Multidimensional Analysis of the Seven Key Tracks of Stablecoins: Who is the Real Winner?

Original Title: "Stablecoin Payments: Who Actually Wins?"

Author: Rob Hadick, General Partner at Dragonfly

Compiled by: Yuliya, PANews

As the stablecoin ecosystem continues to evolve, market attention towards its future development direction and value distribution is increasing day by day. This article will delve into various dimensions of the stablecoin market's different tracks and their value potential.

Compared to traditional frameworks, this analysis adopts a more detailed classification method, stemming from the complexity and subtle differences inherent in the payment sector. For investors, accurately grasping the role positioning and ownership structure of each participant is particularly important. The main classifications include:

1. Settlement Rails

2. Stablecoin Issuers

3. Liquidity Providers

4. Value Transfer/Currency Services

5. Aggregated APIs/Messaging Platforms

6. Merchant Gateways

7. Stablecoin-Driven Applications

One might ask: why so many categories, especially when core infrastructures like wallets or third-party compliance are not covered? This is because each area has its unique defensive "moat" and different ways of value capture. Although there is overlap among providers, understanding the uniqueness of each layer is crucial. Below is an analysis of the value distribution across various fields:

1. Settlement Rails

This is a typical network effect-dominated area, with core competitiveness reflected in:

• Deep liquidity

• Low fee structure

• Fast settlement

• Stable system availability

• Native compliance and privacy protection

This is likely to create a winner-takes-all market. General-purpose blockchains struggle to meet the scalability needs of mainstream payment networks, while Layer 2 or dedicated solutions may have more development potential. Winners in this field will be highly valuable and are likely to focus on the stablecoin/payment sector.

2. Stablecoin Issuers

Currently, issuers like Circle and Tether have achieved significant success due to strong network effects and a high-interest rate environment. However, future development requires:

• Building efficient and reliable infrastructure

• Enhancing compliance standards

• Optimizing minting/redemption processes

• Strengthening integration with central banks and core banking systems

• Improving overall liquidity (e.g., Agora)

While SaaS models like Paxos (Stablecoin as a Service) may spawn more competitors, stablecoins issued by neutral non-bank institutions and fintech may have an advantage, as transactions between closed systems require a trusted neutral third party. Issuers already hold substantial value, and some will continue to win big, but they need to develop a more comprehensive business beyond just issuance.

3. Liquidity Providers (LPs)

Currently dominated by OTC and exchanges, this area exhibits highly commoditized characteristics. Competitive advantages mainly rely on:

• Low-cost capital acquisition

• System stability

• Deep liquidity and trading pair support

In the long run, large institutions will dominate the market, making it difficult for LPs focused on stablecoins to establish lasting advantages.

4. Value Transfer/Currency Services (Stablecoin's "PSPs")

The moat of these "stablecoin orchestration" platforms (like Bridge and Conduit) comes from:

• Proprietary payment rails

• Direct banking partnerships

• Global coverage capabilities

• Ample liquidity

• High levels of compliance capability

Few platforms truly possess proprietary infrastructure, but successful ones are expected to form an oligopoly in regional markets and complement traditional PSPs (Payment Service Providers) to become very large enterprises.

5. Aggregated APIs/Messaging Platforms

These market participants often claim to provide the same services as PSPs, but in reality, they are merely packaging and aggregating APIs. These platforms do not bear compliance risks or operational risks; more accurately, they should be viewed as market platforms for PSPs and liquidity providers (LPs).

While these platforms can currently charge high service fees, they face the risk of profit compression or even complete elimination, as they do not genuinely address the core challenges in the payment process or participate in infrastructure development. These platforms often brand themselves as the "Plaid of the stablecoin space," overlooking a key fact: blockchain technology itself has already resolved most of the pain points that Plaid addresses in traditional banking and payments. Unless they can expand towards end users and take on more responsibilities in the tech stack, they will struggle to maintain their profit margins and business sustainability.

6. Merchant Gateways/Entrances

These platforms help merchants and businesses accept stablecoin or cryptocurrency payments. While there is sometimes business overlap with PSPs, they primarily focus on providing convenient developer tools while integrating third-party compliance and payment infrastructure, packaging it into user-friendly interfaces. They hope to emulate Stripe's growth path—gaining market access through easy integration and then horizontally expanding their business.

However, unlike Stripe's early market environment, developer-friendly payment solutions are now ubiquitous, and channel distribution capability is the key to success. Existing payment giants can easily collaborate with payment orchestration companies to add stablecoin payment options, making it difficult for pure cryptocurrency gateways to find their market positioning. Although companies like Moonpay or Transak enjoyed strong pricing power in the past, this advantage is expected to be hard to sustain.

In the B2B sector, particularly in large fund management and scaled stablecoin applications, there are still opportunities, but the B2C sector is highly competitive and faces severe challenges.

7. Stablecoin-Driven Fintech and Applications

Creating a "digital bank" or "fintech" product based on stablecoins is now easier than ever, making competition in this field exceptionally fierce. Success will depend on distribution capability, marketing strategies, and differentiated product insights—similar to traditional fintech.

In developed markets, traditional fintech giants like Nubank, Robinhood, and Revolut can easily integrate stablecoin functionalities, while startups need to find unique value propositions.

In emerging markets, there may still be opportunities for unique products (like Zarpay), but relying solely on stablecoin-supported financial services as a differentiating advantage will be challenging in developed markets.

Overall, pure cryptocurrency/stablecoin consumer startups in this category may face extremely high failure rates and will continue to encounter challenges. However, enterprise-focused businesses may still find opportunities to carve out their niche markets.

Conclusion

While this framework does not cover all edge cases and overlapping areas, it provides a useful thinking framework for investors deeply engaged in this field. As the market continues to evolve, new opportunities and challenges will emerge, making it crucial for industry participants to understand these market dynamics.