How will a future of 1,000 stablecoins actually work?
By recreating what TradFi already solved: universal interoperability across many private monies.
When that happens, fragmentation disappears and users stop caring who issued their dollar, just as it is in banking:
We already live in a world of “multiple stablecoins.”
They’re called bank deposits.
A dollar at Chase and a dollar at Wells Fargo are not the same liability, go beyond FDIC insurance and the risk profile changes, yet we treat them as identical.
Why? Because the system abstracts the issuer away.
Clearing networks like ACH and Fedwire constantly reconcile these private monies in the background.
Visa and Mastercard add another layer on top, enabling spendability anywhere without asking which bank holds the liability.
That perceived unity comes from redemption, spendability, and seamless interoperability, not from a single winner-take-all issuer.
Stablecoins will follow the same path.
Regulation like the GENIUS Act defines reserves and redemption rules, but regulation alone doesn’t create fungibility.
Only infrastructure does, the onchain equivalents of ACH and merchant settlement.
We’re early. Today we see intra-issuer interoperability (@m0, @Stablecoin, @Paxos, @Anchorage, @withAUSD) and the first attempts at cross-issuer clearing (@ubyx_ ).
Will a single neutral layer emerge? Or multiple competing networks?
Time will tell. But once users can send, spend, and store value without knowing (or caring) whether it’s USDC, PYUSD, or something else, the mental model collapses into a single truth:
It’s just money. The issuer fades away.
By recreating what TradFi already solved: universal interoperability across many private monies.
When that happens, fragmentation disappears and users stop caring who issued their dollar, just as it is in banking:
We already live in a world of “multiple stablecoins.”
They’re called bank deposits.
A dollar at Chase and a dollar at Wells Fargo are not the same liability, go beyond FDIC insurance and the risk profile changes, yet we treat them as identical.
Why? Because the system abstracts the issuer away.
Clearing networks like ACH and Fedwire constantly reconcile these private monies in the background.
Visa and Mastercard add another layer on top, enabling spendability anywhere without asking which bank holds the liability.
That perceived unity comes from redemption, spendability, and seamless interoperability, not from a single winner-take-all issuer.
Stablecoins will follow the same path.
Regulation like the GENIUS Act defines reserves and redemption rules, but regulation alone doesn’t create fungibility.
Only infrastructure does, the onchain equivalents of ACH and merchant settlement.
We’re early. Today we see intra-issuer interoperability (@m0, @Stablecoin, @Paxos, @Anchorage, @withAUSD) and the first attempts at cross-issuer clearing (@ubyx_ ).
Will a single neutral layer emerge? Or multiple competing networks?
Time will tell. But once users can send, spend, and store value without knowing (or caring) whether it’s USDC, PYUSD, or something else, the mental model collapses into a single truth:
It’s just money. The issuer fades away.
Money is social construct that operates on a social network
It's most useful when it's well distributed and coordinated
@0xcoconutt covers this well here:
It's most useful when it's well distributed and coordinated
@0xcoconutt covers this well here:
https://x.com/0xcoconutt/status/1975853429151944929
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
