🌐** Website | **💼
Happy weekend, Stablescope readers!
As we head into another weekend, the stablecoin industry is sending two seemingly contradictory signals: consumer interest in stablecoin payments is accelerating across Asia-Pacific, while one of the industry’s most prominent institutional forecasts has been pushed back by two years.
Recap on the two headliners this week:
SS #143 — APAC Warms to Stablecoin Payments
SS #144 — StanChart Delays $2T Stablecoin Call
Visa’s latest APAC consumer survey suggests that nearly half of respondents expect to use stablecoins within five years, despite only a small minority understanding how they work. Meanwhile, Standard Chartered has delayed its projection of a US$2 trillion stablecoin market from 2028 to 2030, even as on-chain transaction activity continues to grow.
Together, these developments highlight an important distinction: stablecoin adoption is no longer synonymous with stablecoin supply growth. Stablecoins are increasingly being used as transactional infrastructure rather than simply held as digital dollars.
The next phase of adoption may therefore be less about how many stablecoins exist and more about how efficiently they move, who controls their distribution, and which institutions capture the economics of that activity.
This week, we examine why APAC could become a major testing ground for mainstream stablecoin payments, why stablecoin velocity may be a more revealing adoption indicator than market capitalization, and how banks, payment networks, and infrastructure providers are positioning themselves for the next phase of digital money.
Enjoy the read!
You read and share. We listen and improve. Send us feedback at marco@launchy.app.
The two headlines reinforce a structural shift in the stablecoin market: the next wave of value creation may come from payment distribution, liquidity management, and financial infrastructure rather than issuance alone.
Visa’s survey highlights the significant gap between consumer interest and actual adoption. While 46% of respondents anticipate using stablecoins within five years, only 16% reported usage in the preceding 12 months, and just 6% demonstrated an accurate understanding of the technology. This suggests that mainstream adoption will depend less on educating consumers about blockchain and more on integrating stablecoins into familiar financial experiences. Card networks, wallets, banks, and payment providers are well positioned to bridge this gap through trusted brands, existing merchant relationships, and established compliance infrastructure.
Standard Chartered’s revised forecast offers a complementary perspective. Stablecoin supply has remained relatively flat around US$300–320 billion, while reported monthly on-chain transfer values have increased substantially. This divergence suggests that the same dollar of stablecoin liquidity can support more economic activity without requiring a proportional increase in outstanding supply. However, headline transfer volume should not be mistaken for genuine commercial payments, as it may include trading, arbitrage, internal transfers, and other financial activity.
For investors, the implication is that stablecoin market capitalization alone is becoming an insufficient measure of industry development. More meaningful indicators include adjusted payment volume, liquidity turnover, transaction monetization, enterprise adoption, and recurring infrastructure revenue.
At Onigiri Capital, we see the emerging opportunity across three interconnected layers:
**Distribution and payment access: Companies embedding stablecoin capabilities into cards, wallets, merchant acquiring, and cross-border payment services.****Financial infrastructure: Providers enabling compliant issuance, redemption, FX conversion, settlement, custody, and interoperability across financial networks.**Liquidity and capital efficiency: Platforms improving the utilization of stablecoin balances through treasury management, institutional liquidity routing, and regulated financial products.
The competitive landscape is also evolving. Stablecoin issuers may continue to benefit from reserve income and network effects, but payment networks and infrastructure providers increasingly control the customer relationship and transaction flow. As banks and regulated institutions introduce competing digital-money solutions, the economic value of stablecoins could become more distributed across the financial services stack.
Major Stablecoin Issuers
Mixed
Circle, Tether, and emerging issuers benefit from greater transactional adoption, but stagnant balances and new regulated competitors may pressure reserve-income growth and market share.
Banks & Financial Institutions
Positive
Banks can integrate stablecoins into cross-border payments, treasury services, and settlement while leveraging existing client relationships and regulatory expertise. Competition may erode traditional payment and FX margins.
Regulators
Mixed
Greater adoption strengthens the case for consistent oversight, but cross-border supervision, consumer protection, AML controls, and monetary sovereignty become increasingly complex.
Corporates & Enterprises
Positive
Businesses could benefit from faster settlement, improved treasury efficiency, and lower cross-border payment friction, provided compliance and FX conversion are reliable.
Retail Users & Crypto Natives
Mixed
Broader payment acceptance and simpler user experiences improve accessibility, while fraud, redemption risks, and limited consumer understanding remain significant barriers.
Developers & Protocol Founders
Positive
Growing demand for stablecoin orchestration, payment APIs, identity, interoperability, and compliance infrastructure creates opportunities beyond speculative crypto applications.
Institutional Investors & VCs
Selectively positive
Infrastructure and payment businesses with recurring revenue become more attractive, while issuance-focused valuations face greater scrutiny over distribution economics and sustainable differentiation.
Infrastructure & Service Providers
Positive
Custody, wallet infrastructure, liquidity routing, on/off-ramps, and settlement orchestration benefit from higher transactional activity even without substantial growth in stablecoin supply.
DAOs & Governance Communities
Mixed
Greater stablecoin utility expands on-chain financial activity, but increasing institutional participation may shift influence toward regulated issuers and centralized service providers.
The most revealing development in this week’s headlines is the divergence between stablecoin balances and transaction activity. Standard Chartered’s revised forecast indicates that outstanding supply has remained near US$309 billion, while reported monthly transfer values have averaged close to US$10 trillion in 2026, compared with approximately US$4 trillion in 2025. This suggests that stablecoins are becoming increasingly useful as a medium of exchange and settlement, even without a comparable increase in demand to hold them.
The distinction matters because stablecoins can serve two fundamentally different economic functions. As a store of value, stablecoins are held for dollar exposure, savings, trading collateral, or treasury reserves. As a medium of exchange, they facilitate payments, transfers, and settlement before being reused or converted into another asset. The former drives outstanding supply, while the latter can increase transaction activity without requiring substantial balance growth.
The contrast between USDC and USDT illustrates this dynamic. According to the figures cited in Standard Chartered’s analysis, USDC has a substantially higher annualized turnover rate, at approximately 80 times, compared with roughly seven times for USDT. This may reflect differences in institutional settlement, payment usage, trading behavior, and user preferences. However, on-chain velocity is not a clean measure of commercial payment adoption, and transaction classifications must be considered before drawing conclusions about real economic demand.
APAC adds another dimension to this development. Visa’s consumer survey suggests substantial interest in cross-border stablecoin payments, particularly where traditional international transfers remain costly or operationally fragmented. Yet the significant knowledge gap indicates that consumers may ultimately adopt stablecoin-powered services without consciously choosing stablecoins themselves. For example, a payment application could use stablecoins for back-end settlement while customers continue to pay and receive funds in familiar local currencies.
This creates a potential competitive advantage for established financial networks. Visa, banks, and regional payment providers can integrate stablecoin settlement into existing distribution channels, reducing the need for users to manage blockchain wallets, network fees, or token conversions. Reap’s exploration of local-currency stablecoins also points toward a broader multi-currency settlement environment, although liquidity fragmentation and regulatory approval will determine whether such models achieve scale.
The longer-term implication is that stablecoin adoption may increasingly be measured by financial activity enabled rather than tokens outstanding. Market capitalization remains important for understanding issuer economics, reserve demand, and systemic exposure, but transaction quality, customer retention, payment margins, and liquidity efficiency will become equally important measures of sustainable adoption.
For institutional investors, the challenge is identifying which companies convert growing transaction activity into defensible economics. Higher settlement volume does not automatically translate into higher revenue, particularly as payment infrastructure becomes more competitive and transaction fees compress. The strongest businesses will likely combine reliable distribution, regulatory capabilities, and recurring monetization with measurable improvements in settlement efficiency.
The distinction between stablecoins and the broader cryptocurrency market is becoming increasingly important. Crypto markets have historically evaluated growth through token prices, liquidity inflows, and market capitalization. Stablecoins, however, are increasingly being evaluated through their ability to facilitate financial transactions, move liquidity across jurisdictions, and integrate with existing payment infrastructure.
Visa’s APAC findings demonstrate that future adoption may not require consumers to understand blockchain technology. Similar to how users rarely consider the clearing and settlement systems behind a card payment, stablecoins could become an invisible component of financial services. What matters to the end user is whether a payment is secure, affordable, accessible, and reliably completed.
Standard Chartered’s delayed US$2 trillion projection further reinforces the need to distinguish financial utility from asset accumulation. Stablecoin supply may grow more slowly than anticipated while underlying settlement activity continues to expand. This would not necessarily represent a failure of adoption, but rather a transition toward more efficient circulation of digital liquidity.
Nevertheless, becoming payment infrastructure introduces responsibilities beyond those traditionally associated with crypto assets. Stablecoin systems must demonstrate credible redemption, operational resilience, regulatory compliance, consumer protection, and interoperability with banking networks. These requirements may favor regulated financial institutions and specialized infrastructure providers over purely speculative business models.
Consumer Interest vs. Real AdoptionVisa’s findings highlight a substantial gap between stated interest and actual usage. Survey respondents may express willingness to adopt stablecoins without understanding the underlying risks or identifying a compelling advantage over existing payment methods. Institutions must demonstrate repeat usage, customer retention, and measurable cost savings before treating consumer interest as validated demand.
Transaction Velocity vs. Genuine Economic ActivityIncreasing on-chain transfer volumes do not necessarily indicate equivalent growth in commercial payments. Trading activity, arbitrage, automated transfers, and internal liquidity movements can inflate reported volumes. Investors should distinguish gross blockchain activity from adjusted payment volume, unique economic transactions, and monetizable settlement flows.
Regulatory Fragmentation and Cross-Border ComplianceThe implementation of the US GENIUS Act and the development of stablecoin frameworks across APAC could reshape competition. Differences in issuer eligibility, reserve requirements, redemption rights, and cross-border transfer restrictions may create fragmented markets. Institutions operating internationally will need to manage multiple regulatory regimes without compromising settlement efficiency.
Issuer Economics and Yield CompressionAs more banks, payment networks, and infrastructure providers participate in stablecoin issuance and distribution, competition over reserve income and transaction economics will intensify. Issuers may face pressure to share economics with distribution partners, while infrastructure providers could experience fee compression. Sustainable profitability will increasingly depend on scale, differentiated services, and control over customer relationships.
Liquidity, FX Conversion, and Settlement ResilienceHigher transaction velocity increases the importance of reliable liquidity and redemption infrastructure. Stablecoin payment systems must operate across currencies, jurisdictions, and banking hours while maintaining sufficient liquidity during market stress. Local-currency stablecoins could improve regional settlement options but may introduce fragmented liquidity pools and additional FX conversion risks.
Banking Integration and Infrastructure ConcentrationGreater institutional adoption may reduce dependence on crypto-native intermediaries while increasing reliance on a smaller group of regulated custodians, payment networks, banking partners, and infrastructure providers. This creates concentration risks and potential single points of failure. Institutions must assess operational resilience, counterparty exposure, interoperability, and contingency arrangements before deploying stablecoins at scale.
Onigiri Capital (onigiri.vc), a US$50 million blockchain-focused investment fund, launched by Saison Capital, the venture arm of Japan’s Credit Saison. Onigiri Capital is on a mission to chart the next chapter of finance and invest in seed and Series A blockchain startups in stablecoins, payments, RWAs, DeFi and financial infrastructure. The fund’s strategy emphasizes connecting startups to Asia’s growing digital asset markets.
If you’d like to discuss or contribute to the next Institutional Lens, contact us at hi@onigiri.vc
Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.
