Is OUSD's 'List of Over a Hundred Companies' Actually Just an 'Expression of Interest'? Name-Borrowing Marketing Sparks Trust Crisis

marsbitPublicado em 2026-07-06Última atualização em 2026-07-06

Resumo

A new stablecoin, Open USD (OUSD), was announced by Open Standard on June 30th, promising fee-free minting/redemption, shared reserve yield, and multi-party governance. Its launch was accompanied by a list of over 140 purported partners, including major names like Western Union, Ripple, and MetaMask, causing a significant drop in competitor Circle's stock price. However, the announcement quickly faced backlash. Several listed companies, including Samsung Electronics and South Korean financial firms, stated they had never formally agreed to participate, with some claiming they were merely contacted for exploratory discussions. Critics, including Circle's CEO, Jeremy Allaire,质疑了 OUSD's business model sustainability and governance, calling the partner list misleading "legitimacy-borrowing" for marketing. Despite the controversy, some firms like Stripe and Coinbase confirmed support and integration plans. The incident has sparked a trust crisis for OUSD before its official launch, highlighting the challenges of entering the established stablecoin market.

Original Author: Eric, Foresight News

On the evening of June 30th, Beijing Time, the emergence of a new stablecoin once again stirred the stablecoin landscape.

A company named Open Standard announced it would launch the stablecoin Open USD. Features like free minting and redemption, shared revenue from reserve assets, and co-governance by partners directly address pain points in stablecoin distribution, making it seem very attractive.

What most surprised the market was that Open Standard had already "secured" over 140 partners before the stablecoin's launch.

The list included major companies that have already issued stablecoins, such as Western Union, Ripple, MetaMask, Aave, and others. The fact that it could gather signatures from so many giants in both Web3 and traditional finance before launch amazed the market and filled it with high expectations for Open USD's future. The most telling manifestation of this expectation was that Circle, the leading stablecoin company, saw its stock price plunge 17.55% that day, hovering just under 20% above a new low.

However, this explosive announcement was quickly debunked.

On July 3rd, according to a report by The Chosun Ilbo, companies including Samsung Electronics, Dunamu (parent company of Upbit), Shinhan Financial Group, and K Bank stated they had never held negotiations regarding Open USD (OUSD). A Samsung Electronics representative said, "There has been no formal negotiation, and we don't know what role (we are supposed to play) in the alliance." Shinhan Financial Holdings, Dunamu, and K Bank also said that Open Standard had inquired about their willingness to participate in OUSD, and they merely stated they "would consider it briefly," yet their names were listed as alliance members.

Tony Chung, BD Head at the Korean Web3 media Blockmedia, further stated that a representative from one of the Korean companies said they learned about being included on the list from Korean media reports and were "very perplexed" because they had only casually replied, "If feasible, we will consider it."

OpenAssets founder and CEO Gabor Gurbacs reposted Tony Chung's tweet, adding that it wasn't just Korean companies being misled. After contacting some OpenAssets clients on the list, Gabor Gurbacs received responses stating: "They indicated they never signed or agreed to any deals. Either the media severely misrepresented the facts, or the participant list is misleading."

It appears that Open Standard's "list of over a hundred companies" may have included some firms that were merely contacted. In the original announcement, Open Standard stated: "Businesses across industries have signed up to use Open USD." Perhaps in Open Standard's view, not explicitly refusing equals "agreeing" to use Open USD. But agreeing to use doesn't necessarily mean "committing to using" it.

This is a very typical marketing tactic of trading controversy for attention, which indeed produced some effect, albeit one that seems to trample business ethics underfoot.

Faced with such fierce competition and a "dishonorable" opponent, Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire published a lengthy post on X questioning the "three key features" of Open USD:

Free minting and burning: Attractive in the short term, but likely unsustainable at scale, potentially leading to insufficient funds to maintain banking relationships, regulatory licenses, and tech infrastructure. Circle already offers preferential terms via contracts for large partners, not blanket free services.

Sharing nearly all revenue with partners: Could "starve" the infrastructure, leading to systemic underinvestment and limiting platform scale. Circle already shares most revenue with distribution partners.

Alliance / multi-company governance: Circle previously co-founded the Centre Consortium with Coinbase, which was later integrated for Circle's solo issuance. He stated the historical track record for scaling multi-company products is "very poor" (slow coordination, difficult decision-making).

Jeremy expressed a welcoming attitude towards OUSD joining the "stablecoin family," but his writing between the lines conveyed one viewpoint: stablecoin is a business where a winner-takes-all situation forms over time through accumulation; simply tweaking a few mechanisms isn't enough to "get a seat at the table."

Despite these negative controversies, some companies on the list have explicitly stated they will support Open USD's development. Stripe said it will set OUSD as the default stablecoin for businesses using stablecoins on Stripe; Coinbase also stated it will integrate OUSD into Base and other chains, planning to launch in late 2026 for expanding on-chain transactions, payments, and DeFi scenarios.

Payment network giants like Visa, Mastercard, financial institutions like BlackRock, BNY Mellon, and crypto-native projects like Aave, Solana, Ripple have also expressed support, but have not clarified specific cooperation methods yet.

According to the announcement, the founding CEO of Open Standard is the CEO of Bridge. This Bridge is the fiat on-ramp/off-ramp solution provider that had previously cooperated with multiple contenders in the battle for the issuance rights of Hyperliquid's native stablecoin USDH, but whose acquisition by Stripe, which is developing the stablecoin chain Tempo, sparked controversy. Stripe was also among the first to clarify its partnership after Open Standard's announcement, indicating a relatively close connection between the two.

A user named Bojan on X stated that Open Standard's promotion is a typical "legitimacy-borrowing" behavior—quickly enhancing its own legitimacy and credibility by borrowing the reputation or endorsement of other well-known, reliable entities, without actually having obtained their deep recognition or formal authorization. For the stablecoin track, which requires trust as its foundation, OUSD seems to have left a somewhat negative first impression even before its debut.

On the evening of June 30th, Beijing Time, the emergence of a new stablecoin once again stirred the stablecoin landscape.

A company named Open Standard announced it would launch the stablecoin Open USD. Features like free minting and redemption, shared revenue from reserve assets, and co-governance by partners directly address pain points in stablecoin distribution, making it seem very attractive.

What most surprised the market was that Open Standard had already "secured" over 140 partners before the stablecoin's launch.

The list included major companies that have already issued stablecoins, such as Western Union, Ripple, MetaMask, Aave, and others. The fact that it could gather signatures from so many giants in both Web3 and traditional finance before launch amazed the market and filled it with high expectations for Open USD's future. The most telling manifestation of this expectation was that Circle, the leading stablecoin company, saw its stock price plunge 17.55% that day, hovering just under 20% above a new low.

However, this explosive announcement was quickly debunked.

On July 3rd, according to a report by The Chosun Ilbo, companies including Samsung Electronics, Dunamu (parent company of Upbit), Shinhan Financial Group, and K Bank stated they had never held negotiations regarding Open USD (OUSD). A Samsung Electronics representative said, "There has been no formal negotiation, and we don't know what role (we are supposed to play) in the alliance." Shinhan Financial Holdings, Dunamu, and K Bank also said that Open Standard had inquired about their willingness to participate in OUSD, and they merely stated they "would consider it briefly," yet their names were listed as alliance members.

Tony Chung, BD Head at the Korean Web3 media Blockmedia, further stated that a representative from one of the Korean companies said they learned about being included on the list from Korean media reports and were "very perplexed" because they had only casually replied, "If feasible, we will consider it."

OpenAssets founder and CEO Gabor Gurbacs reposted Tony Chung's tweet, adding that it wasn't just Korean companies being misled. After contacting some OpenAssets clients on the list, Gabor Gurbacs received responses stating: "They indicated they never signed or agreed to any deals. Either the media severely misrepresented the facts, or the participant list is misleading."

It appears that Open Standard's "list of over a hundred companies" may have included some firms that were merely contacted. In the original announcement, Open Standard stated: "Businesses across industries have signed up to use Open USD." Perhaps in Open Standard's view, not explicitly refusing equals "agreeing" to use Open USD. But agreeing to use doesn't necessarily mean "committing to using" it.

This is a very typical marketing tactic of trading controversy for attention, which indeed produced some effect, albeit one that seems to trample business ethics underfoot.

Faced with such fierce competition and a "dishonorable" opponent, Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire published a lengthy post on X questioning the "three key features" of Open USD:

Free minting and burning: Attractive in the short term, but likely unsustainable at scale, potentially leading to insufficient funds to maintain banking relationships, regulatory licenses, and tech infrastructure. Circle already offers preferential terms via contracts for large partners, not blanket free services.

Sharing nearly all revenue with partners: Could "starve" the infrastructure, leading to systemic underinvestment and limiting platform scale. Circle already shares most revenue with distribution partners.

Alliance / multi-company governance: Circle previously co-founded the Centre Consortium with Coinbase, which was later integrated for Circle's solo issuance. He stated the historical track record for scaling multi-company products is "very poor" (slow coordination, difficult decision-making).

Jeremy expressed a welcoming attitude towards OUSD joining the "stablecoin family," but his writing between the lines conveyed one viewpoint: stablecoin is a business where a winner-takes-all situation forms over time through accumulation; simply tweaking a few mechanisms isn't enough to "get a seat at the table."

Despite these negative controversies, some companies on the list have explicitly stated they will support Open USD's development. Stripe said it will set OUSD as the default stablecoin for businesses using stablecoins on Stripe; Coinbase also stated it will integrate OUSD into Base and other chains, planning to launch in late 2026 for expanding on-chain transactions, payments, and DeFi scenarios.

Payment network giants like Visa, Mastercard, financial institutions like BlackRock, BNY Mellon, and crypto-native projects like Aave, Solana, Ripple have also expressed support, but have not clarified specific cooperation methods yet.

According to the announcement, the founding CEO of Open Standard is the CEO of Bridge. This Bridge is the fiat on-ramp/off-ramp solution provider that had previously cooperated with multiple contenders in the battle for the issuance rights of Hyperliquid's native stablecoin USDH, but whose acquisition by Stripe, which is developing the stablecoin chain Tempo, sparked controversy. Stripe was also among the first to clarify its partnership after Open Standard's announcement, indicating a relatively close connection between the two.

A user named Bojan on X stated that Open Standard's promotion is a typical "legitimacy-borrowing" behavior—quickly enhancing its own legitimacy and credibility by borrowing the reputation or endorsement of other well-known, reliable entities, without actually having obtained their deep recognition or formal authorization. For the stablecoin track, which requires trust as its foundation, OUSD seems to have left a somewhat negative first impression even before its debut.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the main controversy surrounding the launch announcement of Open USD (OUSD)?

AThe main controversy was that Open Standard's announcement claimed over 140 partner companies had 'signed up' for OUSD. However, several high-profile companies like Samsung Electronics, Dunamu, Shinhan Financial Group, and K Bank later stated they had not engaged in formal negotiations or agreed to participate, and some were only approached informally or had given non-committal responses. This was seen as a misleading marketing tactic that borrowed legitimacy from these firms.

QWhat were Jeremy Allaire's (Circle CEO) main criticisms of OUSD's proposed features?

AJeremy Allaire criticized three main features of OUSD: 1) Free minting and burning: unsustainable at scale, potentially starving the project of funds for vital infrastructure. 2) Sharing nearly all revenue with partners: could lead to underinvestment in the core platform. 3) Multi-company governance: argued that such consortium models have a poor track record for scaling due to slow coordination and difficult decision-making.

QWhich companies have explicitly confirmed support for Open USD (OUSD)?

AStripe confirmed it would set OUSD as the default stablecoin for businesses using its platform. Coinbase stated it would integrate OUSD into Base and other chains in late 2026. Other companies like Visa, Mastercard, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Aave, Solana, and Ripple have expressed general support, but without specifying concrete cooperation methods at the time of the article.

QWhat does the term 'legitimacy-borrowing' refer to in the context of this article?

AIn this context, 'legitimacy-borrowing' refers to Open Standard's marketing strategy of listing numerous well-known companies as partners to quickly boost its own perceived credibility and legitimacy. The article suggests the company did this without securing deep, formal authorization from many of these entities, thereby borrowing their reputable status for its own promotional gain.

QWhat was the market reaction to the initial announcement of Open USD?

AThe initial announcement caused significant market excitement and had a negative impact on Circle's stock price. On the day of the announcement, the stock price of Circle (a major stablecoin issuer) dropped by 17.55%, bringing it close to a new low, reflecting investor concerns about new competition.

Leituras Relacionadas

Ethereum Sheds Its Load? What Ethereum Supporters Think About the Lean Ethereum Upgrade and the Future Market

Ethereum is back in focus with the announcement of the "Lean Ethereum" upgrade roadmap, described by Vitalik Buterin as Ethereum's third major update. This proposal aims to fundamentally redesign the consensus, data, and execution layers from first principles, striving to make Ethereum **simpler, more secure (quantum-resistant), more verifiable, and more scalable.** The announcement comes amidst a broader restructuring within the ecosystem, including a 20% staff reduction at the Ethereum Foundation and the emergence of new organizations like EthLabs. This has sparked a debate among Ethereum supporters ("E-bizens"). **Optimists** view Lean Ethereum as a critical refocusing on core protocol fundamentals: * **sassal.eth** calls it the ultimate bullish catalyst, envisioning a future where running a node is so lightweight it could be done on a smartwatch, greatly enhancing decentralization. * **Ryan Sean Adams** sees it as Ethereum moving from "narrative expansion" to "protocol hardening," addressing long-term foundational issues like security and scalability. * Analysts like **BITWU** and **蓝狐 (Blue Fox)** frame it as a third-phase evolution towards a "minimal, durable, and credible base layer" designed for the next decade. * **gigi发财猪** interprets the organizational changes as Ethereum "shedding old baggage and forming new teams" for a lighter, more agile approach. * **Xiyu** notes that the roadmap itself provides a much-needed new narrative for market sentiment recovery. **Cautious voices** acknowledge the vision but emphasize execution and market timing: * **Ignas** warns that while the roadmap addresses key community requests, it overlooks tokenomics, and competitors are gaining ground in areas like RWA. Timely delivery is crucial; delays could be bearish. * **Dankrad Feist**, a former Ethereum Foundation researcher, agrees on direction but criticizes the proposed 3-4 year timeline as too slow for the current market pace, especially with AI-aided development available. **In summary,** optimists believe Lean Ethereum reaffirms Ethereum's long-term value proposition as a decentralized world computer, while the cautious argue that its success hinges on faster delivery and tangible results to maintain market relevance. Despite ongoing criticism, the move signals Ethereum's effort to regroup and reclaim initiative at the protocol level.

marsbitHá 17m

Ethereum Sheds Its Load? What Ethereum Supporters Think About the Lean Ethereum Upgrade and the Future Market

marsbitHá 17m

AI Folding: Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Are Becoming the Privilege of a Few

【AI Accessibility Gap Widens: Elite Tools Like Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Are Becoming Privileged】 We are witnessing a growing "AI divide." A stark reality is emerging: a tiny fraction of elites, primarily in tech, are using powerful next-generation models like Fable 5 or the upcoming GPT-5.6, while the vast majority of the public only has access to "toys" - free, limited models equivalent to ChatGPT's basic versions (8B to 30B parameters). This creates a massive experiential chasm and cognitive dissonance. Industry outsiders see AI as overhyped and ineffective, unable to grasp its transformative potential, while insiders leverage these advanced models for a decisive competitive edge. The gap isn't just about model quality but product functionality. Free users get a simple chatbot. Paying elites get integrated workflow systems—capable of creating specialized agents, processing complex data, and handling real-world tasks like management, coding, and planning. Demos showcasing AI planning weddings or building apps feel disconnected from everyday needs like managing bills, groceries, or health. The cost barrier is immense, with reports of engineers spending $1000 daily on Fable 5 inference. Elite users employ sophisticated multi-model workflows, combining different AIs for ideation, architecture, execution, and review, completing complex projects in minutes instead of weeks. This divide extends to critical areas like healthcare, where free models are dangerously unreliable for medical queries. However, some argue that for 90% of common business tasks, mid-tier models like GPT-5.5 are sufficient; the perceived limitation often stems from poor integration and lack of context, not model intelligence. Ultimately, unequal access to cutting-edge AI is creating a new form of social stratification, where the most powerful tools are becoming the exclusive privilege of a few.

marsbitHá 50m

AI Folding: Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Are Becoming the Privilege of a Few

marsbitHá 50m

Cathie Wood's June $77M Investment: Are Crypto Stocks a True 'Substitute' for Bitcoin?

In June, Cathie Wood's ARK Invest purchased $77 million worth of publicly traded crypto-related stocks, including Coinbase, Circle, and Bullish, during Bitcoin's worst monthly performance in four years. This aligns with the investment thesis that such stocks offer a compliant way to gain exposure to the crypto cycle without directly holding Bitcoin. However, data analysis reveals significant drawbacks. A group of nine U.S.-listed crypto companies showed 30-day annualized realized volatility between 68% and 90%, nearly double Bitcoin's 37.6%. Over 90 days, Circle's volatility reached 103.6% versus Bitcoin's 37.8%. Drawdowns were also more severe for stocks like Circle (-51.4%) and MicroStrategy (-48.6%) compared to Bitcoin's -36.4% from its January high. Correlation analysis shows most stocks share only a moderate link to Bitcoin. For example, Circle, Robinhood, and Bullish have a 90-day correlation coefficient of just 0.55–0.58 with BTC, meaning only about one-third of their price movement is explained by Bitcoin's action. The rest stems from company-specific risks: earnings, competition, fundraising, and equity dilution. MicroStrategy (MSTR) is the notable exception, acting as a leveraged Bitcoin proxy with a beta of 1.59 and 0.85 correlation. Coinbase offers relatively balanced exposure. Circle exemplifies "crypto-wrapped" corporate risk, with its recent crash tied to stablecoin competition, not Bitcoin. Robinhood's diversified business insulates it from crypto downturns but also limits upside. Bitcoin miners like RIOT and MARA have posted significant gains year-to-date, driven primarily by their pivot to AI compute services, not Bitcoin's price. The article highlights that investing in crypto stocks often means accepting amplified volatility or layering on business-specific risks absent from direct Bitcoin ownership. For instance, MicroStrategy's recent challenges—its market value falling below its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV <1) and facing potential Bitcoin sales for liquidity—demonstrate equity-specific hazards like dilution and financing pressures not faced by a direct Bitcoin holder. ARK's buying spree represents a bet on a basket of different business models with varying crypto exposure, not a simple, lower-risk substitute for holding Bitcoin.

marsbitHá 51m

Cathie Wood's June $77M Investment: Are Crypto Stocks a True 'Substitute' for Bitcoin?

marsbitHá 51m

Trading

Spot
活动图片