Stablecoins 2.0: the blockchains vying to power the next era

On 18 July 2025 President Donald Trump signed the federal GENIUS Act, ushering in full-fledged regulation of stablecoins in the United States. It marked a watershed for both America’s crypto market and the global digital-assets industry, as the world’s largest economy formally opened the door to the legal circulation of dollar stablecoins.

Big players — banks, corporations and even states — will now have to follow the global trend. ForkLog examined how the race for leadership in next‑generation stablecoins is likely to unfold.

Stablecoins on the global agenda

China

In 2021 mainland China banned crypto mining and trading. Yet amid the new global wave of stablecoin regulation, on 11 July 2025 Hong Kong hosted a meeting between Shanghai’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission and local officials. The gathering followed appeals from experts and large firms to develop a yuan‑pegged stablecoin.

“Given China’s powerful fintech ecosystem, it has the potential to become a key player in shaping the future of blockchain-based payments,” commented LVRG Research director Nik Rak.

At June’s Lujiazui Forum, People’s Bank of China governor Pan Gongsheng announced an expansion of the e‑CNY’s international use, the creation of an international e‑CNY centre and a push towards a multipolar currency system.

Business is not standing still either. E‑commerce heavyweight JD.com and fintech giant Ant Group urged the central bank to allow yuan‑based stablecoins to counter the growing clout of dollar‑pegged crypto. The firms plan to apply for coin‑issuance licences in Hong Kong.

Market participants say change in China may prove difficult, as capital controls are likely to be the main obstacle to stablecoin development. But debate is already under way and, in the wake of America’s GENIUS Act, Beijing’s own regulatory process may move faster.

European Union

On 30 June 2024 MiCA’s technical requirements came into force. First, stablecoin issuers must be licensed in the EU and listed in the relevant register. Second, issuers must disclose the composition of reserves backing the token, including regular reports on liquidity and the custody of funds at reputable institutions.

MiCA also caps activity: no more than 1m transactions a day or €200m per day; above that, an asset may be deemed systemically significant and fall under European Central Bank supervision.

In January 2025 the ESMA issued a demand to remove unlicensed tokens from the market. In April, the authority also voiced concern about the brisk integration of crypto and TradFi. Among the risks cited were the popularity of stablecoins and ETF on digital assets.

United Kingdom

Britain is building a two‑tier framework for stablecoins: the FCA will handle issuer registration, reserves and custody, while the Bank of England will supervise systemically important payment tokens. Core proposals are already out for public consultation, with final rules slated for 2026. In parallel, a CBDC initiative is advancing, though the Bank of England is willing to consider a digital pound only if convinced of its viability.

Russia

Russia is pursuing a managed integration focused solely on cross‑border settlements. The basic digital rouble law took effect on 1 August 2023. Since March 2024 an experimental regime has allowed the use of digital financial assets, including stablecoins, in international payments — but not domestically.

The central bank favours curbing the use of private stablecoins. Such assets are not expected to be recognised as legal tender, leaving the field to the digital rouble, which will be introduced into circulation from 1 September 2026.

In February 2025 Kyrgyzstan‑registered Old Vector issued the rouble stablecoin A7A5, positioned as part of a parallel payment system.

Japan

Since June 2023 Japan has formally regulated stablecoins as “electronic payment instruments” issued only by licensed banks, trust companies or payment providers. Reserves must be kept mainly onshore, with up to 50% allowed in short‑term Japanese government bonds or deposits.

Foreign issuers may operate via local intermediaries, having demonstrated compliance with the FSA and ensured that reserves are held in Japan. Intermediaries must perform KYC/AML, segregate funds and comply with the Travel Rule.

South Korea

In June 2025 the authorities announced plans to legalise won‑based stablecoins subject to full backing, ring‑fenced reserves, FSC licensing, audits, KYC/AML compliance and redemption guarantees. The central bank supports the idea but calls for phased rollout.

How to choose blockchain infrastructure

Potential issuers of stablecoins and CBDCs broadly fall into three camps: banks, business and the state. They share one need — reliability. Beyond that, their criteria for choosing a blockchain can diverge markedly.

Bank-issued stablecoins: prioritising B2B and DeFi

The focus here is interbank transfers, including cross‑border. Support for multi‑currency settlement is essential, as banks often manage several currencies at once. Integration with existing financial plumbing such as SWIFT and ISO 20022 is a must.

DeFi liquidity is another key factor, since many banks will want a foothold in that segment — on their own terms. Expect institutional DeFi pools restricted to allow‑listed addresses and protocols that have passed KYC and AML. JPMorgan already tests such services on Polygon and Base.

Business stablecoins: scale, payments and UX

Businesses need to accept payments for goods and services, including micropayments, which calls for minimal, predictable fees. Companies put user experience and conversion first; they will not sacrifice convenience for hyper‑security or maximal decentralisation. Things must be simple, fast and clear. Mass‑market users are not ready for seed phrases or gas fees, so UX comes first. Easy integration with e‑commerce tooling is mandatory.

Government stablecoin: priority on control and transparency

States are willing to trade decentralisation, convenience and compatibility for full control over money flows, favouring centralised (or hybrid) architectures. Their priorities are control of the money supply (issuance, write‑offs, freezes) and curbing crime, corruption and the shadow economy.

Most countries will insist on strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty, favouring local or national builds. It is highly unlikely the US would issue a CBDC on TRON; Russia or China — theoretically — might. Strong programmability is essential to encode rules for subsidies, benefits, tax collection and spending conditions (eg, subsidies that can be spent only on food and housing). Offline transactions for rural and less‑digitised populations are also needed.

Who will choose what

Ethereum

CBDC: probably not. Too decentralised, with limited control, slow and costly.

Bank stablecoin: partly suitable in DeFi. Used in pilots, especially via L2s.

Business stablecoin: possible, but as one option among several.

It is the most developed blockchain ecosystem with deep liquidity — a draw for banks. But the base layer is too slow and expensive for mass payments, forcing institutions towards cross‑chain stablecoins: one for DeFi, another for transfers.

Ripple

CBDC: suitable. XRP Ledger has long been tested by central banks.

Bank stablecoin: a strong fit thanks to SWIFT and ISO 20022 integration.

Business stablecoin: limited.

Ripple targets bank transfers and liquidity, with support for multi‑currency accounts. Funds can be frozen. Throughput and fees are attractive (about 1,500 TPS, fee ~0.00001 XRP). It supports CBDC Private Ledger — a dedicated solution for central banks. Pilots include the central banks of Bhutan, Colombia, Montenegro and Palau.

Stellar

CBDC: suitable, though less so than Ripple.

Bank stablecoin: suitable, with strong adaptation for cross‑border B2B transfers.

Business stablecoin: well suited to mass, low‑cost payments.

Stellar is Ripple’s younger sibling, with a more decentralised architecture and a stronger focus on UX and mass accessibility, including SMS and mobile‑wallet payments. It partners with MoneyGram, Circle and IBM World Wire and participates in CBDC pilots.

BNB Chain

CBDC: unlikely. Central banks are improbable adopters of a commercially oriented platform.

Bank stablecoin: limited. Pilots are possible, but Western regulators’ trust is low; more plausible for BRICS countries.

Business stablecoin: suitable. Widely used in e‑commerce, Web3 commerce and payment solutions.

Technically convenient, with high speed (~2,000 TPS) and low fees (~$0.05). DeFi liquidity and DEX volumes are strong — a lure for banks — though SWIFT and ISO 20022 are not supported. EVM‑compatible with robust tooling, from wallets to SDK.

Major business stablecoins already run on BNB Chain (USDT, USDC, TUSD). But high centralisation and regulatory risks make it a poor fit for CBDCs and banks. There is no built‑in KYC, further limiting institutional use.

TRON

CBDC: probably not. Possible in certain jurisdictions, but Western regulators remain sceptical.

Bank stablecoin: limited. High throughput, low trust in the West.

Business stablecoin: suitable. A leader in mass transactions, especially in Asia and emerging markets.

An extremely efficient network for mass and micro‑payments with high speed (~2,000 TPS) and minimal fees when a wallet holds TRX. USDT on TRC‑20 is the most transacted stablecoin, making TRON attractive for retail, gaming and cross‑border remittances.

Integration is simple, Binance Pay is supported, and the “energy” model can reduce fees to zero — a unique edge for B2C. But high centralisation, a weak institutional reputation, lack of SWIFT/ISO 20022 and a fraught image constrain CBDC and banking use.

Solana

CBDC: not for now — past instability.

Bank stablecoin: limited. High performance, but regulatory maturity is lacking.

Business stablecoin: suitable. Fast, cheap and widely used for retail payments and apps.

One of the most performant chains, with ultra‑low fees (~$0.0001) and speed suited to mass and micro‑payments. A strong UX focus — mobile wallets, e‑commerce and payment apps — makes it popular with businesses. USDC support and Visa pilots attest to practical utility.

However, past instability, no SWIFT integration, limited bank case studies and no built‑in KYC infrastructure currently limit its suitability for CBDCs and institutions.

Polygon

CBDC: potentially. Used in pilots, but would need tailoring for state needs.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Already used in bank pilots (JPMorgan, Siemens).

Business stablecoin: a good fit thanks to scalability, low fees and mature infrastructure.

Polygon is a mature, EVM‑compatible ecosystem with KYC support and active participation in banking pilots. JPMorgan ran the first verified DeFi pool on Polygon; Siemens issued tokenised bonds. zkEVM and CDK enable custom chains for banks and governments. Fees are very low, speed high and DeFi liquidity ample.

Base

CBDC: probably not. Its commercial nature and lack of sovereign control limit state use.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Being tested by institutions, including JPMorgan.

Business stablecoin: suitable. Strong scalability, UX and API integrations make Base attractive.

Base offers good UX, high speed and low fees, and is tightly connected to Coinbase’s ecosystem — appealing legally and technically to businesses, especially after the Flashblocks upgrade.

Arbitrum

CBDC: not yet. Theoretically possible via Arbitrum Orbit, but no precedents.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Already in institutional tests.

Business stablecoin: a good fit. Low fees and scalability make it convenient.

One of the most mature L2s, drawing strong institutional interest. Low fees and high throughput can handle mass payments.

DeFi liquidity is robust, which may appeal to banks. Arbitrum Orbit allows building bespoke networks — potentially useful for CBDCs and banks, especially with players like JPMorgan involved.

Optimism

CBDC: likelier as OP Stack infrastructure than as a primary chain.

Bank stablecoin: suitable for B2B and DeFi scenarios, particularly with KYC/AML.

Business stablecoin: possible, but stronger as OP Stack infrastructure.

The OP Stack has proved a solid base for custom corporate L2s. It is embraced by large players — Coinbase, Sonic, Worldcoin and others building the Superchain.

OP Stack lets banks, corporates and fintechs launch bespoke chains quickly. It suits programmable bank and corporate stablecoins in regulated DeFi. It still needs work for CBDCs, e‑commerce and bank stablecoins.

Avalanche

CBDC: suitable for sovereign and modular architectures.

Bank stablecoin: suitable for DeFi and multi‑currency solutions with bespoke requirements.

Business stablecoin: suitable, especially via private subnets.

A high‑performance chain (up to 4,500 TPS with sub‑second finality) with a distinctive architecture for launching independent blockchains for specific tasks. EVM compatibility allows use of the full Ethereum stack. Custom subnets support bespoke KYC, AML, privacy and currency logic — pivotal for state and banking use. Avalanche is making institutional inroads (Avalanche Evergreen, cases in Latin America).

The platform supports multi‑currency, programmability and cross‑chain operations, offering flexibility for B2B and public‑sector digital currencies. Constraints include subnet‑launch complexity and higher resource demands. Retail use may require extra layers. It fits CBDCs and banks where customisation is critical, but needs work for mass business payments.

Hedera Hashgraph

CBDC: an excellent fit. Architecture emphasises control, transparency and scale.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Fast, stable and compliance‑oriented.

Business stablecoin: suitable. A strong choice for major corporate deployments.

A high‑throughput, energy‑efficient DAG network with 10,000+ TPS and fixed fees (~$0.0001). Payments are fully finalised — unlike blockchains where settlement relies on confirmations.

KYC, AML, freezing, issuance and spend controls are supported at protocol level, making the network ideal for CBDCs. It is already used in pilots, including offline payments. The platform is secure and governed by a council of 30+ firms including Google, IBM, Boeing, Dell and LG Electronics, and is registered in the US.

However, incomplete EVM compatibility and centralised governance make it less attractive for DeFi. If Hedera can win over decentralised finance, it would be close to a universal solution.

Sui

CBDC: the architecture fits, though no real pilots yet.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Innovative foundations and flexible token logic, but lacks maturity.

Business stablecoin: suitable. High performance, UX focus and programmability make Sui attractive.

A young but advanced network. Its object‑oriented Move language enables custom tokenomics (refunds, freezes, conditional transfers, KYC). High performance and low fees suit next‑gen business stablecoins.

But its youth, a non‑standard development language and weak ties to institutional banking infrastructure currently hold it back in the public sector and banks.

Aptos

CBDC: suitable. The potential is there, but the network has yet to be tested by the public sector.

Bank stablecoin: suitable, though lacking regulatory recognition.

Business stablecoin: suitable, especially for Web3, gamified and mobile use cases.

A high‑performance platform built on the Move language, enabling extensive token customisation. It offers impressive theoretical throughput (up to 160,000 TPS) and is oriented towards easy integration with Web2/Web3 services and mobile apps.

A strong engineering team, notable investors (a16z, Binance Labs, Jump) and a fast‑growing ecosystem make Aptos a promising platform for advanced business stablecoins. Yet, like Sui, it remains young, with a limited validator set and no public‑sector track record.

Cardano (ADA)

CBDC: probably not. Low speed, no practical cases or pilots.

Bank stablecoin: probably not. Limited DeFi liquidity; infrastructure needs development.

Business stablecoin: probably not. In its current form, not the most convenient commercial choice.

An academically inclined blockchain with rigorous formal verification. The Ouroboros protocol provides reliability, and a layered architecture eases the customisation of financial solutions. Identity via Atala PRISM offers potential integration with state and bank KYC systems.

The platform supports native tokens without smart contracts — a safe approach for simple stablecoins. Yet Cardano lacks CBDC/banking case studies. Its EUTXO model requires specialised know‑how, and the business stack lags competitors.

Algorand

CBDC: a strong fit — technically mature with support for sovereign scenarios.

Bank stablecoin: suitable — especially where security and low fees matter.

Business stablecoin: a strong fit — for micro‑payments, e‑commerce and automation.

Among the most technically mature platforms for state and bank digital currencies. High speed (6,000 TPS), fast finality (up to 4 seconds) and fixed fees (~$0.001). Built‑in asset controls (freeze, revoke, clawback, whitelisting) are critical for KYC/AML and regulatory oversight.

Active in government pilots (Georgia, Marshall Islands) and integrated with Chainalysis. It runs on energy‑efficient Pure Proof‑of‑Stake. However, a modest DeFi ecosystem and lack of EVM compatibility (TEAL is used) limit flexibility and integrations. Multi‑currency support is possible but needs front‑end and infrastructure work.

Quant

CBDC: a strong fit. Works as an infrastructure bridge across blockchains and legacy rails.

Bank stablecoin: suitable. Especially effective in multi‑network scenarios and legacy integration.

Business stablecoin: limited. Not a blockchain; useful as integration middleware for corporates.

Not a blockchain — an operating system that connects networks: public and private chains, SWIFT, Hyperledger. It supports ISO 20022 and KYC/AML and aligns with banking standards. A separate blockchain is required to issue tokens. Not suited to DeFi or mass B2C. Best used as an infrastructure layer for state and banking programmes.

In lieu of a conclusion

The world has reached an inflection point: a new wave of interest in stablecoins is under way. The evidence is in: intense policy debate, a stream of pilot programmes and fresh legislative initiatives.

As for the blockchains likely to host state, bank and business stablecoins, there is no single ideal solution that satisfies every criterion. Banks will gravitate towards the most liquid networks.

In business we will see widespread cross‑chain issuance, with companies launching tokens on several popular networks so customers can choose the ecosystem they prefer.

Cross‑chain infrastructure is becoming standard. Tether is a case in point, with stablecoins across multiple networks. A wave of new “stable money” is inevitable — and the market will respond quickly.

Text: VGI666