2025-12-26 00:21:50

The growth rate of stablecoins will inevitably hit a ceiling, which is a consensus in the industry.

Looking at the USDC case is quite interesting. In the early stages, the growth was rapid, indeed helped by the strength of a certain compliant platform, but later it became clear—Circle started actively seeking partnerships with leading exchanges to expand the ecosystem. The problem is, there are only a few partners that can truly make a difference on the revenue side. Up to now, only a handful of companies are still working hard at it. Among them, one compliant platform is the most stable, and members can still earn about 4% returns.

What this reflects is that the growth of stablecoins is no longer driven by concept bonuses, but by actual application scenarios and user incentives. Without enough attractive returns, no matter how much you promote, it’s hard to expand outward. The market has already started to cool down; only platforms that can truly provide value will be able to retain users.

USDC0,04%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MidnightTrader

· 2025-12-28 23:40

A 4% return sounds good, but not many people will actually get it.

View OriginalReply0

HallucinationGrower

· 2025-12-28 15:27

The ceiling has long been reached; now it's just a matter of who can truly deliver benefits to the users.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBuyer

· 2025-12-27 04:37

4% yield? Wake up, this is the ceiling for stablecoins. --- Honestly, it's just a lack of real application scenarios. --- Circle put in so much effort, but in the end, it's still about retaining people through returns, which says a lot. --- The market has cooled down, and without concept dividends, who would still play? --- So stablecoins are just like this? Not as revolutionary as you imagined.

View OriginalReply0

PebbleHander

· 2025-12-26 09:18

A 4% return sounds okay, but how long can this be sustained?

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationOracle

· 2025-12-26 00:51

The ceiling has already been reached. What are you still bragging about? Now it's all about who can truly guarantee the users' bottom line.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter

· 2025-12-26 00:46

A 4% return? That's still too competitive. The real big players have already shifted to other tracks.

View OriginalReply0

PumpDetector

· 2025-12-26 00:45

ngl, the 4% yield thing is just the game showing its true colors... smart money already knew this cycle was about fundamentals, not hype. reading between the lines here—most "partnerships" are just cope when growth plateaus hit different.

Reply0

LowCapGemHunter

· 2025-12-26 00:37

A 4% return sounds good, but it depends on how long the platform can last.

View OriginalReply0

not_your_keys

· 2025-12-26 00:36

4% returns are indeed good, but stablecoins themselves are a pseudo-demand. --- To put it simply, it still depends on incentives to attract new users. Without real monetary rewards, who would play? --- The ceiling has long been reached; now it's just a matter of who can survive the longest. --- I'm already tired of Circle's approach; it's the same old story with a different name. --- Regulated platforms are indeed more stable, but there are costs to the returns as well. --- Market calm? I think it's because participants have woken up. --- Only practical application value can sustain it; no matter how strong the concept hype is, it’s useless.

View OriginalReply0

MevShadowranger

· 2025-12-26 00:35

That's right, the hype around stablecoins has long passed, now it's all about who can deliver real profits with actual cash. A 4% return sounds good, but the problem is that there are very few platforms that can reliably provide stable returns. Most are still just talking big. The ceiling will come sooner or later, it's inevitable.

View OriginalReply0