When stablecoins start to create chains, does Ethereum still have a chance?

Question

Abstract: In the competition of stablecoin public chains, will Ethereum and Solana be marginalized, and where are the opportunities for retail investors? Author: Biteye Core Contributor @viee7227 In the past few years, stablecoins have been the most "understated" protagonists in the crypto market, yet their volume continues to grow. Cross-border remittances, transaction settlements, compliance pilots... stablecoins remain an indispensable gear 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 begun to build their own chains. In August, Circle announced the launch of Arc, followed closely by Stripe-led Tempo, which also released more details. The two giants that have been deeply engaged in stablecoins for many years have almost simultaneously taken this step, and the logic behind it is thought-provoking. Why do stablecoins need their own chain? In this seemingly "B-end dominated" game, do retail investors still have a chance? When stablecoins control their own "money path," do Ethereum, Solana, and other general public chains still hold enough influence? This article will unfold from four perspectives: What is a stablecoin public chain, and how does it differ from traditional public chains; a comparison of the design paths of representative projects; will stablecoin public chains threaten Ethereum; opportunities that ordinary users may have to enter.

Stablecoin Public Chain: A path closer to the "clearing 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 like Gas: transaction fees are stable and predictable, eliminating the need to hold volatile assets for "tolls." Optimized for payment and settlement: the goal is not to be "universal," but rather "stable and user-friendly." Built-in compliance modules: facilitate connections with banks and payment institutions, reducing gray areas. Designed around the demand for "money": cross-currency settlement, foreign exchange matching, and unified accounting units, providing a settlement system that is closer to the real world. In other words, a stablecoin public chain is more like a vertically integrated model, keeping key links in-house as much as possible from issuance and clearing to application. Its cost involves bearing the pressure of a cold start in the early stages, but in the long run, it can achieve economies of scale and gain influence.
The different paths taken by 5 representative chains
Arc @arc: The first self-owned public chain of Circle As the world's second-largest stablecoin issuer, it is not surprising that Circle launched Arc. Although the market size of USDC is enormous, transaction fees are subject to the fluctuations of Ethereum or other public chains. The emergence of Arc is precisely Circle's attempt to build its own "settlement layer." In the design of Arc, there are three core points: USDC as Gas: Transparent fees, no exchange rate risk. Fast transactions, stable settlements: Promises to confirm transactions within 1 second, suitable for cross-border payments and large-scale settlements. Optional privacy features: Provide necessary accounting privacy for enterprises or institutions while ensuring compliance. This means that Arc is not only Circle's technical attempt but also a key step towards becoming a financial infrastructure provider. 2、Tempo @tempo: "Payment First" public blockchain Tempo is co-incubated by Stripe and Paradigm, and its core logic is straightforward: after stablecoins go mainstream, there needs to be a truly suitable infrastructure for payments. Traditional public chains either have unstable fees, insufficient performance, or an experience that is too "crypto-native", making it difficult to support settlement flows on a global scale. Tempo aims to fill this gap. Therefore, Tempo has several distinct features from the design. Any stablecoin can be used as Gas: stablecoin swaps are realized through a built-in AMM. Low rates & predictability: equipped with payment channels, notes, and whitelist functions, closer to real payment systems. Extreme performance: targeting 100,000 TPS, sub-second confirmation, suitable for scenarios such as salaries, remittances, and micropayments. EVM compatible: based on Reth architecture, low migration costs for developers. 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 could even become a prototype for an "on-chain salary system." Although Tempo focuses on "payment first", its level of decentralization has also sparked some discussions. 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 main stage of USDT Stable is a payment chain specifically designed for USDT, supported by Bitfinex and USDT0, aiming to facilitate the smoother circulation of USDT in daily financial activities. In design, Stable has done a few things: USDT Native Gas: Fees are paid directly with USDT, and peer-to-peer transfers are completely gas-free. Second-level confirmation: Balancing small payments and large fund flows. Enterprise-level features: Including batch transfer aggregation and compliant privacy transfers. Consumer-end experience: Wallet support for connecting bank cards and merchant payments. Developer-friendly: EVM compatible and provides a complete SDK. The keyword for Stable is implementation, focusing on how to make USDT more naturally integrate into daily 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 entry into the EVM environment, directly participating in the stablecoin ecosystem. USDT zero-fee transfers: Completing USDT transfers for free is its biggest selling point. Custom Gas tokens: Developers can choose to pay with stablecoins or ecosystem coins. Optional privacy features: Suitable for payroll distribution and institutional settlement. EVM Compatibility: Based on Reth architecture, low migration costs for developers. In July, Plasma officially launched its public sale, with the token being $XPL. The total subscription amount exceeded $373 million, with oversubscription reaching more than 7 times. The market enthusiasm has already injected a booster shot 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 connect RWA and DeFi on the same chain. In terms of design logic, Converge focuses on three key points: High performance: Block generation in hundreds of milliseconds, pushing performance limits in collaboration with Arbitrum and Celestia. Native Gas for stablecoins: USDe and USDtb are used as transaction fees. Institutional-grade security: Additional protection provided by the ENA network (CVN). In summary, what Converge aims to solve is "how to safely and efficiently bring in large 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. Three, different starting points, common direction From Arc to Tempo, from Stable and Plasma to Converge, although the approaches differ, the core problem they attempt to solve is quite consistent: how stablecoins can truly enter the daily financial cycle. Arc and Stable focus on the controllability of their own assets, Tempo and Plasma emphasize multi-coin neutrality, while Converge directly targets institutions and RWA. The difference lies in the path, 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: Public blockchains for stablecoins will focus more on settlement certainty and compliance interfaces in the future. Projects like Arc and Stable are working hard to become a clearing layer that banks and payment institutions can connect directly. Challenge to Traditional Payments: Chains like Tempo, designed to be "multi-currency neutral," pose an alternative pressure on Visa and Mastercard with their low-cost and global reach characteristics. Reshaping Market Landscape: Currently, Circle and Tether account for nearly 90% of the stablecoin market share, creating a near-duopoly. However, projects like Tempo, which are "stablecoin neutral chains," are breaking this pattern, and the future may lead to a multipolar coexistence. 4. How will stablecoin chain creation reshape the public chain landscape? The most intuitive question regarding the issuance of stablecoin issuers creating their own chains is whether they will impact general-purpose public chains like Ethereum and Solana? Stablecoin chains are naturally born for the "money road" 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. In particular, the impact on TRON may be more direct. The stablecoin of TRON mainly comes from USDT, accounting for over 99%, and it has already become the largest issuing public chain of USDT. However, if the Stable chain promoted by Tether gradually matures, TRON's biggest competitive advantage will be weakened. However, there are also viewpoints that believe these "payment-specific chains" do not truly qualify as blockchain in the real sense. Because if complete decentralization is to be achieved, various unrelated projects and tokens cannot be avoided, resulting in congestion and performance degradation; but if it only serves payments, it can either be extremely simplified like Bitcoin, only capable of transfers, or be partially centralized, controlled by a small number of institutions managing 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 very secure. The former relies on security and composable general finance to accumulate a developer ecosystem, while the latter has its own space in high performance and user experience. Ultimately, the competitive landscape is more likely to be stablecoin chains undertaking deterministic settlement, while ETH/SOL retains open innovation. V. Retail Investor Perspective: Where are the Opportunities? To be honest, this round of opportunities is not friendly to retail investors in terms of direct gains. Compared to previous public chains, stablecoin public chains are more oriented towards the B side, involving payment, clearing, and custody systems. However, there are still several entry points worth paying attention to: Participating in ecological incentives: The cold start of a new chain is often accompanied by bounty programs, developer subsidies, transaction mining, etc., and similar activities may be promoted in the future. Node Staking: More technologically 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 advisable to pay attention to the testnet. For example, ARC may launch its public testnet this fall, and the Stable, Plasma, and Tempo testnets are already online. Long-term allocation: If you are optimistic about the big 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. In the public sale held in July, the token $XPL was oversubscribed by 7 times, with a total amount exceeding 370 million USD. Subsequently, it partnered with Binance for an airdrop event, which was snatched up within an hour. Even in a relatively "institutionalized" track, early retail investors still have the opportunity to reap the benefits. VI. Conclusion Stablecoin public chains will not disrupt the crypto market overnight. Their changes happen more in the background, such as shorter settlement paths, more stable transaction fees, and smoother regulatory interfaces. On the surface, these seem to lack the "sexiness" of a narrative, but at the infrastructure level, they are steadily building the "water, electricity, and coal" of stablecoins. When we shift our perspective from "coin price" back to "how the money flows," the logic becomes clearer: Who can guarantee the certainty of settlement; who can provide stable cross-coin liquidity; who can connect real payment scenarios. The stablecoin public chain is likely to be the most solid narrative of the next bull market. If there are projects that can truly deliver on these three things, it will not just be a "public chain"; it may become the infrastructure of the next generation of crypto finance.