Tanaka (@Tanaka_L2)

Been staring at some numbers for two days and I think I get why OUSD is scaring people. @circle made $653M in reserve income last quarter on $77B of USDC supply = 3.5% yield. They built a $2.7B/yr revenue machine but give away close to 50–60% of it just to stay liquid on the exchange that made it relevant. Open USD just deletes that tax and hands the spread directly to the people bringing the flow. Partner-owned / partner-governed through @openstandard, with businesses across payments, banks, asset managers, tech, and crypto. – zero mint/redeem fees – no volume caps – small management fee to Open Standard – nearly all reserve interest goes back to 140+ partners Worth putting the whole spectrum side by side because everyone's solving the same equation differently. – USDT: issuer keeps everything. $10B+ profit in 2025, mostly parked in T-bills, gold, BTC. – USDC: issuer captures yield but has to bribe distribution. – sUSDe: stakers capture protocol yield from basis, DeFi lending, RWAs, and funding. – sUSDS: holders who move into the savings wrapper capture RWA, Spark, and stability fee yield. OUSD is flipping the game by competing on who captures the seigniorage. The idea is that distributors capture the reserve yield because distribution is the moat. I ran the math and it gets interesting. Every $10B of fully invested stablecoin float at a 4–5% front-end yield throws off $400M–$500M of gross annual income. – if OUSD gets to $10B supply at 4% with a 20 bps fee → $380M partner pool. – $25B supply, 3% yield, 20 bps fee → $700M partner pool. – $50B supply, 4.5% yield, 30 bps fee → $2.10B partner pool. We're watching a yield-sharing utility wearing a stablecoin costume. Partners onboard users → OUSD supply grows → reserves earn yield → partners get paid → partners subsidize merchants, users, and liquidity → more OUSD flow → more yield. Think about it for a second and you understand why people are scared. If Stripe earns more by running payments through OUSD than USDC, why would it keep pushing USDC? I think Circle either matches the payout or slowly bleeds share across every distribution-heavy corridor. Still just my read though, now I need to see the actual payout formula. Until that formula is public, OUSD is a very well-funded thesis. But that thesis is the real heist. It steals the entire justification for issuer profits existing in the first place.

➥ Stablecoin Liquidity Layer = the new settlement pipe of crypto Stablecoins are no longer just “cash on-chain”, because the market is moving toward infrastructure that can route, bridge and optimize liquidity across chains. The core problem: stablecoin liquidity is fragmented across Ethereum, Tron, Solana, Base, BNB Chain, Arbitrum and many other networks. » cross-chain liquidity → @rhino_fi » unified stablecoin layer → @UTechStables / $U » intent-based liquidity → @eco » tokenized asset rails → @FTI_US / BUIDL-style infra » liquidity Layer cho Stablecoin, DEX & RWA: @0xfluid » payment framework → @Paxos liquidity stack the winner may not be the biggest stablecoin issuer, but the project that makes stablecoins move fastest, cheapest and with the least friction. I’m watching this sector because stablecoin velocity is becoming as important as stablecoin supply. If stablecoins become the main settlement layer for crypto, DeFi, RWA and global payments, liquidity layers will sit quietly behind most transactions. btw, the next stablecoin war may not only be about market cap, but about who owns the pipes that move the money ↓