the domestic payment market. The digital ruble is described as a new form of the existing currency, functioning as a cashless payment method but held directly in a user's wallet on the CBR platform. Nine other banks designated as significant payment market participants are also expected to provide access, with most aiming to complete integration by autumn 2026. Starting from the September launch date, major retail chains with annual revenue exceeding 120 million rubles will be required to accept digital ruble payments, though adoption for citizens remains voluntary. The rollout follows a delayed pilot phase, with mass implementation postponed from 2025. The CBR's model currently offers basic account functionality without interest accrual, unlike China's digital yuan, which began paying interest in early 2026. The announcement positions Russia among dozens of countries testing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), though the digital ruble's potential role in cross-border settlements, particularly within BRICS, remains an open question for its future international relevance.

cryptonews.ru15 min fa

Bank of Russia: 12 Largest Banks to Connect Digital Ruble from September 1, 2026

cryptonews.ru15 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片