By Rene Philippe Raymond Dubout · · Updated Yes. But the number of stablecoins already in existence tells you remarkably little about whether yours could become a viable business.
The market is enormous and very concentrated. In October 2026, stablecoins in circulation were worth about $302 billion, and two of them, Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, accounted for 84.7 per cent of it. Only one other stablecoin was above $5 billion. Read that one way and the game is over before it starts. Read it another way and you notice that the two leaders were not built to solve your customers’ problems. They were built to solve theirs.
A new bank does not need to invent banking. It needs a reason for customers to choose it. The same applies to stablecoins. That reason could be better local redemption, reliable supplier payments, integration with accounting systems, or more attractive economics for distribution partners. Technological novelty is optional. Commercial usefulness is essential.
Four models, not two
Most founders frame the choice as “use USDC” or “build another Circle”. In practice there are at least four models worth comparing, and each gives you a different degree of control, a different cost and a different source of income.
- Use an existing stablecoin and earn your money from payment, FX and treasury services around it. You control the customer relationship, not the token. No issuer licence, no reserves to manage, and no reserve income either.
- Distribute an existing stablecoin under a revenue-sharing arrangement. Issuers pay well for distribution, because distribution is what they lack. Paxos shares the reserve yield on USDG with the members of its Global Dollar Network according to how much each helps put the coin into circulation.
- Offer a branded stablecoin through an issuance partner. Your name is on the token, a licensed issuer holds the reserves and carries the regulatory burden. PayPal’s PYUSD, issued by Paxos, is the best-known example. You get the brand and a share of the economics, but the issuer still controls the reserves and the redemption.
- Become an independent issuer, alone or as part of a consortium of businesses that bring committed payment flows. This is the model of Open USD, launched in July 2026 by Open Standard with more than 140 backers, from Visa, Mastercard and Stripe to BlackRock and Standard Chartered, and of Qivalis, the joint venture of twelve European banks preparing a euro stablecoin for the second half of 2026. Full control, full licence, full cost.
The right structure depends on what you need to control, and on what customers will actually pay for. I explained in Issuer or Distributor? why most fintechs are better off starting on the distribution side.
The arithmetic nobody does
Most stablecoin business plans rest on one assumption: the issuer invests the reserves in short-term government debt and keeps the interest. That is true. It is also where many plans go wrong.
Imagine processing $500 million a year. Impressive. But if funds enter and leave your system within one day, the average balance supporting those flows is only about $1.37 million. At an illustrative 3 to 4 per cent a year, that produces roughly $41,000 to $55,000 of gross reserve income, before a single expense. The example is simplified, and assumes steady flows and no other standing balances, but the point holds. Fast payments can make a good service. They do not necessarily make a lucrative reserve portfolio. The money is in the balances that stay, not in the volume that passes through.
And even the balances that stay are shared. In the second quarter of 2026, Circle earned $668 million of reserve income on about $73 billion of USDC, and paid out $412 million in distribution, transaction and other costs. That is about 59 per cent of its total revenue, most of it to the platforms that put USDC in front of customers. Net income from continuing operations was $48 million. If the second-largest issuer in the world gives most of its interest income to its distributors, a newcomer should not expect to keep all of his.
Fully backed does not mean immediately usable
There is another uncomfortable distinction. Your customer receives $2 million in tokens on a Saturday and needs to pay a supplier in local currency. Who converts it? At what price? Within what limits? Who provides the cash if your usual liquidity provider is unavailable? Nobody pays their supplier with an attestation report.
This is where most of the real work lies, and where a newcomer can genuinely win. That is why I would assess the complete journey, not just the token: funding, FX, transfer, redemption, reconciliation, and how problems are handled when something breaks. The comparison must include banks and payment providers as well as other stablecoins. If your stablecoin is slower or more expensive end to end than a bank transfer the customer already has, the technology will not save you.
Regulation decides what you can control
The four models are not equal in front of the regulator either. Issuing a stablecoin has become a licensed activity in every serious jurisdiction. In the European Union, MiCA reserves the issuance of e-money tokens to banks and electronic money institutions. The United States has had a federal framework for payment stablecoins since the GENIUS Act of July 2025. Hong Kong has required a licence from the HKMA since August 2025, and Switzerland is building a dedicated regime of its own (what that means for coins crossing the Swiss–EU border is explained here). Using or distributing someone else’s stablecoin is far lighter, although you will still need the right status for the payment, exchange or custody services you offer around it.
One piece of advice I give to every client who adds crypto or stablecoin activity to an existing business: put it in a separate company. Not for elegance, but for protection. If the crypto activity is hacked or runs into trouble, you want the damage to stay where it started.
Not every opportunity is in dollars, either. Given the Swiss franc’s status as a safe haven, I am convinced a properly licensed Swiss franc stablecoin would sell extremely well. Demand is not the problem. Structure, licence and distribution are.
Two better starting points
Before launching a token, I would look hard at two alternatives. The first is corporate treasury services: companies with real cross-border flows need to hold, convert and pay in several currencies, and that is a service they will pay for, whichever token sits underneath. The second is a consortium of payment businesses sharing distribution and economics, so that the committed flows exist before the token does. Both are a stronger starting point than launching a token and then looking for a purpose.
The question at the centre of the business plan
If I had to put one question at the centre of the business plan, it would be this: for which customers can we deliver a better service, can we make money after all the costs, and does controlling issuance improve the result?
If the numbers justify issuing, issue. If a partnership produces better economics, partner. The logo on the token is the easy part.
Where we come in
At FintechLex we help founders, payment companies and financial groups choose the right model before they spend money on the wrong one: the business case, the licence (EU, Swiss, UK or Asian), the structure, and the partners, from issuers and liquidity providers to banks. If you are weighing a stablecoin project, talk to us before you design the logo.
Contact: insight@fintechlex.com or WhatsApp +41 787 983 770
For a MiCA (CASP) authorisation or a licensed crypto company in Europe, see our crypto and MiCA licensing service.
