Browse all takes

Most people's mental model of Tether is 3-5 years stale. Here's what it actually is now: $10B profit in 2025 with ~300 employees ($33M/employee), $122B in direct US Treasuries (more than Germany), holds 96K BTC + 140 tons of gold, zero external investors, zero transaction fees on secondary USDT transfers. Business model = world's largest money market fund that keeps all the yield, not a payments company.

Scale: 550M+ estimated users globally. 2025 USDT volume = $13.3T onchain, but McKinsey pegs identifiable real payment activity at ~$390B annualized — the "value moved" gap is real. The product isn't a transfer mechanism, it's a savings account in countries where local rails are 20% efficient (Argentina, Nigeria). Ardoino's framing: US financial system is 90% efficient, stablecoins push it to 95%; in emerging markets where efficiency is 10-30%, USDT pushes it to 50%. The 5% margin game in America doesn't interest him.

Three layers to the company now:

The money machine — yield-on-float economics protected by Tether's organic distribution. Less than $10M total marketing spend 2020-2024. Parabolic 2020 growth came from Latin American black-market dollar rails moving onchain when COVID lockdowns shut physical kiosks.

Bifurcation strategy — USA₮ (federally regulated, Anchorage-issued, Cantor-custodied, run by the former White House Crypto Council director Bo Hines) for US institutional onshore. USD₮ for offshore monopoly. USD₮'s zero-yield position is monopolistic offshore because users have no better alternatives. USA₮ can't win on margin ("race to the bottom"); has to win on programmability + Tether's distribution.

Operating conglomerate — $20B portfolio increasingly taking control: 70% of Adecoagro (board overhaul, Sartori as Executive Chairman), 30%+ Be Water, board seat at Gold.com, plus physical bodegas / kiosks / phone-credit shops across LATAM/Africa/Asia. Tether owns the literal cash-to-crypto on-ramps in emerging markets, bypassing banking systems entirely.

Real risks: rate sensitivity (rate cuts compress the float, profit already dropped from $13B to $10B in 2025), TRON dependency (44% of supply, $82B), the persisting audit gap (no Big Four; new CFO from LetterOne hired for "contentious audits"), USDC overtaking USDT in adjusted volume, opacity-of-USD₮ contaminating USA₮ by association.

But the volume flip doesn't translate into a profit threat: Circle surrenders ~60% of revenue to distribution partners (Coinbase took $900M+ in 2024). Tether owns its distribution organically and is now physically buying more of it. Tether's $10B profit dwarfs Circle's $1.7B revenue by an order of magnitude. They're playing different games. The right comparison isn't Circle or Paxos — it's Berkshire Hathaway (yield-generating float funding a diversified conglomerate) crossed with Visa (settlement rails).

Most coverage asks if Stripe is becoming a crypto company. Snapcrackle argues it's the inverse — Stripe is trying to make crypto disappear by burying it inside enterprise payments infrastructure. The customer never has to say wallet, gas, bridge, validator, or chain. The stablecoin is there. The blockchain is plumbing.

The stack assembled in 18 months:

• Bridge ($1.1B, Oct 2024) — stablecoin orchestration. Open Issuance lets Phantom, Klarna, Hyperliquid, and MetaMask spin up branded coins. "App store economics for stablecoins" — Bridge shares majority of reserve yield with each issuer rather than absorbing it; Stripe owns the platform, not every coin.
• Privy (June 2025, ~$230M) — 110M programmable wallets. Kept chain-agnostic as the insurance policy — already powering Germany's BaFin-licensed EURAU.
• Tempo (mainnet March 2026, $5B Series A with Paradigm) — purpose-built payments L1, no native token, stablecoin-native gas, ISO 20022 memos, dedicated payment lanes. Visa / Standard Chartered / Stripe as anchor validators. Permissioned-L1 with named-FI validators is a compliance interface — Visa/Zodia/Stripe is something a bank risk committee can underwrite.
• Machine Payments Protocol — HTTP 402 standard for AI agent payments. Supports stablecoin AND card rails so card interchange isn't bypassed. The "embrace and absorb" play vs Coinbase's x402.
• OCC trust bank charter (conditional Feb 2026) — Bridge as platform-bank, not just reserve holder. Federal regulatory legitimacy without becoming bank-regulated.

Three structural insights:

Stripe is willingly building the thing that hollows out its own card-interchange business — and ensuring whichever rail wins terminates in Stripe's balance/compliance/reporting layer. Most incumbents protect the existing revenue and hope new tech takes longer to arrive. Stripe is doing the opposite.

Circle independently arrived at the same architecture with Arc. Two of the largest crypto-adjacent companies converging on permissioned-L1 + named-FI validators is the strongest "category" signal in crypto. The architecture isn't single-winner; the political postures are. Circle accumulates regulator capital (Davos, IMF, central bank panels). Stripe accumulates developer/enterprise distribution (Stripe Sessions). 18 months from now when stablecoin frameworks get written in Brussels or Singapore, Allaire is in the room and the Collisons aren't.

The OCC's March 2026 yield-sharing rule protects Bridge's model. Non-affiliate profit-share (Bridge sharing yield with Klarna's licensed Swedish bank) is left intact; affiliate yield-routing (Coinbase USDC rewards) is presumptively prohibited. "Stripe's position is GENIUS-aligned by construction." The most under-reported regulatory detail in the piece.

Alex values Payward at $20B as fairly priced for today's exchange business (8-9x revenue on $2.2B adjusted revenue in 2025), with downside anchored by the crypto-exchange floor. The asymmetric upside lies in three catalysts: Bitnomial's CFTC-licensed clearing business (where switching costs are significant once institutional firms connect), xStocks tokenized equities (already $320M+ AUM with the Nasdaq partnership expected H1 2027), and banking products via the Fed Master Account and Wyoming charter. No competitor combines all four capabilities, and executing this stack could unlock substantially higher value.

Kalshi and Polymarket have comparable weekly volumes, but their compositions diverge sharply. Kalshi relies on sports (80-90% of volume) with crypto just 3-5%, creating vulnerability through its 50% dependence on Robinhood distribution as prediction market revenue hits 8.5% of Robinhood's total. Polymarket's crypto volume has surged from 5% at start of 2025 to 30% today, driven by 15-minute Up/Down markets that grew from 5% to 60% of crypto volume, where one address accounts for 52% of volume through systematic mint-and-distribute liquidity seeding that enables arbitrage at scale. Kalshi's newly launched 15-minute crypto contracts show demand signals at $40M weekly volume, but Polymarket's edge may be structural liquidity design rather than product format alone.