Stablecoins are disruptive. Who will be the disruptor?

Source: Blockworks; Compiled by Wuzhu, Golden Finance

In the book "The Innovator's Dilemma," Clayton Christensen introduced the concept of disruptive innovation—a product that initially appears to be a cheap imitation but ultimately rewrites the rules of an entire industry.

These products typically start in low-end markets or entirely new markets that are overlooked by existing companies because they either lack sufficient profit or do not seem to have strategic importance.

But this is a very good starting point: "Disruptive technologies are initially favored by the customer segments with the lowest profits in the market," Christensen explained.

These customers typically desire to adopt a product that initially performs worse in traditional performance metrics but is cheaper, simpler, and more accessible.

Christensen cited Toyota as an example, as the company's initial target in the U.S. market was the budget-conscious customer segment that was overlooked by the Big Three automakers.

In the words of Christensen, traditional automakers focus on larger, faster, and more feature-rich cars, which "creates a vacuum underneath them," and Toyota filled this vacuum with the slower, smaller, and less equipped Corona. When this car was launched in 1965, it was priced at only $2,000.

Today, Toyota is the second largest car manufacturer in the United States, with the starting price of its Lexus LX 600 luxury SUV at $115,850.

Toyota leveraged the Corona to penetrate the U.S. market and then steadily climbed up the value chain, which validates Christensen's argument: the best way to reach the top is to start from the bottom.

Stablecoins may also follow a similar path.

Christensen's disruptors start in niche markets, while stablecoins start in emerging markets.

For American citizens with bank deposits, stablecoins are essentially a substandard dollar—lacking insurance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), not properly audited, not integrated into the ACH or SWIFT systems, and (despite the name) not always redeemable for 1 dollar.

However, for those outside the United States, they are a more advanced form of the dollar—unlike a $100 bill, you don't need to hide them, they won't be torn or soiled, and you don't have to exchange them face-to-face with someone.

This has made the US dollar stablecoin very popular in countries like Argentina—reportedly one in five Argentinians uses them daily—despite the fact that very few people in the US can say what they are.

Of course, Argentina is not the only place where stablecoins are used—stablecoins are popular among DeFi traders, individuals who cannot pass KYC checks, immigrants sending remittances back home, employers paying cross-border freelancers, and savers fleeing their country's hyperinflationary currency.

These stablecoins, as clients of existing banks, do not generate enough profit to attract them; therefore, stablecoins are initially not as important as the currencies issued by banks.

There was a time when people were so eager for the digital dollar that they seemed not to care whether Tether's USDT was fully backed.

Since Circle provided a regulated alternative to USDT, Tether itself seems to be playing by the rules as well, and the situation for some stablecoins has improved significantly, even offering yields.

But is this innovation really disruptive?

The Christensen Institute has a test consisting of six parts to determine whether an innovation is disruptive:

Is its target customer non-consumers or those who are underserved by existing products from current suppliers in the market?

Yes—DeFi traders and emerging market savers do not need FDIC-backed U.S. bank deposits (having a full U.S. bank account would make them "over-served"), but they do want digital dollars.

Based on historical performance, does this product perform worse than the existing products of current suppliers?

Yes - stablecoins have deviated from the peg exchange rate of 1 dollar, dropping to zero (Luna/UST), the cost of entry and exit is high, and they may be frozen and unable to be reclaimed.

Is this innovation easier to use, more convenient, or more affordable than the existing products of current suppliers?

Yes - sending stablecoins is easier than sending bank deposits, more convenient for many people, and also more affordable for some.

Does this product have technological driving factors that can push it into the high-end market and enable continuous improvement?

Yes - blockchain!

Does this technology combine with innovative business models for its sustainable development?

Maybe? Tether may be the most profitable company in history on a per-employee basis, but if U.S. regulators allow stablecoins to pay interest, issuing stablecoins might not bring any profit at all.

Do existing suppliers have the incentive to ignore new innovations and have they not felt threatened from the beginning?

No. Existing suppliers seem to be vigilant about the threats and are aware of the opportunities within.

"Almost always, when low-end disruption occurs, industry leaders actually have the incentive to flee rather than compete with you," Christensen wrote. "This is why low-end disruption is such an important tool for creating new growth businesses: competitors do not want to compete with you; they will walk away."

Stablecoins may be a rare exception: existing providers have not given up on this low-cost innovation, but seem to be competing to pursue it.

In recent weeks, payment giants Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe have all announced the launch of new stablecoins; BlackRock's BUIDL fund (which appears to be a yield-generating stablecoin) is rapidly attracting assets; the CEO of Bank of America stated that they are likely to issue stablecoins as soon as regulators allow it.

This may be because financial executives have all read "The Innovator's Dilemma."

It may also be because it is very easy to issue stablecoins.

Christensen defines disruptive innovation as company-driven—startups using low-end footholds to capture mainstream markets before existing enterprises take them seriously.

Stablecoins may be similar: the Circle payment network to Circle might be like Lexus to Toyota.

However, Circle's competitors are not as dull and slow as Toyota, so contrary to Christensen's theory, early innovators of stablecoins could very well be eliminated by "the heavens."

Regardless, the final outcome may be the same: A recent report from Citigroup predicts that by 2030, the asset management scale of stablecoins could reach $3.7 trillion, mainly due to the adoption by institutional investors.