Dominance is a lagging indicator. Incumbent stablecoins lead because they solved liquidity and trust first, but their centralized issuance and redemption creates systemic risk and censorship vectors that decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols are actively engineering around.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why Tether and USDC's Dominance Is Not a Permanent Moat
Their centralized liability structure is a systemic vulnerability. This analysis details how decentralized, yield-bearing, and compliant alternatives are building a superior, defensible model that venture capital is funding to dismantle the duopoly.
introduction
THE ILLUSION OF PERMANENCE
Introduction
Tether and USDC's market share is a product of first-mover advantage and network effects, not a defensible technological moat.
The moat is regulatory, not technical. USDC's compliance-first model and Tether's opacity are liabilities, not assets, in a system whose ultimate value proposition is permissionless, global settlement. Protocols like MakerDAO's DAI and Ethena's USDe demonstrate viable alternative models that bypass traditional banking rails.
Network effects are re-hypothecated liquidity. The dominance of Circle and Tether is contingent on their tokens being the default pair on venues like Uniswap and Curve. New primitives for intent-based trading (UniswapX) and native yield (Aave's GHO) can rewire liquidity flows overnight, eroding the incumbents' utility layer by layer.
key-trends
THE MOAT IS DRYING
Executive Summary: The Three-Pronged Attack
The dominance of Tether and USDC is a product of first-mover advantage and network effects, not technological superiority. Three structural forces are actively eroding their position.
01
The Regulatory Siege
Centralized mints are a single point of regulatory failure. Every enforcement action against Circle or Tether creates a systemic risk event that fragments liquidity and trust.
- DeFi-native stablecoins like DAI and FRAX are structurally resistant to OFAC sanctions.
- On-chain proof of reserves and real-time attestations are becoming a non-negotiable demand from institutions.
- The SEC's war on 'unregistered securities' directly targets the centralized business models backing USDC and USDT.
>50%
Of DAI is now backed by non-USD assets
$1.2B+
USDC depegged (Mar '23)
02
The Native Yield Onslaught
0% yield on static stablecoins is a $10B+ annual opportunity cost. The market is demanding risk-adjusted returns directly from the stablecoin layer.
- Ethena's USDe and Mountain Protocol's USDM offer ~15% native yield via delta-neutral staking strategies.
- Maker's DAI Savings Rate (DSR) and Aave's GHO bake yield into the asset's monetary policy.
- This creates a flywheel: yield attracts capital, which deepens liquidity, which reduces volatility, attracting more capital.
$2B+
USDe TVL in <6 months
~15%
Native APY (USDe)
03
The Chain-Agnostic Fragmentation
Multi-chain reality has turned bridging from a feature into a critical vulnerability. Native multi-chain stablecoins are winning the liquidity war on emerging L2s.
- USDC.e (bridged) vs. native USDC on Arbitrum/OP creates confusing, fragmented pools.
- LayerZero's OFT standard enables native omnichain tokens, making Stargate Finance a key liquidity router.
- Circle's CCTP is a defensive, permissioned response to this trend, ceding ground to permissionless alternatives.
60%+
Of Arbitrum DEX volume uses USDC.e
$10B+
TVL in omnichain assets
thesis-statement
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
The Centralized Liability Is a Fatal Flaw
The centralized control of USDT and USDC creates a systemic risk that on-chain, decentralized alternatives will inevitably exploit.
The mints are kill switches. Tether and Circle maintain unilateral power to freeze addresses and blacklist contracts, a feature directly at odds with crypto's core value proposition of censorship resistance. This control is not a bug; it is a centralized liability that regulators will exploit.
On-chain primitives are the antidote. Protocols like MakerDAO's DAI and Liquity's LUSD demonstrate that decentralized, overcollateralized stablecoins are viable. Their growth is constrained by capital efficiency, not by a central party's permission.
The next generation solves efficiency. New models like Ethena's USDe (synthetic dollar) and crvUSD's LLAMMA (soft-liquidations) directly attack the capital inefficiency problem. They combine crypto-native yield with robust, on-chain mechanisms, eroding the convenience moat of centralized issuers.
Evidence: The OFAC sanction of Tornado Cash proved this risk is not theoretical. Circle complied, freezing over 75,000 USDC in sanctioned addresses. A truly decentralized financial system cannot have this vulnerability at its core.
WHY THE INCUMBENTS' MOAT IS ERODING
Stablecoin Archetype Matrix: Centralized vs. The New Wave
A feature and risk comparison of dominant fiat-backed stablecoins versus emerging decentralized and yield-bearing alternatives.
| Feature / Metric | Centralized (USDT/USDC) | Decentralized (DAI, FRAX) | Yield-Bearing (sDAI, eUSD, USDY) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Backing | Bank Deposits & Treasuries | Overcollateralized Crypto (e.g., ETH, stETH) | Yield-Generating Assets (e.g., staked ETH, T-Bills) |
Censorship Resistance | Partial (Protocol Dependent) | ||
Native Yield to Holder | |||
Typical On-Chain Settlement | 1-2 sec | 1-2 sec | 1-2 sec |
Key Failure Mode | Bank Run / Regulatory Seizure | Collateral Volatility / Oracle Attack | Yield Source Failure / Smart Contract Risk |
DeFi Composability Score | High (Deepest Liquidity) | High (Core Money Lego) | Medium (Growing Integration) |
Dominant Issuer Control | Single Entity (Tether, Circle) | Decentralized Governance (MakerDAO, Frax Finance) | Decentralized Protocol (MakerDAO, Ethena, Ondo) |
Annual Revenue to Issuer | $6B+ (Tether Q1 '24) | $200M+ (MakerDAO 2023) | Varies (e.g., Ethena: ~30% of yield) |
deep-dive
THE ATTACK VECTORS
How Alternatives Are Exploiting the Weakness
Competitors are targeting the technical and regulatory vulnerabilities of centralized stablecoins to siphon market share.
On-chain yield is the wedge. Protocols like Ethena and Mountain Protocol offer native yield directly on-chain, bypassing the 0% yield model of USDC and USDT. This creates a fundamental product advantage for DeFi-native capital.
Regulatory risk is a feature. The OFAC-sanctioned Tornado Cash incident, where Circle froze USDC, proved censorship resistance is a demand. This drives adoption for decentralized alternatives like DAI and LUSD that lack centralized mintage controls.
Composability creates network effects. Ethereum's ERC-20 standard and Layer 2 rollups like Arbitrum and Base are permissionless. Any stablecoin that integrates gains instant liquidity across thousands of dApps, eroding the first-mover advantage of incumbents.
Evidence: Ethena's USDe reached a $2B supply in under 6 months, demonstrating the velocity of capital moving towards yield-bearing synthetic dollars.
protocol-spotlight
WHY THE MOAT IS POROUS
VC-Backed Challengers: The Attack Vectors
Regulatory capture and network effects are not permanent defenses against well-funded, technically superior alternatives.
01
The Regulatory Blowback
Tether's opacity and USDC's OFAC compliance are their greatest liabilities. Challengers exploit this by offering superior transparency or neutrality.
- Proof-of-Reserves with real-time attestations (e.g., Mountain Protocol's USDM).
- Non-custodial and permissionless minting/redemption, removing single-point regulatory failure.
- Targeting DeFi-native users who prioritize censorship resistance over traditional banking rails.
100%
Attested
0
OFAC Blocks
02
The Native Yield Gap
Idle dollars in wallets are a massive inefficiency. New entrants bake yield directly into the stablecoin asset itself.
- Ethena's USDe generates yield via delta-neutral stETH/short-ETH futures positions.
- Mountain's USDM distributes yield from short-term U.S. Treasury bills.
- This creates a native APY of 5-15%+, forcing incumbents to compete on monetary policy, not just peg stability.
5-20%
Native APY
$2B+
TVL in 6mo
03
The Cross-Chain Friction Tax
Bridging USDC across chains is slow, expensive, and creates fragmented liquidity pools. Challengers are built as native multi-chain assets from day one.
- LayerZero's OFT standard enables native omnichain fungibility (e.g., STGUSDC).
- Circle's CCTP is a reactive, permissioned response that still suffers from mint/burn latency and bridge risk.
- The winning stablecoin will be a gas asset on every major L2, not a bridged afterthought.
<2 min
Cross-Chain
-90%
Bridge Cost
04
DeFi Composability as a Weapon
Incumbents are generic settlement layers. Challengers are programmable financial primitives designed for specific DeFi verticals.
- crvUSD and GHO are CDP-stablecoins deeply integrated with their native protocols (Curve, Aave).
- Ethena's USDe is the collateral backbone for its perpetual futures ecosystem.
- This creates protocol-owned liquidity and stickier utility beyond simple transfers.
50%+
Protocol TVL
10x
Integration Depth
05
The On-Ramp Bypass
Dominance relies on fiat rails controlled by traditional banks. Challengers are minted via crypto-native collateral, bypassing KYC bottlenecks entirely.
- Liquity's LUSD and Maker's DAI (increasingly) are backed by staked ETH (stETH, rETH).
- This captures the $100B+ staked ETH economy directly, turning a competing asset into its own stablecoin reserve.
- Growth becomes a function of crypto asset appreciation, not fiat banking partnerships.
$30B+
Crypto-Backed
0
Bank Partners
06
The Speed of Monetary Policy
Tether and Circle are corporations with quarterly boards. On-chain stablecoins can adjust parameters in real-time via governance to optimize for capital efficiency.
- DAI's Savings Rate (DSR) can be voted up overnight to attract or repel liquidity.
- crvUSD's LLAMMA algorithmically manages liquidations, reducing bad debt during volatility.
- This creates a dynamic, market-responsive asset that outmaneuvers static, bureaucratic incumbents.
<24h
Policy Update
Algorithmic
Liquidations
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT FALLACY
Steelman: The Liquidity Moat Is Real (But Not Eternal)
Stablecoin dominance is a function of legacy infrastructure, not an insurmountable technical barrier.
Network effects are not invincible. The moat for USDC and Tether is built on CCTP and banking rails, not superior tokenomics. New entrants like Mountain Protocol's USDM and Ethena's USDe bypass these legacy systems with on-chain-native mechanisms.
Liquidity fragments by design. The rise of intent-based solvers (UniswapX, CowSwap) and omnichain liquidity layers (LayerZero, Circle's CCTP) commoditizes access to deep pools. A user's transaction will atomically source the best rate across all stablecoins, eroding single-asset dominance.
Regulatory arbitrage creates openings. Jurisdictional pressure on centralized issuers creates demand for permissionless, overcollateralized, or algorithmic alternatives. This structural weakness is a permanent attack vector for decentralized stablecoins like DAI, crvUSD, and Aave's GHO.
Evidence: The DeFi composability tax is shrinking. In 2021, bridging USDC was a multi-step ordeal. Today, protocols like Across and Socket enable single-transaction stablecoin swaps across chains, making the underlying asset increasingly irrelevant to the end-user experience.
investment-thesis
THE MOAT ILLUSION
The Venture Capital Playbook
The dominance of Tether and USDC is a product of network effects and regulatory arbitrage, not an unassailable technical advantage.
The moat is regulatory, not technical. Tether and USDC lead because they operate within legacy banking rails, not due to superior on-chain design. Their dominance is a first-mover advantage in compliance, not a protocol-level innovation.
New primitives enable direct competition. Protocols like Circle's CCTP and LayerZero's OFT standard abstract away mint/burn complexity. This allows any issuer to launch a native, cross-chain stablecoin, eroding the incumbent's distribution advantage.
The endgame is fragmentation. The future is not one or two dominant stables, but hundreds of specialized, yield-bearing assets. Projects like Ethena's USDe and Maker's DAI demonstrate that algorithmic and collateralized models can capture specific demand vectors.
Evidence: The combined market share of non-USDC/Tether stablecoins grew from ~12% to over 25% in 2023, driven by the rise of crvUSD, DAI, and FRAX.
takeaways
THE MOAT IS ERODING
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The stablecoin duopoly is a product of first-mover advantage and network effects, not technological superiority. New architectures are attacking every weakness.
01
The Problem: Regulatory Risk as a Single Point of Failure
Tether (USDT) and USDC are centralized, fiat-backed liabilities. Their dominance is a systemic risk, not a feature.\n- OFAC sanctions can freeze addresses, breaking composability.\n- Banking failures (e.g., Silicon Valley Bank) have proven reserve fragility.\n- Legal pressure is a constant, unpredictable threat to issuance.
100%
Censorable
$40B+
At Risk in 2023
02
The Solution: Algorithmic & Decentralized Stablecoins
Protocols like Frax Finance, Ethena (USDe), and MakerDAO's DAI are building censorship-resistant, capital-efficient alternatives.\n- Frax v3 uses hybrid collateral (part-algo, part-RWA) for scalability.\n- Ethena's USDe is a delta-neutral synthetic dollar, bypassing traditional banking rails.\n- Growth is driven by native yield, which legacy stablecoins cannot offer.
15%+
Native Yield
$5B+
Combined TVL
03
The Problem: Inefficient Cross-Chain Liquidity
Native USDC and USDT are siloed by bridge security models and issuer permissions. Moving them is slow, expensive, and creates fragmented liquidity pools.\n- LayerZero's OFT and Circle's CCTP are bandaids on a broken model.\n- Every new chain requires a new mint/burn contract and legal approval, stifling innovation.
2-20 min
Bridge Time
$1B+
Locked in Bridges
04
The Solution: Intent-Based & Native Asset Bridges
New primitives treat liquidity as a routing problem, not a custodial one.\n- Chainlink's CCIP and Across use intents and atomic swaps to minimize locked capital.\n- Wormhole and LayerZero enable native minting of new stablecoins (e.g., USD0).\n- The endgame is a single, omnichain stablecoin, not wrapped IOUs.
<1 min
Settlement
-90%
Capital Efficiency
05
The Problem: Zero Yield for Holders
Holding USDC or USDT generates no yield unless actively deployed in DeFi. This is a massive capital inefficiency and a poor user experience.\n- Money market rates (Aave, Compound) are variable and require active management.\n- The yield is extracted by protocols, not the stablecoin itself.
0%
Base Yield
$100B+
Idle Capital
06
The Solution: Yield-Bearing Stablecoins as a Primitive
The next generation bakes yield into the asset itself, turning a passive holding into an active earning position.\n- Mountain Protocol's USDM and Ondo Finance's USDY are tokenized treasury bills.\n- EigenLayer restaking enables stablecoins backed by cryptonative yield.\n- This creates a fundamental economic advantage that static stablecoins cannot match.
5%+
Risk-Adjusted Yield
10x
Growth Potential
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall