Is issuing stablecoins really that profitable? From Tether to Aave GHO, let's look at the profit truth for later participants.

Since the beginning of this year, stablecoins have become one of the most talked-about businesses in the crypto market. From Tether's massive profit of $4.9 billion in the second quarter to Circle's publicly transparent financial report post-IPO, a wave of companies issuing coins has been sparked. However, can stablecoins really generate profits easily? From Aave's GHO to various companies' own dollars, we will break down the structure and risks of this business.

USDC Financial Report Revealed: Everyone Wants a Slice of the Stablecoin Pie

As @_FORAB said: "The biggest problem with USDC is the transparency after listing." Circle's financial report starkly shows the huge income generated from issuing stablecoins based on U.S. Treasury interest, which has tempted asset management companies, enterprises, and DeFi protocols to eagerly create their own stablecoins and payment-oriented public chains.

In addition to MetaMask's mUSD and Wyoming's FRNT, several banks from the EU to the US are considering launching their own stablecoin.

( Inventory of the fiercely competitive stablecoin L1 blockchain: Who can seize the global "on-chain payment" main battlefield? )

Researchers Warn: Stablecoin ≠ Printing Press, Aave GHO's Loss Demonstration

In this regard, senior researcher Hasu poured cold water on it: "The idea that stablecoins are more profitable than the lending market is one of the biggest misconceptions in the DeFi space."

He pointed out that stablecoins and the lending market are essentially both "interest margin businesses," and only stablecoins with global liquidity and acceptance, such as USDT and USDC, can truly derive additional convenience value from "transferability." Other new stablecoins still have to compete for the same scarce capital pool in the lending market.

For stablecoins entering the market, there are only two real advantages: stronger issuing capability ( which allows you to borrow at a lower cost ) and asset-liability management capability ( which allows you to lend at a higher interest rate ).

Hasu takes GHO, which was launched earlier this year by Aave, as an example. Currently, the issuance cost of GHO is as high as 8%, but the actual generated return is only 1% to 2%, resulting in an annual "subsidy" of 6% to 7% for each circulating GHO.

Although launching a new stablecoin does indeed require a cost to participate in the early stages, it is easy to imagine how difficult it is to make a profit from a stablecoin, not to mention achieving a 50% gross margin.

He acknowledges that Aave is indeed a leader in the lending market, but that does not mean it can replicate success in the stablecoin space.

Analyzing the value structure of stablecoins: Who is the real winner?

According to the "stablecoin value accrual stack (" model proposed by Nathan, the growth officer of Plasma, a few months ago, he divided the value accumulation of stablecoins into four layers:

Nathan's "stablecoin value accrual stack )stablecoin value accrual stack(" model

First, there are the biggest winners at the bottom layer, namely the "issuers"; Tether earned 14 billion USD in 2024 solely from U.S. Treasury bond interest. Next are the "public chains"; Ethereum and Tron ) benefit from transaction fees through fund transfers and trades.

Next is the "DeFi infrastructure", including protocols like Aave, Curve, and Uniswap, which provide basic lending, exchange, and yield functions. At the top level is the "B2B and B2C applications", which Nathan describes as the most promising tier. From payment giant Stripe to Fintech startup Revolut, they create real-world use cases for stablecoin.

He believes that the ultimate real innovation and the greatest commercialization opportunities will appear at the top application layer, but the foundation remains unshakable, just like Tether will long sit on the throne of "king of stablecoins."

(The next wave of competition: From generic to functional, why is "customized stablecoin" a hard requirement for enterprises? )

Stablecoins are profitable, but the first mover advantage is strong.

Hasu pointed out that while the stablecoin market can create huge profits, it is by no means a guaranteed path to profit, and through Aave's GHO, indicated that new participants must first pay a high price to seize market share.

The final answer is that stablecoins are certainly a good business, but those that can truly succeed are still pioneers like Tether, because they have a deep network effect and capital advantage. Latecomers who want to capture market share must find differentiated selling points that are difficult to replicate.

Is issuing stablecoins really that profitable? From Tether to Aave GHO, let's look at the profit truth for later participants. Originally appeared on Chain News ABMedia.