# After the Genius Act: The Rise of Payment Stablecoins and Fintech's Era of Transformation

By mid-2025, with the passage of the Genius Act, a profound shift began in the crypto and traditional finance sectors. Income-generating stablecoins faced fierce resistance from the banking industry, while payment-focused stablecoins unexpectedly gained market dominance at a rapid pace. This transformation is not just a tool shift; it signals a new era opening doors to fresh opportunities for everyone. The complex struggle among fintech, crypto, banking, and major internet platforms has intensified amid destabilized market dynamics.

From Profit to Payment: The New Hierarchy of the Sector

Recently, the crypto industry aimed at revenue generation, but now this dynamic has completely changed. Payment functions are now central; agent technologies and stablecoins are redefining the relationship between fintech and crypto. The era of profit is over; the age of payments has begun—this may seem simple, but it fundamentally alters the sector’s structure.

Meta has refocused on stablecoins. Google formed the AP2 alliance with over 60 businesses. Stripe identified stablecoins and agents as key elements of the future. Although PayPal launched $PYUSD earlier, Coinbase’s x402 protocol proposal sent mixed signals about market discipline. The core question arises: what is the root of the payment war, and who are the main players?

The answer is complex. While platforms like Stripe pursue new narratives, giants like Meta and Google seek channel-based profit sharing. Tether and Circle have entirely different strategies. In this multi-party struggle, everyone—whether fintech firms or traditional banks—is trying to protect their advantages.

Fintech’s Real Challenge: A Closer Threat Than Crypto

While the challenges faced by the crypto industry are often discussed, the threats confronting fintech are far more serious. One overlooked fact: fintech has failed to create a truly bank-independent payment channel. Wise’s international transfer services and Stripe’s payment collection tools remain fundamentally dependent on banking infrastructure.

Stripe’s $159 billion valuation is impressive, but its actual transaction volume is disproportionately small. It’s five times larger than Adyen’s $35 billion valuation, and thirteen times that of Checkout.com’s $12 billion—yet the real trade volume doesn’t reflect these ratios. This leverage stems from emotional investments in stablecoin and agent technologies.

The fintech sector peaked after the 2008 financial crisis and especially during the pandemic. PayPal reached a valuation of $340 billion in 2021, but what now? As we enter 2026, the entire fintech world must compete against stablecoins and agents. These new technologies, seen as “traitors” to the banking system, have become central to financial regulation.

Tether and Circle: The Dynamics of Strategic Differentiation

The competition between USDT and USDC is not just a stablecoin battle; it’s a clash of two visions. Tether prefers to expand through remittances from developing countries and individual transfers. Circle continues to lead in corporate partnerships and strengthening the DeFi ecosystem.

USDT supports mass transfers with $80 billion on the Tron network. In countries like Argentina and Nigeria, dollarization of the currency essentially means USDT conversion. Meanwhile, USDC has become the standard in DeFi protocols and B2B applications. DEXs and lending platforms prefer USDC; most crypto centralized exchanges price liquidity in USDT.

Tether’s recent moves are strategic. The launch of USAT with Lutnick might be a wedge tactic, but the $200 million investment in Whop is more significant—it’s about acquiring the channel costs of 18 million users. This is part of a strategy to encircle the first world with remittances from third-world migrants. The remittance corridor between Latin America and the US, South Asia and the Middle East, highlights USDT’s dominance.

According to a joint study by McKinsey and Artemis, the global stablecoin transaction volume is reported at $35 trillion, but realistic figures are much lower. Only about $390 billion represents actual stablecoin payments—roughly 0.02% of global payment volume. B2B payments have reached $226 billion (a 733% annual increase), but even so, they account for just 0.01% of global B2B transactions.

Regulatory Pressure and the Counterattack by Banks

Regulations are complex. After the Genius Act, the Fed, OCC, CFTC, and SEC facilitated payment stablecoins but laid the groundwork for income-generating stablecoins. This strategy resembles the “deposit loss” crisis of Merrill Lynch’s MMFs in the 1970s. The banking sector, which once protected small banks during the rise of Alipay and WeChat in 2013, now removes that shield again.

The result: local fintech firms like PayPal have suffered. Banks are creating their own stablecoins and controlling payment protocols to neutralize potential threats. For everyone, this means that multi-party integration favors a few winners.

Blockchain technology becoming a new infrastructure for money flows isn’t necessarily bad. But the question remains: will it fully replace the banking system or coexist within it? Stablecoins following OCC’s path are ultimately managed under bank licenses. Products like Circle’s USDC and BitGo’s FYUSD are confined to specific niches.

The Real Battle: On-Chain Monetary Sovereignty

The future of payment stablecoins isn’t just about transfer volume. Companies like Stripe need to recognize that blockchain and Layer 2 solutions can replace credit card networks. Yet, the true power of fintech lies in creating new financial products that surpass banks—solutions that combine MMFs and payment functions.

Peter Thiel supports neobanks; Vitalik advocates for ETH-based income stablecoins. Vitalik sees clearly: Ethereum-based income stablecoins cannot handle models that don’t diversify risk. Solutions based on RWA assets are necessary.

The problem: without on-chain income-based payment functions, escaping dollar dominance is impossible. Ultimately, this will be transformed back into traditional banking by OCC. Those who choose security lose freedom; those who choose freedom accept less security.

USDC-based B2B enterprise applications and USDT-based national transfer projects are insufficient for large-scale acceptance of global payment stablecoins. These solutions are temporary and won’t be the main players of the future.

Income features have served as tools for customer acquisition. With banking opposition, offline impacts are spreading. After experiments like $USDe and $xUSD, the online space is also fading. Careful examination of real-world payment use is necessary.

The Final Question: Who Wins in the War of the Four Powers?

Four major forces have launched a new war in payments:

• Companies like Stripe: Need a new IPO story; stablecoins are key.
• Meta and Google: See negotiation advantage as channel owners; want to control their stablecoins.
• Banking sector: Resists to protect channel fees and cheap assets.
• Tether and Circle: Expand strategically; Tether invests heavily in payment companies.

In this war, everyone—fintech, crypto, banks, and major platforms—is trying to secure their territory. Stablecoins and agents are seen as the default payment tools, but no one questions whether agents are truly necessary.

The future will be shaped by alliances and conflicts among these four sides. One thing is certain: the failure of USDT/USDC to succeed in government bond yields shows that the banking sector can withstand attacks for the third time. In this scenario, the story the crypto industry wants to tell—that money remains entirely on-chain—is once again postponed.