On the path where the crypto market is increasingly approaching traditional finance, **stablecoins may be the most underestimated disruptor.** If you've read Clayton Christensen's (The Innovator's Dilemma), you will find that the rise of stablecoins is almost a textbook example of the 'disruptive innovation' model he described—only this time, what is being disrupted may be the global fiat payment system.
Christensen once proposed that true disruptors are often overlooked by the mainstream and may even initially appear as inferior imitations. They enter from the fringe markets, serving users neglected by the existing systems, gradually growing into an undeniable force. This is precisely the development path of stablecoins: they start from overlooked emerging markets and DeFi scenarios, quietly tearing open a gap in traditional finance.
The 'low-end invasion' of stablecoins: from invisible to impossible to ignore
For users within the U.S. banking system, stablecoins initially do seem 'not so advanced': they do not have FDIC insurance, are not linked to traditional payment networks (like ACH, SWIFT), and cannot earn interest. In extreme cases, their pegged prices may even go out of control (the collapse of Luna/UST serves as a warning).
But this does not prevent stablecoins from exploding globally—especially in countries like Argentina and Venezuela, where currencies have collapsed. Stablecoins have become an alternative to the 'digital dollar.' You don't need a bank account, you don't need cash, you don't have to worry about inflation eating away at your assets; you just need a wallet address to easily receive, send, and store value.
More critically, these users have been ignored by traditional finance. For them, stablecoins are not 'inferior dollars,' but rather 'the only dollars they can access.'
The feedback mechanism of reality: the product may have flaws, but it meets real needs.
The advantage of stablecoins comes not from their perfection, but from their practicality.
Remitters find it much cheaper than Western Union;
Freelancers find it faster than settling with PayPal;
DeFi users see it as the basis for collateral and liquidity pools;
OTC traders bypass complex cross-border payment systems through it;
Ordinary people in high-inflation countries use it to preserve wealth and maintain their livelihoods.
Disruption has never relied on perfect technology, but rather on products that are genuinely needed.
This point is precisely one of the focuses of Mlion.ai's research model: by analyzing on-chain address behavior and cross-border transaction data, tracking which regions and scenarios are experiencing 'passive financial substitution' phenomena, helping us understand the actual impact of stablecoins rather than just looking at superficial volatility.
The response from regulators and capital: this time, incumbents did not 'sit idly by'
According to Christensen’s logic, established companies often ignore low-end innovations because these markets seem 'too low profit' or 'not strategic enough.' But the story of stablecoins is clearly different.
This time, traditional financial institutions have not only not given up but are instead rushing to enter the arena:
Payment giants like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe have announced the launch of stablecoin settlement services;
BlackRock's BUIDL product has begun to attract institutional assets, offering 'yield-generating stablecoins' through an on-chain asset portfolio model;
Senior executives at Bank of America have clearly stated that they are very likely to issue their own stablecoin once regulations allow.
These signs indicate that this 'digital dollar' revolution is no longer an internal game for crypto natives but is rapidly becoming part of the restructuring of the global financial system.
Will stablecoins eventually 'bite back' early innovators?
However, as pointed out at the end of the article, stablecoins, as a technological form, do not have high issuance thresholds. You do not need a large initial capital, nor do you need complex infrastructure; you only need to be able to map dollar assets on-chain to issue them.
This also means: **early players (like Tether, Circle) face 'reverse absorption' from traditional giants.** They are no longer the slow-moving established companies but rather fintech and asset management groups familiar with technology, regulations, and having a large user base.
Circle may be the closest representative of the 'Toyota' storyline, having expanded from USDC to diversified scenarios like Circle Payments and on-chain identity, trying to build its own ecological closed loop. But just as Lexus had to face BMW, Mercedes, and Audi in the American market, Circle may ultimately have to contend with the combined fleet of BlackRock and Visa.
For participants in the crypto market, **finding the right entry point in the future layout of stablecoins is far more pragmatic than betting on a certain 'explosive altcoin.'** Utilizing Mlion.ai's AI research reports and on-chain strategy diagram features, one can clearly track the capital logic, user growth paths, and ecological integration behind stablecoin products, thus gaining insights into who is accelerating the occupation of new interfaces in global finance.
Conclusion: The future of stablecoins is competition, and it is also reshaping.
Citibank predicts in its report that by 2030, the asset management scale of stablecoins will reach $3.7 trillion. This is not just a digital increase but also means: stablecoins will become the 'cross-impact point' of sovereign currencies, central bank policies, payment systems, and capital markets.
They will not replace the dollar, but may become the most competitive 'dollar interface' in the digital age. Who controls these interfaces—Circle, BlackRock, Visa, or even the new generation of Web3 native giants—will determine the new leaders in the financial landscape.
And this is the real 'disruption.'
Disclaimer: The above content is for informational sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice!
