Circle: Why Do 95% of Stablecoins Ultimately Fail?

marsbit2026-02-03 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-03 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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.

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit42 dk önce

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit42 dk önce

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit46 dk önce

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit46 dk önce

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit52 dk önce

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit52 dk önce

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

**Title: Has Bitcoin's Rebound Ended, Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?** **Summary:** Bitcoin's price has declined by 13% this week, signaling a potential return to late-stage bear market conditions. The price fell to around $67k, positioned between the Realized Price and Realized Cap Weighted Average. For the first time since early 2022, the Short-Term Holder cost basis has dropped below this key average, confirming a hallmark of late-cycle bear markets. Profitability metrics have collapsed sharply. The 7-day average of the Realized Profit/Loss ratio plummeted from a local high of 3.16 to 0.29, mirroring the February panic sell-off. Critically, the 90-day average never breached the threshold of 2, indicating the recent rally to $82k was a bear market bounce, not a structural shift. Realized losses surged to $1.35 billion daily, with $770 million coming from Long-Term Holders selling at a loss. This accelerating redistribution of supply from weak to strong hands is a necessary but ongoing process for a market bottom. The rally stalled almost precisely at the aggregate cost basis (~$83k) of US spot Bitcoin ETF investors, turning that level into strong resistance and leaving the average ETF holder underwater again. Spot market flows have turned decisively negative, showing sellers are dominating order books despite the price drop. While a significant futures long liquidation event cleared over $400 million in leverage, providing a potential reset, sustained spot demand is yet to materialize. Options markets continue to price in higher future volatility (Implied Volatility) than recent price action (Realized Volatility) has shown, with a persistent skew towards put options, indicating ongoing demand for downside protection. In conclusion, multiple metrics point to a fragile market structure. Resistance at the ETF cost basis, accelerating realized losses, dominant spot selling, and cautious options pricing all suggest the bear market trend persists. A sustainable recovery likely requires a resurgence of spot demand, ETF holders returning to profit, and a clear reduction in selling pressure.

marsbit52 dk önce

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

marsbit52 dk önce

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

In today's TechFlow Intelligence Briefing, several major tech stories highlight a growing theme of trust and credibility gaps across AI, crypto, and finance. AI company Anthropic has publicly called for a global pause in AI development, citing risks from Claude's "recursive self-improvement." Ironically, this coincides with reports the company is preparing for a massive IPO targeting a near $1 trillion valuation. This perceived hypocrisy, coupled with widespread user complaints about Claude's declining performance, is sparking debate over whether the safety warning is genuine or a competitive tactic. Meanwhile, in a substantive security move, Anthropic open-sourced a framework for AI-powered vulnerability discovery. In the crypto market, Bitcoin's price drop below $61,000 triggered over $1.16 billion in liquidations, flipping the market into a state where more BTC is held at a loss than at a profit, a historical bearish signal. On the corporate front, SpaceX's highly anticipated IPO is generating immense Wall Street excitement, with Goldman Sachs projecting 100x revenue growth by 2030. However, the S&P 500 has refused to fast-track the company's inclusion post-IPO, potentially limiting immediate institutional demand. Separately, ByteDance's AI app Doubao lost over 6 million monthly active users after introducing a subscription model, highlighting the challenges of AI monetization. Other notable developments include Nvidia certifying HBM4 memory from Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron; Cloudflare's acquisition of front-end tooling company VoidZero; and its CEO warning that bot traffic now exceeds human traffic online. The underlying narrative connects these events: a trust crisis. From AI firms' contradictory actions and crypto volatility to the clash between SpaceX's hyped narrative and institutional rules, a pattern is emerging where stated intentions and actual practices are increasingly misaligned.

marsbit1 saat önce

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片