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

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手8 saat önce

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手8 saat önce

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit11 saat önce

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit11 saat önce

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手12 saat önce

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手12 saat önce

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit13 saat önce

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit13 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片