2025-12-25 11:38:39

There has been a prevailing view in the industry about whether stablecoins can shake up the traditional payment landscape—Visa, MasterCard, and other card networks often charge a 3% transaction fee, which is enough for new blockchain-based payment channels to take advantage of and ultimately disrupt the traditional system.

But is it really that straightforward?

Take Visa and MasterCard as examples. These card networks do indeed charge fees on each transaction, and the 3% figure is frequently mentioned. However, the actual distribution behind this rate is far more complex than it appears. The portion taken by the card network itself is actually a relatively small part of the entire fee pool. The remaining funds are distributed among issuing banks, acquiring banks, processors, and other intermediaries, each taking a cut.

From this perspective, the competitiveness of stablecoins and on-chain payments isn't solely about their "high fees," but rather about differences in overall operational models. Whether this difference can ultimately evolve into a market disruption depends on the development maturity of the ecosystem and user acceptance.

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DegenDreamer

· 12-28 09:55

Ha, it's the same explanation again. No one has thoroughly discussed the 3% issue. To put it simply, Visa and their crew have already divided the cake long ago, and it's not up to the blockchain to interfere. The real issue isn't the fee rate, but whether anyone will actually use stablecoins to replace credit card payments.

View OriginalReply0

ContractBugHunter

· 12-27 20:42

Ha, just saying 3% can overturn? Dream on, actually Visa can't get that much money. --- The core issue is still the ecosystem and user habits; fee rates are just a smokescreen. --- To put it simply, on-chain payments are now just a technical solution; we're still far from a real impact. --- I'm tired of this logic, always talking about what can be done, but what’s the result? The ecosystem is still the same. --- The real threat comes from innovative models, not just comparing fee rates. --- It seems everyone is looking for a simple reason to explain disruption, but it's not that easy. --- Wait, is the fee structure on the card issuer's side really transparent? I feel like no one has explained it clearly. --- Whether stablecoins work or not depends on regulatory attitudes; it's much more complicated than fee issues. --- I agree with the differences in operational models, but user acceptance? Heh.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 12-25 12:08

Are we still talking about a 3% fee rate that can overthrow traditional payments? Wake up, the real issue has never been the numbers themselves. The biggest shortcoming of on-chain payments is liquidity and stability. Don't just focus on that small fee of Visa. Be realistic, most people won't bother learning about wallets and private keys just to save 3%. Wait, are issuing banks really just middlemen making a profit? That logical flaw is a bit too big. The future of stablecoins depends on whether they can completely replace fiat currency settlement; the fee advantage is just superficial. Don't you think this analysis is a bit idealistic? User experience is the key, not the fees.

View OriginalReply0

VCsSuckMyLiquidity

· 12-25 12:04

Haha, to be honest, the 3% story sounds great, but when you actually break it down, it's not that simple at all. Traditional finance systems may have higher fees, but their ecosystems are complete, and stablecoins really can't compete right now. It all depends on how the ecosystem develops later, but user acceptance is definitely the biggest hurdle.

View OriginalReply0

HodlAndChill

· 12-25 12:04

Frankly, the old argument about fees is outdated. The key is experience and network effects. Splitting 3% among a bunch of middlemen is indeed a pain, but people use Visa for convenience. On-chain payments need to overcome this psychological barrier to truly take off; otherwise, it's always just insiders hyping themselves up.

View OriginalReply0

FreeRider

· 12-25 12:02

Oh no, 3% is really an outdated way of saying it. I haven't really seen the complexity of the fee chain.

View OriginalReply0

MemeEchoer

· 12-25 12:01

Oh dear, it's the same old argument. No matter how detailed the fee breakdown is, it doesn't change the user experience. I just want cheap and fast transfers, whether it's Visa or stablecoins...

View OriginalReply0

FUDwatcher

· 12-25 11:54

Haha, to be honest, everyone is confused by that 3% figure. The real game is in the differences in the operating models.

View OriginalReply0