It's true that Circle's and Visa's business models are different. But claiming they can't be compared is too arbitrary.

Visa relies on transaction fees, and Circle now relies on reserve interest—no mistake there. But are you drawing conclusions just from today's revenue structure?
Circle is working on CCTP cross-chain protocols, programmable wallets, and compliance APIs—all of which are foundational payment infrastructure work. They're not "issuing tokens and earning interest passively"; they're building the settlement network for the stablecoin era.
Visa didn't have the network effect it has today overnight; they built their channels over decades.
Then you say ETH/Tron/Sol are more like Visa? That comparison is actually more problematic.
Public blockchains are the underlying settlement layer, more like SWIFT or interbank clearing systems, not Visa.
Visa handles application-layer payment networks, which is precisely the space Circle is targeting.
Saying "USDC has no future and the worst business model" is even more emotional.
The reserve interest model has very high profit margins, low operating costs, and once the stablecoin regulatory framework is implemented, having a compliance license itself becomes a moat.
The global cross-border payments market is worth trillions of dollars—even capturing 5% of that with stablecoins is a huge slice.
The analogy with Hong Kong dollar note-issuing banks doesn't hold either.
While note-issuing banks don't "skim" from circulation, Circle isn't charging transaction fees either.
Reserve interest is more akin to the logic of money market funds, which is completely different from "paying fees to the People's Bank."
Finally, claiming that USDT is better because it's less regulated is exactly where Circle's advantage lies.
In the context of tightening regulations, compliance and transparency are prerequisites for institutional funds to enter.
Think about why BlackRock chose to partner with Circle instead of Tether?