This article provides an in-depth analysis of the various tracks and their value potential in the stablecoin market from multiple dimensions. Based on an article by Rob Hadick, a general partner at Dragonfly, organized and translated by PANews. (Background: Hong Kong's (Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Bill) has been released: engaging in these three fiat currency businesses requires a license from the Monetary Authority.) (Background Info: DeFi stablecoin monthly trading volume has 'exceeded $700 billion' comparable to Visa; Standard Chartered: Trump's presidency could increase market value tenfold.) With the continuous development of the stablecoin ecosystem, market attention to its future development direction and value distribution is increasing day by day. This article will analyze the various tracks and their value potential in the stablecoin market from multiple dimensions. Compared to traditional frameworks, this analysis adopts a more detailed classification method, which stems from the complexity and subtle differences inherent in the payment field. For investors, accurately grasping the roles and ownership structures of each participant is particularly important. The main classifications include: Settlement Rails, Stablecoin Issuers, Liquidity Providers, Value Transfer / Currency Services, Aggregator APIs / Messaging Platforms, Merchant Gateways, and Stablecoin-driven Applications. Some may ask: why so many categories, especially since 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. While there is overlap among providers, understanding the uniqueness of each layer is crucial. Here is an analysis of the value distribution across various domains: 1. Settlement Rails This is a typical domain dominated by network effects, with core competitiveness reflected in: Deep liquidity, Low cost 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; Layer 2 or dedicated solutions may have more development potential. The winners in this area will be highly valuable and are likely to focus on the stablecoin/payment domain. 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/redeeming processes, Strengthening integration with central banks and core banking systems, Enhancing overall liquidity (e.g., Agora). While SaaS (Stablecoin as a Service) models like Paxos may spawn more competitors, stablecoins issued by neutral non-bank institutions and fintech may have advantages, as transactions between closed systems require a trusted neutral third party. Issuers already hold significant value, and while some issuers will continue to win big, they need to develop more comprehensive businesses beyond just issuance. 3. Liquidity Providers (LPs) Currently led by OTC and exchanges, showing highly commoditized characteristics. Competitive advantages primarily rely on: Low-cost capital acquisition, System stability, Deep liquidity and trading pair support. In the long run, large institutions will dominate the market, and LPs focusing on stablecoins will struggle to establish lasting advantages. 4. Value Transfer / Currency Services (Stablecoin's “PSPs”) The moats of these “stablecoin orchestration” platforms (like Bridge and Conduit) come from: Proprietary payment rails, Direct bank partnerships, Global coverage capabilities, Ample liquidity, High-level compliance capabilities. There are few platforms that truly own proprietary infrastructure, but successful ones are expected to form an oligopolistic pattern in regional markets and supplement traditional PSPs (Payment Service Providers) to become very large enterprises. 5. Aggregator APIs / Messaging Platforms These market participants often claim to provide the same services as Payment Service Providers (PSPs), but in reality, they are merely encapsulating and aggregating APIs. These platforms do not assume compliance risks or operational risks; more accurately, they should be viewed as market platforms for PSPs and liquidity providers (LPs). Although these platforms can currently charge high service fees, they face the risk of profit compression and even potential elimination since they do not address core pain points in the payment process or participate in infrastructure development. These platforms often position themselves as the 'Plaid of the stablecoin space,' neglecting a key fact: blockchain technology itself has already resolved most of the pain points that Plaid solved in traditional banking and payment spaces. Unless they can expand their suite toward end users and take on more responsibilities within the tech stack, they will struggle to maintain their profitability and business sustainability. 6. Merchant Gateways These platforms assist merchants and businesses in accepting stablecoin or cryptocurrency payments. While there may be business overlap with PSPs, they primarily focus on providing convenient developer tools while integrating third-party compliance and payment infrastructure and packaging it into user-friendly interfaces. They aspire to emulate Stripe's growth path — capturing the market through easy onboarding and then horizontally expanding their suite of services. However, unlike Stripe's early market environment, developer-friendly payment solutions are now ubiquitous, and channel distribution capability is the key to winning. 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 space, especially regarding large fund management and scalable stablecoin applications, there are still opportunities, but the B2C space is fiercely competitive and faces significant challenges. 7. Stablecoin-driven Fintech and Applications Building a 'digital bank' or 'fintech' product based on stablecoins is now easier than ever, making competition in this area exceptionally intense. Success will depend on distribution capability, marketing strategies, and differentiated product insights — which is no different from traditional fintech. In developed markets, traditional fintech giants like Nubank, Robinhood, and Revolut can easily integrate stablecoin functionalities, while startups need to seek unique value propositions. In emerging markets, there may still be opportunities for unique products (such as Zarpay), but relying solely on stablecoin-backed financial services as a differentiating advantage will struggle to achieve success in developed markets. Overall, pure cryptocurrency/stablecoin consumer startups in this category may face extremely high failure rates and will continue to face challenges. However, business targeting enterprises may still find opportunities to carve out their niche. Conclusion Although 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. Related Reports: The Central Bank of Brazil plans to 'restrict users from withdrawing stablecoins from CEX to personal wallets'; USDT accelerates the local fiat currency depreciation? The former head of Facebook's currency reveals 'Meta's stable...

#USDT