The stablecoin paradox

The more I study emerging stablecoin propositions, the more convinced I become that this is an all-or-nothing market. Unless you have absolute conviction that one design will win, it makes little sense to back any single stablecoin at all.

This isn’t like betting on competing tech platforms where several can coexist. Stablecoins fight for the same narrow space: trust, liquidity, and exchange integration. Every new entrant dilutes the rest, pushing the market toward a single dominant winner.

Stablecoins are also an exceptionally risky business. Beyond the operational fragility of many designs, the value-capture mechanisms that link a stablecoin to its governance token are often murky. Add a hyper-competitive market with almost no barriers to entry, and you have a setup where each new launch erodes the future value of all others. Since early May, when I first started tracking the space, the number of live or planned stablecoins has more than doubled (see stablecoinindex.com for a running list).

This will almost certainly be a winner-takes-most market.

Take the current leader, Tether. Many projects have tried to unseat it, yet none have come close. What’s remarkable is how little effort Tether has made to polish its image—no full audit, constant skepticism—and still, it dominates. Why? First-mover advantage and attention.

Attention converts to revenue. Claiming attention real estate early can make or break a company. Tether might be one implosion away from collapse, but time compounds its advantage: it gets smarter, more entrenched, better resourced.

Now imagine two plausible dethroning scenarios:

Collapse: A revelation shows only 10% of Tether’s supply is actually backed by dollars.
Institutional flood: Tens of billions in institutional capital enter crypto, flowing into the most transparent, regulated alternative.

In either case, the market would reshuffle briefly before a new stablecoin king emerges. The logic mirrors why the world runs on the USD: attention, liquidity, and interoperability. We don’t deal with USD #1 through USD #99. We deal with the USD.

If I had to bet, I’d back the institutionally backed, fully regulated alternative. As the market matures, institutional participants will favor systems that resemble those they already trust. Their adoption would cascade, signaling legitimacy and pulling the rest of the market along.

The arrival of Gemini Dollar and Paxos Standard marks exactly that kind of shift—a sign that crypto is inching toward maturity.

Message from the future: As fate would have it, Circle with USDC would go on and carve its own space in the category.