《🔥OUSD Appears Out of the Blue, Is Circle's Moat Still Intact?》
Visa, Stripe, Mastercard, BlackRock, Coinbase and dozens of other financial firms are pushing a new stablecoin called OUSD. The news caused CRCL shares to tumble immediately.
If traditional finance, payment networks, and exchanges start jointly issuing stablecoins, how much moat does USDC really have left? The sharp drop in CRCL stock is essentially the concentrated release of that concern.
So the question is: Is Circle an over‑valued “interest‑spread bank,” or a stablecoin infrastructure leader that the market has unfairly killed?
Below are the main points from both sides of the Circle debate 👇
📈 Bullish on Circle / Stablecoin cake will grow
First debater Dayu @BTCdayu I XHunt Rank 657
Dayu is neutral‑bullish, seeing CRCL as an early‑Tesla and stablecoin compliance as an open‑source trend. The long‑term market will expand, but the path won’t be smooth.
He believes USDC remains the most important player in the compliant‑stablecoin arena, yet its moat is not permanently safe. It will face three ongoing challenges: new stablecoin competition, Coinbase revenue‑share pressure, and how much market the compliant B‑side USDC can actually capture.
💡Core judgement: CRCL is worth watching and a long‑term focus, but it can’t be held on faith alone. What truly drives valuation will be the future C‑side, trading scenarios, prediction markets and other ecosystems that choose USDC, USDT, or other stablecoins.
Second debater Crypto Weituo @thecryptoskanda I XHunt Rank 1008
Crypto Weituo says: From experience, statements from seven or ten ministries are loud but small‑impact, but a notice from a single body like the Public Security Ministry or the Organization Department signals something big.
💡Core judgement: The more co‑signatures, the less accountability. Red‑header documents are the same for stablecoins.
Third debater Blue Fox (@lanhubiji) XHunt Rank 1506
He believes OUSD won’t end the stablecoin war nor completely dominate the market, but it can capture a slice of the cake.
Although OUSD is backed by 140+ companies—including Visa, Mastercard, BlackRock, Coinbase, Stripe, Shopify, Google, etc.—it naturally has payment channels, merchant networks, bank partnerships and institutional resources, giving it opportunities to quickly enter enterprise payments, settlement, cross‑border remittance, RWA and other scenarios.
💡Core viewpoint: OUSD will not easily replace USDT/USDC. USDT still boasts the strongest liquidity and depth, while USDC is already ahead on the compliance track with comparable transparency and institutional adoption. OUSD will pressure Circle, but it doesn’t spell the end for USDC.
Fourth debater The Good‑hearted Mike @Michael_Liu93 I XHunt Rank 1708
Mike thinks the market over‑worries that Circle will be displaced by traditional‑finance giants. Issuing a stablecoin isn’t just minting a token; it requires channels, user mindshare, transaction use‑cases and long‑term liquidity.
Many big platforms have tried stablecoins before: Binance’s BUSD/FDUSD/TUSD, Hyperliquid’s USDH, Huobi’s HUSD, OKX’s USDK, Gemini’s GUSD, Kraken’s USDG, Tron’s USDD. In the end, USDT and USDC remain the dominant survivors.
💡Core judgement: When Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, BlackRock and Coinbase team up on stablecoins, they’re not trying to eradicate USDC but to jointly expand the stablecoin‑payment and consumer‑crypto market. Traditional finance opening the door may actually benefit USDC and USDT.
Fifth debater Wu Fan @wufantouzi I XHunt Rank 2687
He believes the market’s real doubt isn’t the stablecoin arena but CRCL itself. Still, USDC remains the absolute leader in the compliant‑stablecoin lane; many competitors exist, but data haven’t shown they can truly challenge USDC.
💡Core judgement: CRCL’s valuation should not be treated like a regular finance stock but priced on the long‑term potential of the stablecoin sector. Using a 24% market‑share estimate does not assume USDC will capture 100% of the market.
Regarding new stablecoins like USDG, he says short‑term hype outpaces real threat: USDG’s issuance is about $3 billion, less than 5% of USDC’s share. It’s like every GPU maker trying to dethrone Nvidia—leadership isn’t declared by shouting.
🙅 Bearish on Circle / No moat for stablecoins
First debater Phyrex (@PhyrexNi) XHunt Rank 774
He argues USDC will still have a large market, especially in regulated US crypto trading, but Circle’s issue is that its USDC payment narrative has run for years and now faces challenges from banks and payment giants.
The real difficulty of stablecoins isn’t issuance but “acceptance.” Banks hold corporate accounts, cross‑border settlement, payment networks, institutional clients and USD inflow/outflow channels. If a bank issues its own stablecoin, it naturally fits enterprise payments, institutional settlement and cross‑border use‑cases.
💡Core viewpoint: OUSD’s starting point is not simply crypto trading but targeting payments and acceptance. What Circle can do, Open USD can also do. What Circle can’t do now, Open USD might achieve by leveraging banks and payment networks.
Second debater Colin Wu @colinwu I XHunt Rank 971
He says whether CRCL stocks crash or hundreds of authorities launch stablecoins, it shows the sector will eventually be reshaped by regulation and traditional finance.
💡Core viewpoint: Like other crypto products, stablecoins fulfill the need to “escape regulation.” As they scale, they will become compliant, possibly reducing demand. Once fully compliant, the difference between stablecoins and traditional digital dollars narrows.
Stablecoins are centralized USD‑pegged tokens, not the crypto industry’s “GPT moment.” Future determinants of the stablecoin landscape include regulation, use‑cases and ecosystem, not just issuance volume.
Third debater Xu Chonglang @cyrilxuq I XHunt Rank 1983
He believes stablecoins themselves lack a strong moat; any Web2 bank, payment firm, Visa, Mastercard can enter.
💡Core viewpoint: The true core tech of stablecoins lies not in minting but in card‑network + clearing infrastructure. If Visa could push settlement‑bank costs from 1.5% to 0.1% and directly link issuers, merchants, on‑chain KYC and payment networks, users could swipe their own stablecoin at POS terminals.
Fourth debater XTony @xtony1314 I XHunt Rank 3666
He says comparing CRCL to Visa/Mastercard is nonsense. Visa earns fees from payment channels; Circle issues a stablecoin that profits from the spread between USD and Treasury yields—completely different business models.
💡Core viewpoint: USDC users don’t pay extra fees to Circle, so CRCL can’t continuously skim fees like Visa. CRCL’s core revenue comes from Treasury interest, which is affected by rate cycles and also shared with Coinbase, making the model less attractive.
He further notes that the true “Visa‑like” entities are public chains such as ETH, Tron, Solana that collect “toll fees,” not stablecoin issuers.
Fifth debater Jiang Zhuoer @Jiangzhuoer2 I XHunt Rank 5213
He has been bearish on CRCL since the end of 2025, viewing Circle more as an “interest‑spread bank” than a high‑growth tech stock.
💡Core viewpoint: CRCL’s profit mainly comes from Treasury interest, which will shrink with rate cuts; additionally, a large share of profit goes to Coinbase, weakening earnings stability.
He also believes Circle’s biggest risk is policy, not competition. Stablecoins rely on Treasury interest income, a model that depends on regulatory permission to earn and distribute that spread. If regulators ban or limit such revenue sharing, the profit logic could be knocked out.
🌟 Summary of both sides
🔴 Bullish side argues:
New stablecoins like OUSD look lively but lack data proving they can truly challenge USDC. Issuing stablecoins isn’t trivial; success hinges on channels, liquidity, user mindshare and transaction use‑cases. Traditional‑finance giants entering the space may not aim to kill Circle but to enlarge the stablecoin‑payment and consumer‑crypto pie.
🔵 Bearish side argues:
Circle’s moat isn’t as deep as imagined. The barrier to issuing stablecoins is low; the real value lies in payment‑clearing networks and financial channels, which are controlled by Visa, Mastercard, banks and traditional finance.
Moreover, CRCL’s earnings depend on Treasury interest; if rates fall, revenue‑sharing pressures rise, or regulators curb the spread, its valuation will be re‑priced.
