Market narratives often jump directly to "everyone will issue their own stablecoin." But this outcome is not reasonable. A world with dozens of widely used stablecoins is still manageable, but if there are thousands, chaos will ensue. Users do not want their US dollars ( to be, yes, US dollars, with a dominance exceeding 99%), dispersed across a long tail of numerous branded tokens, each on its own chain, with different liquidity, fees, and exchange paths. Market makers profit from spreads, and cross-chain bridges charge fees—this layered "taking a share" of the middlemen is precisely the problem that stablecoins are trying to solve.



Fortune 500 companies should realize that stablecoins are extremely useful, but issuing stablecoins is not a guaranteed win. A few select companies will be able to gain distribution channels, reduce costs, and strengthen their ecosystems. Many other companies may bear operational burdens without clear returns.

The true competitive advantage comes from how to embed stablecoins as a "payment track" into products, rather than simply slapping a branded label on the token.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • Comment
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
No comments
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)