When stablecoins begin to build chains, does Ethereum still have a chance?

Author: Viee, Biteye

In the past few years, stablecoins have been the most “low-key” protagonists in the cryptocurrency market, yet their volume continues to grow. Cross-border remittances, transaction settlements, compliance pilots… stablecoins remain an indispensable cog in the flow of crypto capital.

This year, a more milestone change has occurred: stablecoin issuers are no longer satisfied with “standing on the chain” but have started to create their own chains. In August, Circle announced the launch of Arc, followed closely by Stripe's Tempo releasing more details. Two giants that have been deeply involved in stablecoins took this step almost simultaneously, and the logic behind it is intriguing.

Why do stablecoins need their own chain? In this seemingly “B-end dominant” game, do retail investors still have a chance? When stablecoins control their own “money path,” do general public chains like Ethereum and Solana still retain enough influence?

This article will unfold from four perspectives:

1. What is a stablecoin public chain, and how does it differ from traditional public chains?

2. Comparison of design paths for representative projects;

3. Will stablecoin public chains threaten Ethereum?

4. Opportunities that ordinary users may have.

01 Stablecoin Public Chain: A Path Closer to the “Settlement Layer”

If Ethereum, Solana, and other public chains focus on decentralized applications, then stablecoin public chains are closer to the settlement layer.

They have several distinct characteristics:

· Stablecoin is Gas: Transaction fees are stable and predictable, eliminating the need to hold volatile assets for “toll fees.”

· Optimized for Payment and Settlement: The goal is not “universal”, but rather “stable and user-friendly.”

· Built-in compliance module: Facilitates integration with banks and payment institutions, reducing gray areas.

· Design around the demand for “money”: Cross-currency settlement, foreign exchange matching, unified accounting unit, a clearing system that is closer to the real world.

In other words, stablecoin public chains are more like a vertically integrated model, keeping control of key links from issuance, clearing to application as much as possible. The cost is to bear the pressure of cold start in the early stage, but in the long run, it can achieve economies of scale and gain discourse power.

02 5 representative chains take different paths

1. Arc @arc: The first self-owned public chain of Circle

As the world's second-largest stablecoin issuer, Circle's launch of Arc is not surprising. Although USDC has a large market size, transaction fees are subject to fluctuations on Ethereum or other public chains. The emergence of Arc is precisely Circle's attempt to build its own “settlement layer.”

There are three core points in the design of Arc:

· USDC as Gas: Transparent fees, no exchange rate risk.

· Fast Transactions, Stable Settlements: Committed to confirming transactions within 1 second, suitable for cross-border payments and large settlements.

· Optional Privacy Features: Provide necessary financial privacy for enterprises or institutions while ensuring compliance.

This means that Arc is not only a technological attempt by Circle, but also a key step towards becoming a financial infrastructure provider.

2. Tempo @tempo: “Payment Priority” Public Chain

Tempo is co-incubated by Stripe and Paradigm, and the core logic is straightforward: after stablecoins go mainstream, there is a need for a truly payment-suitable infrastructure. Traditional public chains either have unstable fees, insufficient performance, or an overly “crypto-native” experience, making it difficult to support global settlement flows. Tempo aims to fill this gap.

Therefore, Tempo is designed with several distinct features:

· Any stablecoin can be used as Gas: Achieve stablecoin swaps through the built-in AMM.

· Low Fees & Predictable: Equipped with payment channels, notes, and whitelist features, closer to a real payment system.

· Extreme Performance: Target 100,000 TPS, sub-second confirmation, suitable for scenarios such as payroll, remittances, and micropayments.

· EVM Compatible: Based on Reth architecture, developers have low migration costs.

Its partners are also quite substantial, including Visa, Deutsche Bank, Shopify, OpenAI… This makes Tempo more like an open dollar payment network rather than just an affiliate of a single stablecoin. If it can be successfully implemented, it may even become a prototype for an “on-chain salary system.”

Although Tempo focuses on “payment first”, its degree of decentralization has also sparked some discussion. Currently, Tempo's design leans more towards the attributes of a “consortium blockchain” rather than a “public blockchain”; the nodes are not completely open, and the degree of decentralization is indeed somewhat weaker.

3. Stable @stable: The Home of USDT

Stable is a payment chain specifically designed for USDT, supported by Bitfinex and USDT0, with the aim of allowing USDT to circulate more smoothly in daily financial activities.

In design, Stable has done a few things:

· USDT Native Gas: The transaction fee is paid directly in USDT, and peer-to-peer transfers are completely gas-free.

· Second-level confirmation: Balancing small payments and large capital flows.

· Enterprise-level features: Including bulk transfer aggregation and compliant privacy transfers.

· Consumer Experience: The supporting wallet connects to bank cards and merchant payments.

· Developer Friendly: EVM compatible and provides a complete SDK

The key word for Stable is implementation, focusing on how to make USDT more naturally integrate into everyday scenarios such as cross-border remittances, merchant acquiring, and institutional clearing.

4. Plasma @PlasmaFDN: Bitcoin Sidechain

Unlike Stable, Plasma has chosen a different path. As a sidechain of Bitcoin, it relies on the security of BTC while focusing on stablecoin payments.

In design, Plasma mainly has the following features:

· Bitcoin Native Bridge: BTC non-custodial cross-chain access to the EVM environment, directly participating in the stablecoin ecosystem.

· USDT Zero Transaction Fee Transfer: Completing USDT transfers for free is its biggest selling point.

· Custom Gas Tokens: Developers can choose to pay with stablecoins or ecosystem tokens.

· Optional Privacy Features: Adapted for salary payments and institutional settlement.

· EVM Compatible: Based on the Reth architecture, migration costs for developers are low.

The public sale of Plasma officially started in July, with the token being $XPL. The total subscription amount exceeded 373 million US dollars, with an oversubscription rate of more than 7 times. The market enthusiasm has already injected a shot of adrenaline into it.

5. Converge @convergeonchain: The Convergence Point of RWA and DeFi

The previous few chains essentially revolve around “stablecoin settlement payments.” Converge's ambition is different; its goal is to bring RWA and DeFi onto the same chain.

In terms of design logic, Converge focuses on three key points:

· High Performance: Block production in milliseconds, pushing performance limits in collaboration with Arbitrum and Celestia.

· Native Gas for Stablecoins: USDe and USDtb are used as transaction fees.

· Institutional-level security: Additional protection provided by the ENA network (CVN).

In summary, Converge aims to solve the issue of “how to safely and efficiently bring in large amounts of capital.” Its partners include familiar DeFi protocols such as Aave, Pendle, and Morpho, and it will also support the integration of RWA assets like Securitize.

03 Different starting points, common direction

From Arc to Tempo, from Stable and Plasma to Converge, although the approaches vary, the core issue they are trying to address is quite consistent: how stablecoins can truly enter the everyday financial cycle. Arc and Stable focus on the controllability of their own assets, Tempo and Plasma emphasize multi-currency neutrality, while Converge directly targets institutions and RWA. The differences lie in the paths, but the common goal is to make transfers more certain, liquidity smoother, and compliance more natural.

Following this main line, the future of stablecoin public chains can generally be seen in three trends:

· Compliance and Institutionalization: Future stablecoin public chains will focus more on settlement certainty and compliance interfaces. Arc, Stable, and others are working hard to become a clearing layer that banks and payment institutions can directly connect to.

· Challenges to Traditional Payments: Chains designed with “multi-currency neutrality” like Tempo pose alternative pressure on Visa and Mastercard with their low cost and global reach characteristics.

· Market Restructuring: Currently, Circle and Tether occupy nearly 90% of the stablecoin market share, resulting in a nearly duopoly. However, “stablecoin neutral chains” like Tempo are breaking this pattern, potentially leading to a multipolar coexistence in the future.

How will the creation of stablecoin chains rewrite the landscape of public chains?

The most intuitive question regarding the issuance of stablecoins by their issuers is whether they will impact general-purpose public chains like Ethereum and Solana.

Stablecoin chains are naturally born for “money routes” and are indeed more suitable for high-frequency but low-risk businesses such as cross-border remittances and salary payments than the ETH mainnet or Solana. The impact on TRON may be even more direct. TRON's stablecoins mainly come from USDT, accounting for over 99%, and it has now become the largest public chain for USDT issuance. However, if the Stable chain promoted by Tether gradually matures, TRON's biggest competitive advantage will be weakened.

However, there are also views that believe this type of “payment-specific chain” is not truly a blockchain in the real sense. Because if complete decentralization is to be achieved, it cannot avoid the influx of various unrelated projects and tokens, resulting in congestion and performance degradation; but if it chooses to only serve payments, it can either be as functionally simple as Bitcoin, only capable of transfers, or be partially centralized, with a small number of institutions controlling the nodes. In other words, it is difficult to balance both “decentralization” and “payment efficiency.”

This also means that the positioning of Ethereum and Solana is actually quite secure. The former has built a developer ecosystem based on security and composable general finance, while the latter has its own space in high performance and user experience. Ultimately, the competitive landscape is more likely to have stablecoin chains handling deterministic settlements, while ETH/SOL retains open innovation.

05 Retail Perspective: Where are the Opportunities?

To be honest, this round of opportunities is not friendly to the “direct earnings” of retail investors. Compared to previous public chains, stablecoin public chains are more oriented towards the “B-end”, involving payment, clearing, and custody systems.

However, there are still several entry points worth noting:

· Participate in ecological incentives: New chain cold starts are often accompanied by bounty programs, developer subsidies, transaction mining, etc., and similar activities may be promoted in the future.

· Node Staking: More technically advanced players can pay attention to node validation. For example, Converge requires staking ENA to participate.

· Testnet: Many projects will airdrop rewards to early users, so it's a good idea to pay attention to testnets. For example, ARC may launch its public testnet this autumn, and the Stable, Plasma, and Tempo testnets are already live.

· Long-term Allocation: If you are optimistic about the narrative of “stablecoin public chains,” you might consider longer-term investments, such as focusing on related stocks like Circle and Coinbase.

It is particularly worth mentioning Plasma. During the public sale held in July, the token $XPL was oversubscribed by 7 times, with a total amount exceeding $370 million, and then it collaborated with Binance for an airdrop event, which was completely sold out within an hour. Even in a relatively “institutionalized” sector, early retail investors still have the opportunity to reap benefits.

06 Conclusion

Stablecoin public chains will not disrupt the crypto market overnight. Its changes occur more in the background, such as shorter settlement paths, more stable transaction fees, and smoother regulatory interfaces.

On the surface, these seem to lack a narrative of “sexiness,” but at the infrastructure level, they are gradually building the “water, electricity, and coal” that belong to stablecoins. When we shift our perspective from “coin price” to “how the money flows,” the logic becomes clearer.

· Who can guarantee the certainty of settlement;

· Who can provide stable cross-currency liquidity;

· Who can connect to the real payment scenarios.

Stablecoin public chains are likely to be the most solid narrative in the next bull market. If three things can truly be realized by projects, it will not just be a “public chain,” but may become the infrastructure of the next generation of crypto finance.

Source: Biteye