In A World of 1000 Stablecoins? 4 Key Questions

Posted on by

Todays blog will cover 4 topics

  • What are the differences between stablecoins?
  • Why would consumers and businesses want to hold value in stablecoin?
  • How will they be exchanged? And 
  • Who is best placed to manage the exchange?

The financial system is not converging on a single digital dollar but is instead accelerating toward a fragmented ecosystem of multiple, distinct stablecoins. Recent announcements 

confirm this trajectory. The near future seems to be chaotic, with all major players laying claim to the space. This will likely result in a proliferation of digital currencies, each with unique rules and underlying technologies. Today’s blog attempts to answer four core questions surrounding the exchange of value and trust (extending on last week’s blog Stablecoins as a Trust Platform)

  1. How will these stablecoins differ at a technical and governance level?
  2. Why would consumers or businesses want to hold stablecoins?
  3. What are the precise mechanics of their exchange?
  4. Who is strategically positioned to manage this complexity?

The Anatomy of Stablecoin

The substantive differences between stablecoins extend far beyond their simple peg to a fiat currency. These differences are engineered at the smart contract and network levels, defining their utility, governance, and economic models.

Most stablecoins today are implemented as smart-contract tokens on public blockchains. On Ethereum, fungible token standards like ERC‑20 define the basic stablecoin contract interface (transfer, balance, etc.), allowing any wallet or exchange to interoperate. Ethereum-based coins like USDC or Tether are essentially ERC‑20 contracts with some added controls (e.g. upgradeable logic or the ability to freeze illicit accounts). Solana’s blockchain has a similar token model through the Solana Program Library (SPL). Until recently, Solana’s SPL tokens offered bare-bones functionality akin to ERC‑20. However, the new Token-2022 program introduces extensible features tailored for stablecoins and institutional use. Key innovations in Solana’s Token-2022 include:

  • Transfer Fees: Token issuers can configure an automatic fee on every transfer at the protocol level. This means a stablecoin like USDC issued under Token-2022 could natively deduct, say, 0.1% from each transfer as revenue or to cover costs – a capability not available in standard ERC‑20 tokens. (Notably, PayPal’s PYUSD stablecoin on Solana has initialized the fee extension but currently sets fees to zero
  • Permanent Delegate: This feature designates a special authority address that has global control over all tokens of that mint. A permanent delegate can transfer or burn any token units from any user’s account, effectively acting as an all-powerful administrator. My summary is that it enables the Issuer to exert control in a public blockchain (vs closed ledger). This sounds alarming to crypto purists, but it is critical for compliance in regulated stablecoins  allowing the issuer to seize or freeze funds if required by law enforcement.
  • Transfer Hooks and Confidential Transactions: Token-2022 also supports programmable hooks (calling custom logic on each transfer) and optional privacy for transaction amounts. Transfer hooks could enable complex rules (e.g. automatic compliance checks or notifications on large transfers) directly in the token contract. Confidential transfers allow hiding the amounts moved between parties while still permitting an auditor to review them.

Open/Closed Chains – Centralized Trust

Despite running on public blockchains, regulated stablecoins fundamentally rely on centralized trust in their issuer. The issuer holds the reserve assets and promises redemption at par; it also sets the rules for how the token can be used or by whom. Token features like Solana’s permanent delegate simply reinforce this reality: a “stable” coin’s stability and legitimacy stem from off-chain agreements and legal frameworks, not just code. In fact, many bank-led stablecoin initiatives choose to operate on permissioned ledgers rather than fully open chains. For example, J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys platform (the successor to JPM’s Onyx) has built a permissioned blockchain for deposit tokens. Their recently announced JPM Dollar (JPMD) token is explicitly a permissioned digital USD that will run on a semi-public network (Base) but only be usable by whitelisted institutional clients.. This hybrid approach attempts to combine the best of both worlds: the speed and interoperability of a blockchain with the control and compliance of traditional finance.

In a closed or consortium blockchain (ex Hyperledger Fabric or a private Ethereum fork), every participant is a known, vetted entity and the smart contract can enforce bespoke rules: automatic reversals, spending limits, dispute arbitration, etc. A stablecoin on such a network essentially becomes an electronic ledger entry between trusted parties (ex members of a bank consortium). 

This model is not so different from how bank balances settle today, except using blockchain for efficiency. For instance, a consortium of banks could issue a stablecoin that is only valid among members, with transaction rules mirroring existing payment networks. Delegation of authority in a public-chain token (as with Solana’s permanent delegate) achieves a similar outcome: it makes a public token behave as if it were running in a walled garden, since a central party can override transfers if needed. The trade-off is that this introduces a centralized point of control (and failure) on what is otherwise a decentralized platform. As one analyst put it, regulated stablecoins “rely on centralized trust in a known, regulated issuer operating on a permissioned or centrally governed ledger,” whereas cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin operate on trust-minimized public networks

In practice, stablecoin issuers often sacrifice decentralization in favor of accountability, compliance, and legal recourse (features required for bank-bank settlement). Not all stablecoins will run on open networks. We may see closed-bank blockchains where stablecoins are transacted internally among members. These private stablecoins might embed even more complex business logic. For example, automatic reversibility for fraud, built-in dispute resolution, or interest distribution. Note that JPM’s JPMD can be viewed as stablecoins that are bank deposits; as such, they can pay interest and enjoy FDIC insurance, unlike typical stablecoins.

The choice between using a public chain vs. a closed network often comes down to who needs to use the coin and under what rules. A retail-focused stablecoin (like PayPal USD or a hypothetical Amazon token) may prefer the openness of a public chain for broad accessibility, but still leverage smart contract extensions to enforce its policies. A strictly interbank settlement coin, on the other hand, might run on a private ledger with each bank as a node, to ensure complete control and privacy. The good news is that these approaches are not mutually exclusive – as J.P. Morgan’s example shows, a token can run on a public blockchain while retaining a permissioned model. The upshot is that stablecoins don’t require a universally open blockchain environment; they just need a trusted mechanism to track and transfer value among approved parties, whether that’s an open Ethereum/Solana token with constraints or a private consortium chain.

Stablecoins Rules and Designs (note ChatGPT helped me in this section)

With potentially dozens of new stablecoins on the horizon, no two may be exactly alike. Here are some key dimensions along which stablecoins can differ:

  • Reserve Backing & Legal Status: Some stablecoins are backed 1:1 by cash or T-bills held by an issuer (e.g. USDC, USDT), whereas others could be tokenized bank deposits (essentially liabilities on a bank’s balance sheet, like JPMD). 
  • Upcoming U.S. legislation (the GENIUS Act in Senate and STABLE Act in House) will require payment stablecoins to maintain 1:1 reserves in safe assets and be issued by regulated entities. The rationale within the Genius act is to prevent stablecoins from functioning like money-market funds or bank accounts without regulation. 
  • Deposit-token models, by contrast, could pay interest since they are essentially bank accounts tokenized – but those might not be legally classified as “stablecoins” under the new definition. Thus, one stablecoin might represent a claim on a trust account at a custodian, while another might represent a claim on a bank’s general ledger; this affects the risk profile and whether holders have deposit insurance or other protections.
  • Blockchain and Smart Contract Features: As described earlier, a stablecoin running on Solana’s Token-2022 may support on-chain transfer fees or explicit freeze authorities, whereas an ERC-20 based stablecoin might rely on upgradeable contract logic for similar controls. The “rules” encoded in the coin can vary widely. For instance, one USD-pegged token might be freely transferable between any addresses, while another (say, a bank-issued coin) might only move between KYC-verified wallets or might require compliance checks on each transfer. 
  • Enterprise stablecoins like Walmart will likely implement whitelist restrictions, velocity limits, or blacklisting capabilities at the smart contract level. Another new feature we see is metadata and contract-enforced terms: Solana tokens can carry on-chain metadata about the coin (issuer information, etc.) and even use transfer hooks to enforce complex logic (e.g. disabling transfers during certain hours or requiring multiple signatures for large transfers)
  • Stablecoin design choices mean that the code of Stableoin A’s operation could be quite different from Stablecoin B’s, even if both are “1 USD” tokens on the surface.
  • Governance and Delegated Authority: Who can change the coin’s parameters or intervene in transactions? This is a major differentiator. Some stablecoins (like USDC) have an upgradeable proxy contract controlled by the issuer, meaning the issuer can unilaterally change the code or freeze funds in emergencies. Other coins might be truly immutable once deployed (though most regulated projects opt for some admin control). Solana’s “permanent delegate” mechanism formalizes an extreme version of this (an ever-present super-admin for the token)
  • Stablecoins may delegate certain powers to trusted third parties as well. For example, an issuer could delegate compliance oversight to a government agency or a consortium body that holds keys to freeze or seize funds if laws are broken. Delegation enables a public token to operate with private governance rules, effectively. On the flip side, a privately-run stablecoin network (like a Hyperledger deployment) might distribute governance among member nodes allowing “delegation” via consortium rules and agreements (rather than code). Each coin’s governance model is a point of differentiation that users (and regulators) will scrutinize.
  • Use of Banking Infrastructure: A notable emerging difference is how stablecoins interface with the banking system. Some banks have signaled plans to offer real-time sweep mechanisms for stablecoins. This means if a customer receives a stablecoin, the bank could automatically sweep those funds into a traditional insured deposit account (and vice versa) in real time, so the customer enjoys the benefits of stablecoins for payments but doesn’t actually hold the volatile float overnight. This could become a major differentiator: stablecoins supported by banks could effectively let users have their cake and eat it too instant blockchain payments, and FDIC-insured balances earning interest when idle.
  • Conversion and Redemption Rules: Stablecoins also differ in how you can cash them out or convert them. Some are freely redeemable for USD from the issuer (subject to KYC) with no fee (e.g. Circle’s USDC is redeemable 1:1 for dollars, typically without fee for institutional clients). Others might impose redemption fees or minimum redemption sizes. Some newer models might allow direct conversion into other stablecoins or digital assets via the issuer’s platform. As we’ll discuss, if 1000 stablecoins existed, no one would manually redeem each one for cash; instead, mechanisms would exist to swap stablecoins with each other. But the ease and cost of redemption to fiat for each coin underpins its floor value. If Stablecoin X is only redeemable through a cumbersome process or not at all, while Stablecoin Y is redeemable from a bank on demand, users will trust Y more and likely demand a discount to hold X. Thus, differences in redemption terms (who can redeem, in what quantity, how fast, any fees) are critical. We are likely to see a spectrum from open-loop stablecoins (widely accepted and easily redeemed) to closed-loop or private stablecoins that function within a specific platform (e.g. a retailer’s coin only usable in its app, convertible to store credit or cash under certain conditions).
  • Purpose and Domain: Finally, stablecoins may differ in their intended use cases. A “general purpose” payment stablecoin (like a regulated US dollar coin) aims to be accepted broadly across merchants, individuals, exchanges, etc. Other stablecoins might be tailored for a domain – for example, a Walmart stablecoin might be used in supply chain payments with vendors and for consumer loyalty rewards, but not for broader trading. A central bank stablecoin (if one considers CBDCs a type of stablecoin) would have yet another rule set defined by public policy. Some stablecoins are designed for emerging markets where local currency is unstable, some will be optimized for Wall Street settlement, some for retail payments, some for crypto-native finance, and they will have technical and legal differences reflecting these roles.

In light of these differences, it’s clear we won’t truly have 1000 indistinguishable stablecoins, but rather variants which have their own unique rulebook and functionality. Regulators are keenly aware of this: the U.S. GENIUS Act explicitly carves out stablecoins as a new class of instrument, to be regulated like banks rather than as securities or commodities. By forcing issuers into a compliant framework, regulators ensure that even if many stablecoins exist, they all adhere to baseline standards of safety and transparency (e.g. audits of reserves, capital requirements, no hidden leverage

The most important difference to track is which stablecoins meet regulatory approval. As of now, a likely outcome is a few (perhaps 4–6) dominant stablecoins emerging, each backed by major institutions or consortiums, which concentrate the trust and liquidity of the market. The rest either specialize in smaller niches or eventually fade. Next, we examine how these coins can be exchanged for one another (a key piece of the puzzle if multiple stablecoins coexist).

Exchanging Stablecoin A for Stablecoin B

If a business holds Stablecoin A but needs to pay a counterparty who accepts Stablecoin B, how does that exchange happen? There are a couple of paths: 

  1. Through a Market/Exchange (Centralized or Decentralized): The most straightforward way is via a trading venue that lists both stablecoins. This could be a centralized exchange (for example, Coinbase or a bank’s digital currency exchange desk) where the user sells Stablecoin A for Stablecoin B at the going rate. Because both A and B target a stable $1.00 value, the exchange rate should theoretically hover at 1:1 (ignoring minor fees or market frictions). The user would likely pay a small trading fee or spread. On a decentralized exchange (DEX), if both stablecoins exist on the same blockchain (e.g. both are ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum), an automated market maker could facilitate swaps between them. In practice, on networks like Ethereum, large stablecoin pools (A vs. B) allow users to swap one to one with minimal slippage – these are essentially forex markets for dollar-pegged tokens. 

The DEX route is non-custodial and runs on smart contracts, but still subject to liquidity and any protocol fees. On Solana, for instance, one could swap a USDH stablecoin for USDC via a DEX if both are SPL/Token-2022 tokens. If Stablecoin A and B run on different blockchains, a direct DEX swap is not possible without bridging (see point 2 below). In that case, a centralized entity like a crypto exchange or a bank is more likely to intermediate – they would accept Stablecoin A on Chain X, and credit you Stablecoin B on Chain Y, since they operate on both networks.  

  1. Through a Cross-Chain Bridge or Swap Protocol: In more complex scenarios, the exchange can happen via cross-chain mechanisms. One approach is using a bridge service: you send Stablecoin A on Chain 1 into the bridge, and the service releases (or mints) Stablecoin B on Chain 2 to your address. Under the hood, the bridge either holds the A tokens in reserve and issues B (if B is a wrapped version of A), or it executes a swap if it has pools of both. Truly atomic cross-chain swaps – akin to a two-phase commit in databases – are tricky but possible. These use cryptographic escrow on both chains to ensure that either both transfers succeed or both are aborted (no half-complete trades). For example, a hash-time-locked contract (HTLC) can lock Stablecoin A on Chain1 and Stablecoin B on Chain2, and only release each to the respective counterparty when both sides have confirmed, or refund if timeout occurs. This creates an atomic swap with no counterparty risk: neither party can cheat because the swap either completes fully or not at all. 

In practice, atomic cross-chain swaps are still a niche tool and often require specialized protocols. More commonly, if a user needs to go from A to B across chains, they will use a trusted intermediary (exchange or custodial bridge) that has wallets on both networks. The process then is conceptually a two-step commit coordinated by the exchange: (a) you deposit Stablecoin A into the exchange (originator wallet → exchange wallet for A), (b) the exchange debits A and credits you an equivalent amount of Stablecoin B, (c) you withdraw Stablecoin B to the destination wallet. These steps are typically automated to feel like a single conversion transaction. Because the exchange is facilitating, there may be a conversion fee. However, unlike volatile crypto trades, the exchange isn’t taking price risk in a USD-to-USD stablecoin swap (assuming both maintain the peg), so fees might be low aside from network transaction costs. 

  1. Peer-to-Peer “Atomic” Swap: In the future, large institutions might directly swap stablecoins between each other without an exchange, using interoperability protocols. For example, imagine Bank X issued Stablecoin X on a private ledger, and Bank Y issued Stablecoin Y on another ledger. If a client of X needs to pay a client of Y, the banks could coordinate a simultaneous burn-and-mint: X burns some of Stablecoin X from the sender and communicates proof to Y, and Y mints Stablecoin Y to the receiver (or releases some held in escrow). This is essentially a two-phase commit between blockchains – first phase, lock/burn the source, second phase, release the destination – ensuring that either both legs execute or none do. Such mechanisms could be governed by smart contracts or a third-party notary service that both chains trust. 

The technology for cross-chain coordination (e.g. using notary nodes, or upcoming interoperability standards) is advancing, and it’s likely that bank consortiums will adopt something along these lines so that a payment in coin A can be delivered as coin B near-instantly, with no credit risk. Notably, stablecoin exchanges carry lower risk than FX trades because the value is the same (1 USD = 1 USD); it’s mostly a matter of ledger shift. If done atomically, there is no settlement risk or counterparty default risk – you don’t have the scenario of one party delivering funds while the other fails to reciprocate, which is a breakthrough for payments. This is why many see stablecoins (or deposit tokens) as a way to achieve “atomic settlement” in finance, eliminating the gaps in time and trust that exist in current payment rails. One pragmatic consideration is fees: will users be charged a fee to convert stablecoin A to B? Technologically, yes, it’s easy to impose fees – as we saw, Solana’s Token-2022 even allows the token itself to have a transfer fee that could apply when moving coins into an exchange or out.

Why Hold a Stablecoin?

If banks or exchanges handle conversion, they might charge a service fee or a small bid/ask spread for providing liquidity. However, competition will likely drive these fees down if many providers offer conversion. It’s conceivable that major stablecoins become so liquid that swapping $10 million of Coin A to Coin B costs only a few basis points, similar to exchanging cash for a cashier’s check. The more interesting question is why exchange at all – if Stablecoin A and B are both trusted 1:1 dollars, users might gravitate toward one standard eventually. But in a diverse ecosystem (especially early on), exchanges between coins will be important. We might see certain exchanges specialize (e.g. one platform becomes the primary hub to swap retail coins like PayPal USD into bank-coins, etc.). Regulators in the U.S. have signaled that stablecoin exchange activity should fall under banking supervision (as stablecoins are to be issued by banks or licensed entities).

This means the Coinbase and Binances of the world will compete with traditional banks in providing conversion services. Already, we see partnerships forming: for example, some state-chartered trust banks work with crypto firms to handle stablecoin issuance and redemption. 

Finally, it’s worth noting what might limit the need to swap stablecoins. If stablecoins become ubiquitous but yield no interest, there is little incentive to hold large sums in any particular coin for long periods. I see two scenarios where holding stablecoins makes sense were identified: 

(a) a closed-loop economy where you receive and spend stablecoins entirely within a community (so it never “touches” fiat – e.g. an e-commerce ecosystem like Amazon’s where suppliers and customers all use the token), and

 (b) in countries with unstable local currencies, where a USD stablecoin is safer to save in than the local bank money. 

In case (a), A community (say, Walmart’s coin for suppliers and customers) maintains a fly wheel as suppliers are paid in stablecoin and they pay their suppliers. This makes the most sense where their is category dominance and there no need to swap among many different coins. The objective here is to save their supplier network from bank fees and solve their own global cash management issue. The “carrot” is instant funds availability and dollar stability. 

In case (b), the demand is specifically for a USD stable store of value, so again the market may coalesce around whichever USD stablecoin is easiest to get (ie KYC/KYB account) and convert to Fiat (bank on/off ramp). In both cases, I’m suggesting that  while many stablecoins might launch, only a few will achieve the network effects in any given domain to minimize constant swapping. The ability to frictionlessly move between stablecoins, and fiat, or consolidate them will be vital in the interim period while winners shake out.

Who Will Manage a Multi-Stablecoin World?

The prospect of 1000 stablecoins raises the question: who is best positioned to handle the complexity of numerous digital dollars with different rules and networks? The emerging consensus is that banks and major financial institutions are natural candidates to be the stewards of stablecoin exchange and interoperability. Banks are already “payment hubs” that connect to essentially all networks.

This deep expertise in operating across networks can directly extend to stablecoins. Something the banks realize as JPMorgan, BofA, Citi, and Wells Fargo assess a jointly issuing a stablecoin usable by all member banks. In Europe the ECB is pushing banks to explore euro-denominated stable tokens. Aside from banks, large regulated exchanges (like Coinbase or perhaps new entrants like NASDAQ or ICE in the crypto space) will also play a role in exchanging stablecoins. Coinbase already is a key player behind USDC issuance and provides conversions between USDC and fiat; it could naturally extend to converting among different stablecoins. Fintech payment processors (e.g. Stripe, PayPal) are integrating stablecoins into their flows as well, but often in partnership with banks or banks-in-all-but-name (licensed trusts). 

Ultimately, I see banks having the biggest a strategic advantage: stablecoin exchanges, if truly risk-free and instant, start to resemble clearinghouses (and banks historically own the clearing function).  Within my predicted future, your bank’s app will handle it seamlessly, debiting one and crediting the other for you behind the scenes. Consumers may not even notice the conversion; it would feel like using an ATM of a different bank (you get your money out in the form you need). 

Why banks and not purely decentralized solutions? Because when things go wrong (fraud, lost keys, technical bugs in a token contract), businesses, regulators and consumers will want a THROAT TO CHOKE. Banks, have the most red marks.. (mostly from the CPFB) on their neck and over the last 20 yrs have earned their role as the “the regulated adults in the room.” Moreover, under pending laws, stablecoin issuance is effectively being corralled into the banking perimeter as only insured depositories or specially licensed entities will be allowed to issue payment stablecoins in the U.S.

This means the issuers themselves (many of whom will be banks or bank subsidiaries) will likely collaborate on interoperability. We might see something like the early days of ATM networks: initially fragmented (each bank with its own coin), but quickly connecting through interchange agreements so that a coin from Bank A can be accepted or converted by Bank B. In payments, network effects tend toward a few big networks rather than many isolated ones. This is actually my case for Visa, the best network that has embraced a radical openness and support for banks across all of their blockchain efforts. Every Facility and rule within the Visa and Mastercard networks needs a corollary in stablecoin (IMHO). So lets just keep it there, WITH ECONOMICS AND WITH UBIQUITIOUS ACCEPTANCE. In this view settlement between banks and merchants become a stablecoin OPTION. 

What are the core factors of success for a Stablecon Issuer?

  • Bank On/Off Ramps: Integration with banks and the fiat system. Stablecoins that can be easily acquired or redeemed via your bank (or that your employer can pay you directly, etc.) have a big edge. This ties into having stable banking partnerships or being issued by banks.
  • Regulatory Approval: A coin that has the blessing of regulators (or is issued under a clear regulatory framework) will engender trust. Clarity reduces the risk of shutdowns or legal barriers to use. (For instance, a U.S.-approved stablecoin will be more readily adopted by institutions than an off-shore one facing legal uncertainty.)
  • Stablecoin Constuct – Smart Contract Design & Rules: The technical robustness and features of the coin matter. Coins that allow compliance (freeze, whitelist, etc.) will be chosen by institutions that need those controls. Similarly, efficiency (low network fees, high throughput) is crucial for scalability. If one stablecoin is stuck on a slow, expensive chain and another is on a fast, cheap chain (or Layer 2), the latter has an advantage for payments.
  • Legal and Commercial Contracts Defining the Coin: Beyond code, every stablecoin comes with terms & conditions – e.g. what are you actually entitled to as a holder? Clear, strong contractual definitions (1 token = claim on XYZ assets, redeemable under ABC conditions) and governance (how the reserves are managed, audited) will inspire confidence. Enterprises will favor coins that have well-defined legal underpinnings over those that are vague or entirely reliant on trust in one company.
  • Merchant and Network Acceptance: Network effects are everything. A stablecoin that is widely accepted by merchants, payment processors, and DeFi platforms will continue to grow. This is why Circle works hard to get USDC integrated everywhere. If Walmart or Amazon launch coins, a key metric will be how many partners and vendors start using those tokens. Broad acceptance begets more acceptance, creating a positive feedback loop.
  • End-User Wallet Support and UX: For consumers especially, the coin that’s easiest to use will win. If your everyday mobile wallet or a super-app supports Stablecoin X natively for payments (with one-tap conversions), while Stablecoin Y requires fiddling with seed phrases and gas fees, guess which one consumers will prefer. User experience – instant, cheap transactions without needing deep crypto knowledge – is crucial. Companies like PayPal are betting that integrating stablecoins into familiar interfaces will drive adoption.
  • Costs to Convert or Use: All else equal, people will choose the form of money that is cheapest to use. If one stablecoin charges a transaction fee (via protocol or via the issuer) and another doesn’t, the fee-free one could gain an edge (assuming similar trust). If converting between stablecoins incurs costs, users will stick to the one that minimizes those costs in their routine. Over time, market pressure likely drives transaction costs on stablecoin networks very low (Solana, for instance, boasts sub-cent transaction fees. However, issuers might impose other fees (for custody, redemption, etc.).

Wrap Up

In conclusion, stablecoin exchanges between different tokens will be feasible and technically straightforward, thanks to smart contracts and collaborative frameworks. The heavy lifting will be done behind the scenes by banks, exchanges, and possibly new clearing utilities to ensure a seamless swap experience for users. While many stablecoins may spring up, the market will gravitate towards a few trusted, regulated coins that offer the best combination of stability, utility, and low friction. Those dominant stablecoins will be interchangeable nearly at par – effectively forming a unified digital dollar network, even if under the hood multiple tokens and blockchains are at play. As we stand at the early stages of this evolution, the focus for technologists and policymakers is on building the infrastructure of trust: robust smart contract standards (like Solana’s Token-2022) and clear regulatory guardrails (like the GENIUS Act’s bank oversight mandate) that together make stablecoin-based settlement a safe, efficient backbone for the digital economy

Stablecoin will succeed when they stop being exotic and the become explicity understood by users (when and where I use them), native for use, storage and conversion, and just another another transparent piece of plumbing in the global financial system.

IMHO this ubiquity is a VERY long time away except in areas that are NOT well served by existing payment networks, and banks. 

Please Login to Comment.