Stablecoin Value Shifts Beyond Issuers as Payments and Asset Management Gain Ground

The next battleground in stablecoins may not be who prints the tokens, but who controls what happens after issuance. A new report by Tiger Research argues that while issuance has become an oligopoly dominated by Tether and Circle, the larger and faster-expanding opportunity set is emerging across the rest of the stablecoin ‘value chain’—from fiat on-ramps and cross-border transfers to payments infrastructure and on-chain asset management.

The research frames stablecoins less as a revolutionary replacement for banks and more as a ‘technical upgrade’ layered on top of existing financial rails. In that view, the industry’s economic center of gravity is likely to migrate toward the underlying settlement layer and the asset ‘management’ layer, where recurring revenue models and deeper customer relationships can be built.

Tiger Research breaks the stablecoin stack into five stages—issuance, on-ramp, remittance, payments, and management—tracking how each layer is structured and where profits accrue. The report’s core claim is that markets have focused too narrowly on issuers’ balance sheets and regulation, while the true business leverage forms in the ‘flow’ of stablecoins as they are distributed, spent, and ultimately redeployed into yield-bearing strategies.

Issuance: high barriers, entrenched scale

In issuance, the report sees the highest barriers to entry and the least room for new challengers pursuing a straightforward minting model. Tiger Research estimates the stablecoin market at roughly $300 billion, with dollar-pegged assets accounting for 99.99% of supply. Tether and Circle together control about 83% of the market, reinforcing a self-reinforcing loop of liquidity, trust, and ‘economies of scale’.

For late entrants, the report suggests the more realistic play is to become ‘middleware’—specializing in licensing, custody, distribution, or settlement infrastructure—rather than competing head-on with incumbents for primary issuance.

Circle’s distribution strategy is cited as a case study in how issuance increasingly depends on downstream incentives. Institutions deposit dollars through Circle Mint, which issues USD Coin (USDC) 1:1. Reserves are placed into cash and money market instruments, including a fund managed by BlackRock, generating interest income. The more telling detail, Tiger Research notes, is how that income is shared: Circle’s partnership with Coinbase ($COIN) includes a platform-based allocation of reserve yield, with external distribution revenue reportedly split evenly. In effect, the issuer has engineered incentives for liquidity channels, not just the token itself.

On-ramps: commoditization and margin pressure

The on-ramp layer—converting fiat to stablecoins—remains essential but brutally competitive. Tiger Research estimates that the effective net take rate for on-ramp providers converges around 3%, squeezed by comparable product offerings and limited differentiation. Consumer pricing varies by rail, with bank transfers typically cheaper than card purchases, but the report argues that as more providers replicate the same conversion function, the segment increasingly behaves like a commodity business.

MoonPay is presented as a representative example: a non-custodial platform that facilitates fiat-to-crypto purchases and transfers assets to user wallets, earning from per-transaction fees and spreads. The report contends that sustainable profitability will require moving beyond one-off conversion fees toward embedded B2B distribution—such as white-label integrations into major wallets and apps—or expanding into issuance and settlement functions that support repeatable, contract-based revenue.

Remittances: stablecoins win on cost, profits accrue at the endpoints

Remittances are where stablecoins’ cost advantage is most visible. Traditional cross-border transfers often carry average costs above 6%, while the on-chain leg of stablecoin transfers can be close to negligible. Yet Tiger Research emphasizes that revenue rarely comes from the act of sending itself; it is captured at the endpoints through FX spreads, fiat conversion, and regulatory compliance.

That dynamic is giving rise to ‘compliance-as-infrastructure’ models, where licensing and regulatory readiness become defensible moats. In the U.S., for example, navigating state-by-state money transmitter licensing can be a barrier that incumbents can monetize as part of an integrated cross-border stack.

The report highlights Rise as an example of how remittance-like products are evolving into broader enterprise services. Rise enables companies to pay salaries in fiat or USDC and has processed more than $1.5 billion in cumulative volume, Tiger Research said. Its differentiation, however, lies beyond payment rails: the platform packages KYC/AML checks, country-specific contract generation, tax documentation, and employer-of-record functions into a subscription-like service. Revenue streams can include monthly fees, volume-based charges, legal liability products, and even the management of idle balances—illustrating how customer relationships, not transaction fees, can define the business.

Payments: infrastructure captures more value than consumer-facing brands

Stablecoin payments, despite outsized expectations, remain economically immature relative to traditional money, Tiger Research argues. On-chain retail stablecoin velocity is estimated to be roughly one-twentieth of fiat M1, implying that repeat everyday usage and the habitual link to consumer finance have yet to be established at scale.

Moreover, payments economics still mirror legacy card structures: interchange revenue is split across card networks, issuing banks, and payment processors. As a result, Tiger Research suggests the more attractive opportunity may sit with issuance and settlement infrastructure providers rather than the visible consumer brand.

Rain is cited as an illustration of that thesis. The company provides B2B infrastructure that allows wallets, crypto exchanges, and neobanks to issue branded cards that run on Visa ($V) and Mastercard ($MA) networks and behave like conventional cards at the point of sale. Behind the scenes, stablecoin balances are debited in real time and settled daily in USDC. Tiger Research argues this approach enables 24/7 settlement and can reduce collateral requirements by as much as 60% compared with traditional card models, improving capital efficiency. The report’s takeaway: the economic prize in payments is less about the headline card fee and more about ‘issuer status’ and same-day settlement capabilities.

Management: modular risk and the rise of on-chain “asset managers”

The report sees the most sophisticated business models forming in the management layer, where stablecoin balances are redeployed into yield strategies. While issuers face constraints on directly passing reserve yield to token holders, management products can transform idle balances into user-facing returns—creating new fee pools for curators and platform operators.

Tiger Research notes a structural shift in decentralized lending from single-pool designs—where one asset failure can cascade through the system—toward ‘modular’ architectures that isolate risk by market. This evolution is enabling the emergence of on-chain asset management led by risk curators who set parameters, choose collateral, and allocate capital across markets in ways that resemble traditional delegated portfolio management.

Steakhouse Financial is highlighted as a leading example. Rather than building a protocol from scratch, Steakhouse operates atop existing lending infrastructure such as Morpho, selecting collateral assets, designing loan-to-value parameters, and directing capital across markets. The model resembles a traditional asset manager, generating revenue via management fees and performance fees. Tiger Research estimates the top four curators control roughly 65% of curated total value locked, suggesting early but rapidly consolidating market structure.

Still, the report flags meaningful risks. Depegging events and contagion in restaking-related segments have underscored that headline yields alone may not retain institutional capital. Tiger Research observes a shift away from higher-yield synthetic dollar products toward relatively more stable offerings backed by U.S. Treasuries, reflecting institutional preference for controllable, ‘predictable’ outcomes over maximum returns.

From “who issues” to “who owns the flow”

Taken together, Tiger Research concludes the stablecoin industry is moving from competition over supply—“who can issue more”—to competition over distribution and lifecycle—“who can own the customer flow.” The report points to recent corporate moves that favor integration with legacy rails rather than wholesale replacement, including Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge and Mastercard’s collaboration with BVNK, as signs that stablecoin adoption is increasingly being engineered as an efficiency layer within existing financial systems.

Looking ahead, Tiger Research identifies several promising arenas: the spread of local-currency stablecoins, card issuance and settlement infrastructure, custody, and the on-chain management stack. As governments and financial institutions explore domestic stablecoin frameworks, the report argues they may favor proven issuance infrastructure and bank-connected corridors over entirely new systems—reinforcing the idea that the winners of the next phase will be determined less by minting tokens and more by controlling the layers that move, settle, and manage them.