After thinking about USDH more, I realize the most important question for the Hyperliquid community isn’t about institutions vs natives. It’s about alignment.
Who will best steward USDH?
In theory an established issuer derisks the opportunity, offering Hyperliquid regulatory support, distribution, and resources. But it’s hard to imagine USDH would ever be the top priority for any of these players.
So Hyperliquid gets a white label stablecoin, but what comes after? Will they build products around Hyperliquid? Accumulate $HYPE? Run infrastructure? It’s not clear from any of these proposals how committed they’d be.
At first glance a native team seems higher risk, but if well executed, they’d offer maximum economic and strategic alignment, effectively adding another core contributor to the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
Native Markets, for instance, shared they’d be using Bridge (Stripe) as their issuer. This means they’d inherit all Bridge’s the global compliance and fiat rails.
So when you really think about it, how much more risky is it committing to a native team with such a setup?
They’d have an equally compliant and trustworthy stablecoin as any of these blue chip issuers, but with much greater alignment and product potential. The risk would just be execution.
I originally wrote this tweet expressing my preferences for a large blue chip institution / consortium. But after more consideration, I realize that’s beside the point. The GENIUS Act effectively commoditizes regulated stablecoins anyways.
Whether grassroots or institution, whoever wins must demonstrate the deepest commitment to the ecosystem before earning the trust of community.
Expecting a lot more details and new players to enter the picture in the coming days.
Exciting times for Hyperliquid.
Who will best steward USDH?
In theory an established issuer derisks the opportunity, offering Hyperliquid regulatory support, distribution, and resources. But it’s hard to imagine USDH would ever be the top priority for any of these players.
So Hyperliquid gets a white label stablecoin, but what comes after? Will they build products around Hyperliquid? Accumulate $HYPE? Run infrastructure? It’s not clear from any of these proposals how committed they’d be.
At first glance a native team seems higher risk, but if well executed, they’d offer maximum economic and strategic alignment, effectively adding another core contributor to the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
Native Markets, for instance, shared they’d be using Bridge (Stripe) as their issuer. This means they’d inherit all Bridge’s the global compliance and fiat rails.
So when you really think about it, how much more risky is it committing to a native team with such a setup?
They’d have an equally compliant and trustworthy stablecoin as any of these blue chip issuers, but with much greater alignment and product potential. The risk would just be execution.
I originally wrote this tweet expressing my preferences for a large blue chip institution / consortium. But after more consideration, I realize that’s beside the point. The GENIUS Act effectively commoditizes regulated stablecoins anyways.
Whether grassroots or institution, whoever wins must demonstrate the deepest commitment to the ecosystem before earning the trust of community.
Expecting a lot more details and new players to enter the picture in the coming days.
Exciting times for Hyperliquid.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
