Pinned post
The payments table tells a story nobody planned.
@Visa is up 5% for the year, @Mastercard barely 1%, and @circle - down 42% over twelve months - just gained 30% in a single month. Read quickly, it looks like noise. Read slowly, it's the market changing its mind about who actually earns money on stablecoins.
The old thesis was simple: pay a premium for distribution, avoid the issuers. Visa ( $V ) and Mastercard ( $MA ) own the rails, the merchants, the habits of 8b cards.
Circle ( $CRCL ) owns a token and an interest rate. When rates fall, circle bleeds; the giants just keep clipping their 2-3%.
That thesis is quietly breaking from both ends. Circle stopped being a pure rates trade - a federal trust bank charter, a swing to profit in Q2, transaction revenue doubling. @USDC did $849b in july volume, 62% of the entire market.
The rally isn't a discovery, it's a correction of an overdone funeral. The stock still sits 58% below last year, insiders are selling, and wall street can't agree on a target within a factor of two. But the business underneath has changed shape.
Meanwhile the "safe" side got less safe. Mastercard paid $1.8b for @BVNKFinance - the same firm that powered Visa's stablecoin payouts, which is the kind of irony m&a lawyers dream about.
Both networks joined the open standard consortium behind $OUSD. They are no longer toll collectors watching the disruption from a bridge; they are issuers now, competing in the market they were supposedly immune to.
And the reason is visible on-chain: $33t in stablecoin transfers last year, growing 72%, with AI agents learning to route around anything that charges interchange.
So the divergence in the table isn't old rails versus new rails. It's a market splitting one bet into three - distribution, issuance, and the consortium coin that could squeeze both.
The premium for standing still just stopped being free.
Data: @artemis
@Visa is up 5% for the year, @Mastercard barely 1%, and @circle - down 42% over twelve months - just gained 30% in a single month. Read quickly, it looks like noise. Read slowly, it's the market changing its mind about who actually earns money on stablecoins.
The old thesis was simple: pay a premium for distribution, avoid the issuers. Visa ( $V ) and Mastercard ( $MA ) own the rails, the merchants, the habits of 8b cards.
Circle ( $CRCL ) owns a token and an interest rate. When rates fall, circle bleeds; the giants just keep clipping their 2-3%.
That thesis is quietly breaking from both ends. Circle stopped being a pure rates trade - a federal trust bank charter, a swing to profit in Q2, transaction revenue doubling. @USDC did $849b in july volume, 62% of the entire market.
The rally isn't a discovery, it's a correction of an overdone funeral. The stock still sits 58% below last year, insiders are selling, and wall street can't agree on a target within a factor of two. But the business underneath has changed shape.
Meanwhile the "safe" side got less safe. Mastercard paid $1.8b for @BVNKFinance - the same firm that powered Visa's stablecoin payouts, which is the kind of irony m&a lawyers dream about.
Both networks joined the open standard consortium behind $OUSD. They are no longer toll collectors watching the disruption from a bridge; they are issuers now, competing in the market they were supposedly immune to.
And the reason is visible on-chain: $33t in stablecoin transfers last year, growing 72%, with AI agents learning to route around anything that charges interchange.
So the divergence in the table isn't old rails versus new rails. It's a market splitting one bet into three - distribution, issuance, and the consortium coin that could squeeze both.
The premium for standing still just stopped being free.
Data: @artemis
