Here’s a clean, publication-ready English translation of your article.
[TL;DR]
- To address volatile fees, network congestion, and probabilistic finality on general-purpose chains like Ethereum and Tron, stablecoin-dedicated mainnets such as Circle’s Arc, Stripe’s Tempo, and Google’s GCUL have emerged.
- WaaS abstracts complex blockchain plumbing behind APIs so enterprises can integrate stablecoin features in days, while social login and stablecoin-denominated gas deliver a bank-app-level, intuitive UX for mainstream users.
- By fusing payment and settlement in real time, slashing cross-border remittance costs, and integrating smoothly with existing financial systems, stablecoin-only mainnets plus WaaS are becoming the new global financial rails that can replace legacy networks like SWIFT.
1. Introduction: Stablecoins—Where We Are and What’s Next
1.1 Why General-Purpose Blockchains Struggle to Carry Stablecoins
General-purpose blockchains such as Ethereum, Tron, and Solana were designed to host a wide variety of decentralized applications. Faced with the practical demands of large-scale payments, however, they reveal fundamental limits that create friction for stablecoin operations—and have led to consensus that purpose-built blockchains are needed.
The biggest issue is fee volatility. On Ethereum, transactions require paying gas in ETH; as ETH’s price swings, enterprises can’t predict operating costs. During congestion, fees can even exceed the transaction amount. Tron is cheaper overall, but its policy of charging higher fees for USDT transfers than for native TRX transfers makes it ill-suited for small payments or high-volume remittances.
Network congestion further amplifies fee volatility. Because general-purpose chains handle DeFi, NFTs, games, and more all at once, competition for block space is fierce. Confirmation delays and reduced throughput are natural outcomes—and unacceptable for enterprise payment systems that demand deterministic, rapid settlement.
On top of that, probabilistic finality on PoW and some PoS designs is a stumbling block. The (even if tiny) chance of chain reorgs implies possible transaction reversals, which financial institutions cannot tolerate. They need deterministic finality. Public, permissionless openness also creates regulatory challenges: robust on-chain KYC/AML is hard to enforce, and fully public ledgers can conflict with corporate confidentiality.
1.2 Macro Tailwinds and Regulation Created the Opening
Beyond technical need, macro conditions catalyzed stablecoin-only mainnets. The market grew from roughly $3B in 2019 to over $270B today, moving from a trading lubricant into corporate treasury, cross-border payments, and RWA settlement. Tether’s holdings of over $127B in U.S. Treasuries underscore how deeply stablecoins have integrated with the real economy.
Regulatory maturation has also been pivotal. U.S. federal-level stablecoin legislation, the EU’s MiCA, and standards from bodies like the BIS Basel Committee have increased safety and legitimacy, accelerating retail and institutional adoption.
This progress has directly influenced large-cap entrants like Google and Stripe. In a volatile rate environment, stablecoins offer new revenue opportunities while addressing SWIFT’s inefficiencies. Instant, low-cost settlement is value legacy rails simply don’t provide.
1.3 Lessons from Libra’s Failure
Meta’s Libra profoundly shaped today’s stablecoin-mainnet strategies. Libra’s failure was political, not technical. A multi-currency basket controlled by a consortium of tech and finance giants was seen as a threat to monetary sovereignty, triggering swift global regulatory pushback. Facebook’s prior data practices further eroded trust, leading Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal to exit—fatally wounding the project.
Current initiatives absorbed the lessons. Rather than challenging the financial order, they now serve it. Google’s GCUL explicitly targets banks; Circle’s Arc focuses on enterprise finance; Stripe’s Tempo starts with its existing merchant network. They are building tools for the system, not against it.
Another key lesson: clarity on centralization. Libra was too centralized for crypto purists yet too uncontrollable for regulators—an ambiguity that doomed it. New mainnets start with permissioned models where a single operator or small validator set (e.g., Circle, Stripe, Google) is clearly accountable, enabling allow/deny lists and protocol-level compliance—while offering EVM compatibility, open-source code, and roadmaps to future decentralization.
2. What Is a Stablecoin-Dedicated Mainnet?
2.1 Concept and Definition
A stablecoin-dedicated mainnet is a Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built for stablecoin issuance, transfer, and settlement. Unlike general chains that try to be everything for everyone, these are optimized for financial-transaction efficiency—like a limited-access expressway engineered for speed.
They first tackle cost predictability. Instead of volatile native-token gas, they use the stablecoin itself as gas or offer subscription-like fixed pricing. Paying fees in USDC/USDT lets enterprises forecast costs precisely.
Second, they embed compliance at the protocol layer. Rather than pushing KYC/AML onto each app, the chain supports identity and transaction monitoring natively—permissioned access, whitelists/blacklists, and more—meeting institutional requirements while lowering developer burden.
2.2 General-Purpose vs. Stablecoin-Only
The difference starts with design philosophy. Ethereum maximizes inclusivity for many use cases, which brings fee spikes and makes specialization hard. Stablecoin-only chains optimize for one job—payments and settlement—so they can choose BFT-class consensus for deterministic finality and sub-second confirmations, matching institutional needs.
UX simplification is another edge. On general chains, users need native tokens (e.g., ETH) to move stablecoins. That’s normal for crypto power users but needless friction for mainstream users and enterprises. On dedicated chains, stablecoins alone suffice—mirroring a familiar banking-app experience.
Privacy is also handled differently. Public ledgers offer transparency but expose sensitive corporate flows. Dedicated chains provide optional privacy-enhancing tech (ZK proofs, confidential transfers) so participants can choose the right balance of transparency and confidentiality.
2.3 Advantages of Dedicated Mainnets
Performance is the headline. Circle’s Arc targets >3,000 TPS; Stripe’s Tempo aims for 100,000+ TPS. Unlike general chains with variable performance, dedicated rails provide consistent, predictable throughput—sized for domestic wallet/payments volumes.
Equally vital is stable cost structure. Instead of fee spikes during congestion, chains adopt stablecoin gas or fixed monthly plans (Google’s GCUL treats the chain like a cloud service), letting CFOs budget blockchain like IT spend.
Compliance readiness unlocks regulated finance. Protocol-level identity and monitoring reduce bespoke compliance builds. Permissioned starts make accountability explicit—solving Libra’s ambiguity—while planning for progressive decentralization.
Finally, integration with existing finance is prioritized. GCUL supports ISO 20022; Tempo bakes in payment memos, batched transfers, and allow/deny lists. Banks and fintechs can adopt without ripping and replacing core systems.
3. Major Projects
3.1 Circle Arc: An Enterprise USDC Rail
Arc is Circle’s enterprise-grade, stablecoin-dedicated L1 tightly integrated with USDC, CPN, and Mint. Technically, it’s built on Malachite (a Tendermint-derived BFT), delivering deterministic finality <350 ms with ~20 validators and targeting >3,000 TPS. Circle onboarded Malachite’s team (Informal Systems) to deepen expertise. It starts permissioned and moves toward permissioned-PoS decentralization.
Arc’s signature feature: USDC as native gas. Extending EIP-1559 concepts, Arc charges fees in dollars, giving predictable costs. It’s fully EVM-compatible and offers modular privacy (confidential transfers, TEEs, ZK, FHE) as needed.
Timeline: private testnet in Aug 2025; public testnet in fall 2025; mainnet beta targeted for 2026. With existing institutional users of CPN/Mint, Arc expects meaningful initial volume.
3.2 Plasma and Stable: A Dual USDT Strategy
Both are independent L1s built around USDT, but they target different markets. Plasma appeals to crypto-native users via a native token and no-fee simple USDT P2P transfers, while Stable focuses on institutional B2B payments with enterprise-grade features. Leveraging USDT’s liquidity, they pursue retail and institutional segments in parallel.
3.2.1 Plasma: High-Throughput USDT Rail
Plasma’s core is PlasmaBFT, with periodic checkpoints to Bitcoin for security hardening. Its goal is to be the backbone for global stablecoin flows. Simple USDT P2P transfers are fee-free; DeFi-like complex transactions incur gas. Gas can be paid in USDT or the native XPL. It’s fully EVM-compatible. Backed by a Binance-affiliated launch partner for initial liquidity, it shipped a mainnet beta on Sep 25, 2025.
3.2.2 Stable: An Institutional USDT Network
Stable goes the opposite way—institutional finance and large-scale B2B. It unifies a fragmented, costly, unstable landscape by using gasUSDT (an unwrapped USDT) as native gas. Simple USDT P2P is free.
Its standout is the Enterprise Lane: a priority track separate from public flows, targeting <1s finality with guaranteed speed and reliability. Paying gas in USDT simplifies accounting. Notably, PayPal Ventures invested, and PYUSD joined as a day-one partner—signaling strong compliance posture. As of July 2025, it’s in private testnet; mainnet is targeted for Q4 2025.
3.3 Stripe & Paradigm Tempo: Payments-First L1
Tempo connects Stripe’s massive global payments footprint to blockchain. Incubated by Stripe and Paradigm (with Paradigm cofounder Matt Huang leading the spin-out), Tempo aims to be a “trusted neutral” chain for payments, remittances, micro-transactions, and future AI-agent payments.
Ambition is sky-high: 100,000+ TPS and sub-second finality. Fully EVM-compatible, it natively supports enterprise features—ISO 20022-style memos, batch transfers, allow/deny lists.
A unique feature: any supported stablecoin as gas (USDC, USDT, PYUSD, etc.). A built-in AMM handles conversions under the hood, so users pay fees in whatever stablecoin they hold.
Design partners include Visa, Deutsche Bank, Shopify, Revolut, OpenAI, Anthropic. With millions of merchants already on Stripe, Tempo has a built-in distribution advantage. It’s in private testing with partners, starting permissioned and moving toward permissionless; official launch date is TBD.
3.4 Google GCUL: Trusted, Neutral Infrastructure
GCUL positions itself as “for banks, by a neutral provider.” Google isn’t a payments firm or stablecoin issuer, so it can host competitors on shared infrastructure without channel conflict. The goal: a shared settlement layer that upgrades traditional funds to stablecoin-level efficiency without disrupting deposit/loan businesses.
GCUL is a managed, permissioned blockchain delivered via Google Cloud with a single API. Instead of Solidity, it supports Python-based smart contracts to meet financial engineers where they are. To bypass on-chain gas volatility, GCUL charges fixed monthly fees like a cloud service.
Compliance and privacy come first (KYC’d accounts, strong privacy controls). The CME Group is a flagship pilot partner; Phase-1 integration completed in March 2025, with broader tests through late 2025 and full commercialization targeted for 2026.
The long-term bet is trusted neutrality: banks hesitate to build on a competitor’s platform. Since Google doesn’t compete in issuing or payments acquiring, a multi-bank consortium is more feasible—if GCUL successfully graduates from pilots to large-scale production.
3.5 Wemade Stable One: A KRW-Centric Ecosystem
Stable One aims to globalize K-finance via a Korean-won stablecoin ecosystem. Leveraging seven years of blockchain development, Wemade targets a UX that blends user-friendly features with regulated financial credibility.
A unique angle is K-culture distribution—surfacing KRW stablecoin organically through K-drama, K-pop, and tourism channels. Targeting >3,000 TPS, it is 100% EVM-compatible for global interoperability.
Features include native fee payment in stablecoin, enterprise transaction lanes, and APIs tailored to Korean financial IT. Rather than acting as the issuer, Wemade prefers a consortium-model tech partner role with domestic banks, spreading regulatory risk while gaining trust.
Status: internal testing; source code open-sourcing in Oct 2025, public testnet in Nov 2025, and mainnet GA in Q1 2026. The go-to-market plan starts with Korea, then expands globally.
4. The Critical Enabler: Wallet-as-a-Service (WaaS)
4.1 What Is WaaS?
Wallet-as-a-Service lets companies deliver digital-asset functionality without building wallet infrastructure. WaaS packages security, key management, transaction orchestration, and multi-chain support into APIs/SDKs so teams can focus on product while integrating blockchain in weeks—not months.
Beyond basic send/receive, WaaS is typically white-label, enabling fully branded, native experiences where users may not even realize a blockchain wallet exists behind the app.
4.2 Essentials for Mainstream Stablecoins
Even the fastest, cheapest chain fails without a frictionless interface. Seed phrases, pre-funding gas in another asset, and failed-tx gas burns block mainstream adoption.
Pairing stablecoin-gas mainnets with WaaS fixes this. Users can onboard with social/email login; mnemonic handling is replaced by secure MPC/HSM-backed key management. Tap “Send,” input recipient and amount, and WaaS pushes the tx to a stablecoin mainnet. Finality in seconds, fees in cents, and no one has to “think blockchain.”
4.3 Limits of Existing Wallet Approaches
Non-custodial wallets honor self-sovereignty but burden mainstream users with key risk, phishing exposure, and irreversible mistakes. Custodial exchange wallets remove key risk but forfeit control and add counterparty/regulatory freeze risk—ill-fit for enterprises embedding wallets into products.
Building in-house is costly: multi-chain nuances, audits, compliance ops, and secure key infra require significant investment. WaaS industrializes this layer so companies can ship quickly and safely.
4.4 The Role of WaaS in the Stablecoin-Mainnet Stack
While many mainnet teams could build their own wallets, partnering with WaaS is strategically superior.
- Distribution speed: WaaS providers already serve thousands of enterprises. Once a mainnet integrates, every WaaS customer becomes a potential user—creating an instant distribution channel without one-by-one sales.
- Focus: Mainnet teams can concentrate on protocol performance and security while WaaS handles apps, UX, mobile, and maintenance.
This is division of labor: mainnets supply the rails; WaaS builds the on-ramps. More apps, users, and volume accelerate network effects. Chains insisting on first-party wallets risk slower ecosystem growth versus those embracing WaaS partnerships.
5. Outlook: The Future of Stablecoin Infrastructure
5.1 What Stablecoin-Only Mainnets Change
These chains signal a re-architecture of financial infrastructure. For decades, cross-border payments relied on SWIFT—slow, costly, opaque. Crypto promised better but struggled with volatility and UX complexity. Stablecoin-only mainnets marry blockchain efficiency with traditional finance stability, offering a working alternative.
The core shift is real-time fusion of payment and settlement. Traditional payments authorize now and settle days later. On stablecoin mainnets, settlement is the payment: as soon as the transaction lands on-chain, funds move and finalize in seconds—improving cash-flow and reducing fraud/chargeback risk.
WaaS turns this into business value. E-commerce adds a stablecoin option; remittance apps process corridors in minutes; payroll pays global teams instantly. Technology fades into the background; outcomes take center stage.
5.2 Impact on Financial Services
Stablecoin mainnets plus WaaS redefine intermediation. Banks historically sat at the center and charged rent. Direct on-chain settlement reduces pure intermediation, but banks need not disappear; they can evolve—retaining deposit/credit while upgrading payments/settlement with blockchain rails. Protocol-level compliance reduces overhead; banks use blockchain rather than compete with it.
For fintechs, barriers fall. What once required bank partnerships and long negotiations can launch in days via WaaS, with compliance exposed as APIs. Competition increases; innovation accelerates; consumers win with better, cheaper options.
Cross-border payments feel the biggest jolt. Average remittance fees of 6–7% can drop below 1%, and days-long settlements shrink to minutes—moving tens of billions in consumer surplus annually, especially for migrant workers.
5.3 Challenges Ahead
Regulatory fragmentation persists despite progress in the U.S./EU. Divergent rules on reserves, capital, and consumer protection can restrict cross-border stablecoin flows. Projects must collaborate closely with regulators, but sudden policy shifts remain a risk.
Interoperability is another. If Arc (USDC), Stable (USDT), and Tempo (multi-stablecoin) become isolated islands, we recreate legacy silos. Trust-minimized bridges, common standards, and cross-chain protocols are critical—and still challenging.
For WaaS, the trade-off between security and convenience is constant. Even with MPC/HSM, attack vectors exist: leaked API keys, insider risk, social engineering. Hardening security can hurt UX; softening UX can weaken security. Providers must find the balance and make accountability crystal clear.
Finally, network effects and cold starts matter. Payment networks are only as valuable as their participants. Distribution advantages (Stripe’s merchants, Circle’s institutions) are powerful; new entrants need incentives or killer apps—and capital—to cross the chasm.
5.4 Conclusion: Toward Invisible Finance
The endgame is invisible finance. Users won’t know or care about blockchains, smart contracts, or gas. They’ll just experience seconds-fast cross-border transfers, real-time commerce settlement, and automated, programmable financial services.
Getting there requires technical maturity and ecosystem cooperation: chains competing yet interoperating; WaaS providers boosting security while smoothing UX; regulators balancing innovation with protection; and financial institutions treating the tech as an opportunity, not a threat.
Success won’t hinge on protocol performance alone. UX, regulation, business models, and ecosystem alliances must align. WaaS is one of the most important puzzle pieces: without access, infrastructure is irrelevant; without usability, innovation won’t be adopted. When WaaS bridges tech and users—blockchain and daily life, innovation and practicality—we finally realize the stablecoin future that’s been promised.