Consortium stablecoins face structural incentive hurdles
The bear case argued: the newly announced OUSD stablecoin consortium is unlikely to displace the Circle and Tether duopoly due to the inherent governance and incentive challenges of a 140-member coalition.
The argument
The hosts argued that while a consortium model is theoretically the best way to build a payment network, large consortia historically struggle without a single dominant driver. Furthermore, they argued that complex revenue-sharing agreements will inevitably lead to farming games and disputes over whether to prioritize asset growth or transaction volume.
The thesis, stress-tested
✓ What validates it
- ✓OUSD fails to capture meaningful market share from USDC or USDT within 12 months of launch
- ✓Key consortium members fail to integrate OUSD into their primary transaction flows
▸ Risks discussed
- ▸A small core of powerful members (e.g., BlackRock, BNY Mellon) could successfully streamline governance
- ▸The desire to bypass the Circle/Tether duopoly may provide a strong enough unifying incentive for members to cooperate
Hear it yourself
"There's a new stablecoin on the block called Open USD, abbreviated OUSD. OUSD is a new consortium, but this consortium is not like other consortiums we've seen. There doesn't seem to be a single company behind it, but rather a true consortium of something like a 140 partners."
00:00 / 00:21
AFFILIATE LINK · ZORTIX MAY EARN A COMMISSION · NEVER A RECOMMENDATION TO TRADE