Great article! Thanks for publishing, Jon. I'm a frequent user of Artemis, the platform.
Question around the numbers... your bull case assumes USDC supply grows to $240B by 2028, but with regulatory developments like the GENIUS Act still in motion, is a CAGR based projection really the right approach into the future? It feels more like a binary or multi-path outcome, driven by regulatory clarity and adoption by major players, where stablecoin growth could be asymmetric. Curious how you're thinking about that in your model, or if you still see CAGR as the best framing.
I think that’s fair. Stablecoin supply growth could have asymmetric upside— if BoA has $3T of assets under management and if they tokenize all of it we would 10x Stablecoin supply just as is today. I think I wanted to just paint a believable growth path but the upside upside could definitely be higher. Question will be how much USDC captures the upside total Stablecoin supply or do banks issue their own stables and capture share
Cool, thanks Jon. Makes sense and appreciate your feedback. Confirms a decision tree based approach mapped to regulatory and adoption outcomes would be an interesting exercise to explore this further. I don't see why banks wouldn't want their own stablecoin in the long run, thats interoperable with blockchain networks and opens the door for new monetization, so it's certainly an interesting question to explore when that might be and how USDC can compete.
Issue is how would banks make sure their own stablecoins aren’t used for DeFi or trading if there isn’t a clear KYC process. JPM may not want JPM stablecoin on Hyperliquid (I’m making this up) for example.
Thank you Dan. We are big fans of Randy, Aditya and the team you have assembled at 10T/1RT. Look forward to continuing to support you all as customers!
Great article! Thanks for publishing, Jon. I'm a frequent user of Artemis, the platform.
Question around the numbers... your bull case assumes USDC supply grows to $240B by 2028, but with regulatory developments like the GENIUS Act still in motion, is a CAGR based projection really the right approach into the future? It feels more like a binary or multi-path outcome, driven by regulatory clarity and adoption by major players, where stablecoin growth could be asymmetric. Curious how you're thinking about that in your model, or if you still see CAGR as the best framing.
I think that’s fair. Stablecoin supply growth could have asymmetric upside— if BoA has $3T of assets under management and if they tokenize all of it we would 10x Stablecoin supply just as is today. I think I wanted to just paint a believable growth path but the upside upside could definitely be higher. Question will be how much USDC captures the upside total Stablecoin supply or do banks issue their own stables and capture share
Cool, thanks Jon. Makes sense and appreciate your feedback. Confirms a decision tree based approach mapped to regulatory and adoption outcomes would be an interesting exercise to explore this further. I don't see why banks wouldn't want their own stablecoin in the long run, thats interoperable with blockchain networks and opens the door for new monetization, so it's certainly an interesting question to explore when that might be and how USDC can compete.
Issue is how would banks make sure their own stablecoins aren’t used for DeFi or trading if there isn’t a clear KYC process. JPM may not want JPM stablecoin on Hyperliquid (I’m making this up) for example.
Nice work. I posted it on my LinkedIn. Hope your good work receives more attention. Thank you.
Thank you Dan. We are big fans of Randy, Aditya and the team you have assembled at 10T/1RT. Look forward to continuing to support you all as customers!