a16z: The Real Opportunity for Stablecoins Lies Not in Disruption but in Filling the Gaps

marsbitPubblicato 2026-03-06Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-06

Introduzione

The article argues that the true opportunity for stablecoins lies not in displacing traditional card networks like Visa and Mastercard, but in serving new types of merchants that cannot access conventional payment systems. While some in the crypto community believe AI agents will bypass card networks to avoid fees, the author contends cards will dominate most transactions due to their consumer protections (e.g., chargebacks), fraud detection, rewards, and existing infrastructure. Card networks are already adapting to new use cases like AI-driven commerce. The real stablecoin opportunity exists in the emerging wave of AI-native developers and micro-businesses. These entities—often without legal structure, websites, or traditional banking—are creating tools and generating revenue but are unable to meet the risk and compliance requirements of traditional payment processors. For them, stablecoins are currently the only viable way to receive payments, filling a critical gap until traditional systems adapt. Thus, stablecoins serve not as a replacement for cards, but as essential infrastructure for the next generation of merchants that existing systems cannot yet underwrite.

A few weeks ago, an article published by Citrini Research claimed that stablecoins would bypass Visa and Mastercard, directly causing a sharp drop in the stock prices of card networks. The crypto community cheered.

This logic sounds clear: AI agents will optimize every transaction, processing fees are a form of 'tax,' and stablecoins can bypass it.

I spend all day in the crypto space, and I wish this narrative were true, but most of it is wrong.

It's not that stablecoins aren't important, but because the real opportunity isn't about replacing card payments; it's about serving merchants who struggle to access traditional card payment systems.

Card Networks Will Capture the Vast Majority of the Market

Citrini's argument is based on an assumption: AI agents, free from human habits, will proactively optimize away card network fees.

But card payments are more than just transfer tools. They offer unsecured credit, pre-authorize uncertain transactions, and provide fraud protection through chargeback rights.

Stablecoins can transfer value, but they can't do the rest.

Imagine your AI agent books a hotel for you, but it turns out to be nothing like the pictures.

With a card, you can dispute the charge and get your money back.

With a stablecoin, once the money is sent, it's gone.

82% of Americans hold rewards credit cards (referring to credit card perks like cashback, points, airline miles, hotel points, etc.), and there are over 18 billion cards in circulation globally.

For the vast majority of transactions, consumers won't voluntarily give up consumer protections and rewards to choose a payment method that offers neither benefits nor reversibility.

Fraud detection is another huge advantage of card networks: they can run models on billions of transactions in real-time.

Stablecoins currently lack a network-level anti-fraud layer that can compare.

Micropayments are often cited as a weakness of card payments, but card networks have long adapted to handle such mismatched transactions.

Visa, for example, processes over 2 billion transit ticketing transactions by aggregating multiple taps into a daily settlement.

The card industry has never abandoned any type of transaction; it always invents new products to cover them.

Another质疑 is: "But agents can't hold cards."

But agents are essentially just new devices.

Your phone, watch, and computer all hold independent tokens pointing to the same card, just like Apple Pay.

Your phone never did KYC; it just holds your token. Agents will be the same.

Visa has issued over 16 billion tokens. Agents will use these tokens.

Visa's Smart Commerce framework is in pilot, and Mastercard's Agent Pay is already live for all US cardholders.

The agent commerce protocol built by Stripe and OpenAI is already integrated with Etsy, with over a million Shopify merchants coming soon.

The conclusion is clear:

For existing merchants and consumers, card payments are almost certain to dominate agent commerce.

The opportunity for stablecoins lies elsewhere—with the merchants that haven't emerged yet.

Those Merchants That Haven't Emerged Yet

Every platform shift催生s a wave of merchants that existing payment systems cannot serve.

When eBay emerged, individual sellers couldn't get merchant accounts; PayPal served them.

Shopify grew from 42,000 merchants to 5.5 million in 13 years.

When Stripe was founded, many of its clients hadn't even been born yet.

The pattern has always been consistent: the winners serve merchants that incumbents cannot underwrite.

The AI wave will催生 such merchants faster than any previous platform shift.

Last year alone, 36 million new developers joined GitHub.

In the YC Winter 2025 batch, a quarter of the companies had codebases with over 95% AI-written code.

On the popular AI coding platform Bolt.new, 67% of its 5 million users aren't developers at all.

People who couldn't write production-level code two years ago are now shipping software.

They are both buyers of developer services and, simultaneously, sellers.

Imagine this:

An average developer uses AI tools to spend 4 hours building a tool that displays financial data for public companies. No website, no terms of service, no legal entity.

Another developer's agent calls it 40,000 times a week, at $0.001 per call, generating $40 in revenue. No one ever clicks a checkout page.

I see developers building tools like this every week.

Their first question is always: How do I get paid?

For most, the answer is: Right now, you can't.

Existing payment providers struggle to onboard these merchants.

It's not a technical problem; it's that payment providers, once they onboard a merchant, assume their risk.

If the merchant commits fraud or generates a lot of chargebacks, the payment provider is on the hook.

A tool with no website, no entity, and no record has almost no chance of passing risk review.

The system is working as designed; it just wasn't designed for this.

Payment providers could adapt, and they have before.

But it took PayPal 16 years from launch to the industry's first underwriting guidelines for payment service providers.

And these new merchants need to get paid now.

For them, accepting stablecoins is like a street vendor only taking cash.

It's not that cash is better, but this type of merchant has historically struggled to get approved for card acceptance.

In this gap, stablecoins are currently the only viable option.

Even with rough wallet experiences and regulatory frameworks still forming, protocols like x402 can already embed stablecoin payments directly into HTTP requests:

No merchant account needed, no processor, no onboarding, no chargeback liability.

These merchants aren't choosing between stablecoins and card payments.

They are choosing between stablecoins and not getting paid at all.

New Commerce Will Be Born Here

Every wave of new merchants eventually gets absorbed by traditional payment systems, and this time will likely be no different.

But the sequence is always: merchants emerge first, risk management follows.

In the gap between these two periods, stablecoins are the infrastructure.

· Card payments serve all merchants that payment providers can underwrite;

· Stablecoins serve all merchants that payment providers cannot underwrite.

The next wave of commerce will be born in this gap.

Domande pertinenti

QAccording to the article, why is the common belief that stablecoins will replace Visa and Mastercard largely incorrect?

AThe article argues that the belief is incorrect because stablecoins can only handle transfers but lack critical features provided by card networks, such as unsecured credit, pre-authorization for uncertain transactions, fraud protection through chargeback rights, and consumer rewards. Card networks also have superior fraud detection capabilities that stablecoins currently cannot match.

QWhat is the real opportunity for stablecoins, as highlighted in the article?

AThe real opportunity for stablecoins lies in serving merchants who cannot access traditional card payments, particularly new types of AI-generated businesses that lack legal entities, websites, or operational history, making them ineligible for approval by conventional payment processors.

QHow do card networks handle microtransactions, which are often seen as a weakness?

ACard networks like Visa have adapted to microtransactions by batching multiple small payments into daily settlements. For example, Visa has processed over 2 billion transit ticketing payments using this method, demonstrating that the industry innovates to cover all types of transactions.

QWhat historical pattern does the article mention regarding platform shifts and payment systems?

AThe article notes that every platform shift催生一波 new merchants that existing payment systems cannot serve. Examples include PayPal serving individual sellers on eBay who couldn't get merchant accounts, Shopify's growth from 42,000 to 5.5 million merchants, and Stripe serving businesses that didn't exist when it was founded.

QWhy are emerging AI-generated businesses currently unable to receive payments through traditional systems?

AThese businesses often lack legal entities, websites, terms of service, or operational history, making them too risky for traditional payment processors to underwrite. Payment processors bear liability for fraud or chargebacks, so they cannot approve such high-risk, unstructured merchants without established safeguards.

Letture associate

OpenAI Post-Training Engineer Weng Jiayi Proposes a New Paradigm Hypothesis for Agentic AI

OpenAI engineer Weng Jiayi's "Heuristic Learning" experiments propose a new paradigm for Agentic AI, suggesting that intelligent agents can improve not just by training neural networks, but also by autonomously writing and refining code based on environmental feedback. In the experiment, a coding agent (powered by Codex) was tasked with developing and maintaining a programmatic strategy for the Atari game Breakout. Starting from a basic prompt, the agent iteratively wrote code, ran the game, analyzed logs and video replays to identify failures, and then modified the code. Through this engineering loop of "code-run-debug-update," it evolved a pure Python heuristic strategy that achieved a perfect score of 864 in Breakout and performed competitively with deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms in MuJoCo control tasks like Ant and HalfCheetah. This approach, termed Heuristic Learning (HL), contrasts with Deep RL. In HL, experience is captured in readable, modifiable code, tests, logs, and configurations—a software system—rather than being encoded solely into opaque neural network weights. This offers potential advantages in explainability, auditability for safety-critical applications, easier integration of regression tests to combat catastrophic forgetting, and more efficient sample use in early learning stages, as demonstrated in broader tests on 57 Atari games. However, the blog acknowledges clear limitations. Programmatic strategies struggle with tasks requiring long-horizon planning or complex perception (e.g., Montezuma's Revenge), areas where neural networks excel. The future vision is a hybrid architecture: specialized neural networks for fast perception (System 1), HL systems for rules, safety, and local recovery (also System 1), and LLM agents providing high-level feedback and learning from the HL system's data (System 2). The core proposition is that in the era of capable coding agents, a significant portion of an AI's learned experience could be maintained as an auditable, evolving software system.

marsbit57 min fa

OpenAI Post-Training Engineer Weng Jiayi Proposes a New Paradigm Hypothesis for Agentic AI

marsbit57 min fa

Your Claude Will Dream Tonight, Don't Disturb It

This article explores the recent phenomenon of AI companies increasingly using anthropomorphic language—like "thinking," "memory," "hallucination," and now "dreaming"—to describe machine learning processes. Focusing on Anthropic's newly announced "Dreaming" feature for its Claude Agent platform, the piece explains that this function is essentially an automated, offline batch processing of an agent's operational logs. It analyzes past task sessions to identify patterns, optimize future actions, and consolidate learnings into a persistent memory system, akin to a form of reinforcement learning and self-correction. The article draws parallels to similar features in other AI agent systems like Hermes Agent and OpenClaw, which also implement mechanisms for reviewing historical data, extracting reusable "skills," and strengthening long-term memory. It notes a key difference from human dreaming: these AI "dreams" still consume computational resources and user tokens. Further context is provided by discussing the technical challenges of managing AI "memory" or context, highlighting the computational expense of large context windows and innovations like Subquadratic's new model claiming drastically longer contexts. The core critique argues that this strategic use of human-centric vocabulary does more than market products; it subtly reshapes user perception. By framing algorithms with terms associated with consciousness, companies blur the line between tool and autonomous entity. This linguistic shift can influence user expectations, tolerance for errors, and even perceptions of responsibility when systems fail, potentially diverting scrutiny from the companies and engineers behind the technology. The article concludes by speculating that terms like "daydreaming" for predictive task simulation might be next, continuing this trend of embedding the idea of an "inner life" into computational processes.

marsbit59 min fa

Your Claude Will Dream Tonight, Don't Disturb It

marsbit59 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片