Stablecoin payment track: Who is the real winner?

Author: Rob Hadick, Dragonfly Partner; Compiler: 0xjs@金财经

I receive a lot of questions about where the stablecoin market is headed and which parts will generate the most value, so I’m sharing some here Unfiltered thoughts.

Specifically, I view the market from several perspectives - more than most frameworks I've seen (though not as sophisticated as the very good Artemis Market Map).

Because payments are complex and subtle in nature. Understanding who is doing what and owning what is important, especially among investors who often seem to miss the nuances.

The categories are: (1) Settlement Channels, (2) Stablecoin Issuers, (3) Liquidity Providers, (4) Value Transfer/Money Services, (5) Aggregation APIs/Messaging , (6) merchant gateways, and (7) stablecoin-powered applications.

You might ask: why are there so many categories, especially since I haven’t even covered core infrastructure like wallets or third-party compliance. This is because each domain has its own defensive "moat" and different ways of capturing value. Of course, there is overlap between providers, but it's critical to understand the differences in each part of the stack.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Settlement channels:

These are all about network effects - think deep liquidity, low fees, Fast settlement times, reliable uptime, and inherent compliance and privacy. They are likely to form winner-take-all markets. I highly doubt that a general-purpose blockchain can reach the scale and standards of major payment networks. I expect extensions or layer 2 of universal chains to play a role, but the point is we need purpose-built solutions. The winner here will be very valuable and will likely focus on stablecoins/payments.

2. Stablecoin issuers:

Currently, issuers (such as Circle and Tether) are the clear winners because they benefit from huge network effects and high interest rates. But going forward, if they continue to act like asset managers rather than payments companies, they will be in trouble. They need to invest in fast, reliable infrastructure, high compliance standards, cheap minting/redemption processes, central bank and core banking integration, and overall improved liquidity (like what @withAUSD is doing). “Stablecoin-as-a-service” platforms (such as Paxos) will spawn countless competitors, but I still believe that neutral non-bank and fintech-issued stablecoins will win because the competition will not allow closed systems to operate without trusted neutrality transactions (and benefit others) without the involvement of third parties. Issuers already have a lot of value, and some will continue to win big, but they need to grow and not just issue.

3. Liquidity Providers (LP):

Today, these are typically OTC desks or exchanges that are either large, successful cryptocurrency businesses or Smaller businesses, unable to compete well in terms of broad cryptocurrency capabilities, have pivoted to focus on stablecoins. The space feels extremely commoditized with minimal pricing power - the moat is entirely around access to cheap funding, uptime and deep liquidity/large number of currency pairs. This means that over time, large companies should dominate stablecoin-focused providers. I don’t think LPs focused on stablecoins can create a strong and lasting advantage.

4. Value transfer/money services ("PSP" for stablecoins):

Sometimes referred to as "stablecoin aggregation" platforms, such as @stablecoin and @conduitpay, these companies You win and build a moat when you have a proprietary track and a direct relationship with your bank rather than using a third-party provider. Their "moat" comes from banking relationships and capabilities, flexibility to process different forms of payments, global reach, liquidity, uptime and top-tier compliance. Many say they do, but few actually have their own truly proprietary infrastructure. The winner here will enjoy modest pricing power, form a regional duopoly or oligopoly, and complement traditional PSPs to become very large players.

5. Aggregation API/Messaging Platform:

These players often say that they do the same thing as PSP, but they just wrap or aggregate the API. They take no compliance or operational risk themselves – they should be considered more of a marketplace for PSPs and LPs. They can charge high fees now, but eventually they will be squeezed (perhaps completely disintermediated) because they don't have the "hard" parts of handling the payment process or infrastructure. They call themselves the “Plaid of stablecoins” forgetting that blockchain already solves many of the original pain points that Plaid solved for traditional banking/payments. Unless they get closer to the end customer and take on more of the stack, they will struggle to maintain profits and business.

6. Merchant Gateway/Entry Channel:

These help merchants and businesses accept stablecoins or cryptocurrencies. They sometimes overlap with PSP, but primarily provide simple development tools while aggregating third-party compliance and payments infrastructure and packaging it into a user-friendly interface. They want to be like Stripe – win on ease of integration and then scale horizontally. But unlike Stripe’s early days, developer-friendly payment options are now everywhere and distribution is king. Established payments players should be able to easily partner with orchestration companies to add stablecoin options, making it difficult for cryptocurrency-only gateways to carve out a niche. While companies like Moonpay or Transak have historically enjoyed a lot of pricing power, I don't think this will continue. On the B2B side, there may still be some winners who add unique software features to manage large funds or use stablecoins at scale, but B2C may be a losing category. Overall, though, I think this segment faces an uphill battle.

7. Stablecoin-driven financial technology and applications:

Now, it is more important than ever to build a “new bank” or “fintech” driven by stablecoins. Be easy, so this area will be a tough competition. Who wins will depend on distribution, GTM capabilities and differentiated product awareness – just like regular fintech. But when established brands like Nubank, Robinhood, and Revolut can easily add stablecoin functionality, it can be difficult for startups to stand out, especially in developed markets. In emerging markets, there may be more opportunities to offer unique products (take @Zarpay, for example), but if your differentiation is simply stablecoin-driven finance, developed markets are likely to be a losing proposition. Overall, I expect the failure rate here to be very high and that there will still be challenges for this category, crypto/stablecoin consumer startups. However, business-focused businesses may have more opportunities to carve out niche markets.

Of course, edge cases and overlapping cases are not covered here. But as investors who have invested a lot of time in this space, this framework helps guide our thinking.