The primary strategic reason for a large platform to issue its own stablecoin isn't just yield, but control. Relying on an external stablecoin creates platform dependency, making the business vulnerable to changes in fees or strategy, much like Zynga's reliance on the Facebook platform.

Related Insights

Tether, described as a "0/100 hedge fund," is unlikely to start paying yield to users. Its entrenched network effects in the crypto trading ecosystem—its original and still dominant use case—are so strong that it doesn't need to compete on yield to maintain its market position.

For hundreds of millions in developing nations, stablecoins are not an investment vehicle but a capital preservation tool. Their core value is providing a simple hedge against high-inflation local currencies by pegging to the USD, a use case that far outweighs the desire for interest yield in those markets.

The stablecoin market is mature, so new entrants cannot compete on technology alone. To succeed, they must be launched by an entity with a massive built-in user base, such as a social media giant or a large multinational, making standalone stablecoin startups effectively zeros.

Despite promising instant, cheap cross-border payments, stablecoins lack features critical for corporate treasurers. The absence of FDIC insurance, a single standard ("singleness of money"), and interoperability between blockchains makes them too risky and fragmented for wholesale use.

Libra's failure was not technical. The U.S. government intentionally blocked it, recognizing stablecoins as a way to extend the dollar's global dominance. It refused to let a private company control this new financial power, especially with a multi-currency basket.

By embedding stablecoin wallets, companies can move beyond simple payouts. They can maintain an ongoing financial relationship, offering services like savings or credit directly to their user base (e.g., drivers, creators). This effectively allows any platform to build its own neobanking arm.

Before stablecoins, launching financial services in N countries required N² unique integrations. Now, companies can build on a single dollar-stablecoin standard and instantly operate globally. Adding other local stablecoins becomes a simple N-style addition, radically simplifying global expansion.

For stablecoin companies like Tether seeking legitimacy in the US market, the simplest path is to back their assets with US treasuries. This aligns their interests with the US government, turning a potential adversary into a welcome buyer of national debt, even if it means lower returns compared to riskier assets.

While stablecoins gain attention, tokenized deposits offer similar benefits—like on-chain transactions—but operate within the existing, trusted regulatory banking framework. As they are simply bank liabilities on a blockchain, they may become a more palatable alternative for corporates seeking efficiency without regulatory uncertainty.

The high profits enjoyed by stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle are temporary. Major financial institutions (Visa, JPMorgan) will eventually launch their own stablecoins, not as primary profit centers, but as low-cost tools to acquire and retain customers. This will drive margins down for the entire industry.

Issuing a Proprietary Stablecoin Mitigates Platform Risk from Third-Party Issuers | RiffOn