This report was written by Tiger Research. Stablecoin issuance is one of the most lucrative businesses in the crypto space. However, with Tether (USDT) and USDC together holding over 85% of the market share, it's unrealistic for new entrants to compete on the same reserve interest model. This report analyzes four issuers, each carving out a unique position in this landscape. Tether leads with approximately 62% market share. Building on its core reserve yield model, the company is rebuilding trust and diversifying its revenue streams by bringing in audits from the Big Four accounting firms and investing $20 billion in new businesses. StraitsX doesn't rely primarily on reserve interest for revenue; instead, it focuses on payment fees. Its integration with Alipay+, GrabPay, and Visa demonstrates real-world practicality, and its monthly transaction volume, reaching 2.5 times its market capitalization, validates the model's viability. Obtaining a major payment institution license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore earlier than its competitors has turned regulatory requirements into a competitive advantage. M0 does not directly issue stablecoins. Instead, it provides shared infrastructure, enabling other companies to issue their own stablecoins. MetaMask and Exodus already operate stablecoins on the platform. This model continues to strengthen through network effects as issuers and builders join. KRWQ, operating in the absence of a domestic regulatory framework, pioneered the offshore demand in the Korean Won NDF market, which already operated outside the regulatory system. Once the regulatory framework is established, the company plans to leverage its pre-established offshore liquidity to enter the Korean domestic market, subsequently replicating the model to other major NDF currencies in Asia. The stablecoin issuance market has not converged on a single business model but rather exhibits a diversified pattern. Fundamentally different revenue strategies coexist based on the size and positioning of each issuer. Stablecoin issuance is one of the most lucrative businesses in the crypto space, attracting increasing numbers of institutional participants. Tether pioneered this area, establishing a leading position as a primary liquidity provider in the early trading market. Circle followed closely, prioritizing regulatory compliance and expanding its influence into traditional finance by listing on the New York Stock Exchange in June 2025. This institutionalization process has propelled the total market capitalization of stablecoins to approximately $300 billion and prompted major jurisdictions to formally establish regulatory frameworks. The United States signed the GENIUS Act in July 2025, establishing the first federal regulatory framework for payment-based stablecoins.The EU's implementation of the Crypto-Asset Market Regulation Act and Hong Kong's enactment of the Stablecoin Ordinance mark the full-scale commencement of global regulatory competition. This growth momentum is expected to accelerate further. Analysis by Tiger Research shows that the annual net supply increase of stablecoins will nearly double from $55 billion in 2024 to $101 billion in 2025. If major jurisdictions complete relevant legislation and institutional demand materializes, even under a conservative 15% annual growth rate assumption, the market size is projected to exceed $600 billion by 2030. The core revenue model of stablecoins lies in reserve management, not the issuance itself. When a user deposits $1, the issuer mints one Tether (USDT) or USDC and allocates that dollar to low-risk assets such as US Treasury bonds and money market funds. As the issuance scale expands, the reserve base and the interest income generated also increase. This model is essentially a race for scale. To generate substantial income from reserve interest, hundreds of billions of dollars in circulation are needed. Currently, Tether (approximately 62%) and USDC (approximately 25%) together account for over 85% of the market share, with the remaining 15% divided among dozens of smaller issuers. For newcomers, competing solely on the reserve interest model is unrealistic. New entrants are addressing this by designing alternative revenue models or completely redefining their businesses. Some companies rely primarily on transaction fees and integration with the real economy; others provide issuance infrastructure rather than directly issuing stablecoins, earning network service fees; still others choose to first absorb offshore demand in relatively regulated currency regions, entering their domestic markets once regulatory frameworks are more robust. The stablecoin issuance market has not converged to a single model but has instead diversified. Fundamentally different revenue strategies coexist based on the size and positioning of each issuer. The following sections, based on interviews with key players, analyze in detail how these models operate in practice. Tether: The Market Benchmark for Stablecoins. Tether first issued the USD-pegged stablecoin Tether in 2014 and currently holds approximately 62% of the stablecoin market share, effectively playing the role of industry pioneer. Tether's ability to maintain its market leadership for over a decade is not solely due to its first-mover advantage.What has shaped Tether into what it is today is a series of proactive and prudent structural transformations: a comprehensive overhaul of its reserve asset composition, shifting from commercial paper to U.S. Treasury bonds; the establishment of a quarterly external verification mechanism; and a shift towards a diversified business model, reinvesting profits from its stablecoin business in areas such as artificial intelligence, energy, education, and communications. Business Model: Tether's revenue streams are diverse, but reserve management remains at its core. Each time Tether issues Tether, it receives an equivalent amount in US dollars, which it invests in safe assets such as U.S. Treasury bonds, reverse repurchase agreements, and money market funds. As issuance increases, the assets under management expand, and interest income accumulates accordingly. In addition, a portion of the reserves is held in the form of gold and Bitcoin, and the price appreciation of these two assets generates additional market capitalization gains. According to public information, reserve management revenue accounts for the vast majority of its total profits. Secondary revenue sources include protocol integration fees and transaction fees. Furthermore, Tether maintains a strategic investment portfolio independent of its Tether reserves, covering areas such as artificial intelligence, energy, and communications. Regulatory Engagement: Since Q1 2025, Tether has held a stablecoin issuer license under El Salvador's Digital Assets Law and operates under the supervision of the National Digital Assets Commission. However, some argue that this structure limits its transparency. Standard & Poor's has cited this as one of the reasons for giving Tether a lower transparency score. Tether is addressing this issue by entering the US market separately. Under the GENIUS Act, the company launched USAT as a product line designed specifically for the US regulatory environment, while Tether continues as a general-purpose product for the global market. These two markets are structurally independent and are developing in tandem. Tether is also actively responding to the transparency controversy. While quarterly reserve attestation reports verified by BDO have been its benchmark practice, Tether officially engaged a Big Four accounting firm in March 2026 to conduct a full audit of Tether's reserves. Unlike attestation that only confirms the composition of reserves at a specific point in time, a full audit covers assets, liabilities, and internal control systems with a higher standard of scrutiny. The market has reacted to this. As TEDA's regulatory compliance improved, Circle's stock price fell by approximately 20%. This indicates that TEDA is addressing its previously most significant competitive weakness, thereby reshaping the market competitive landscape. Growth Strategy: TEDA's growth strategy focuses on real-world asset expansion, technological innovation, and new business development.Its flagship real-world asset product is Tether Gold, a token backed 1:1 by physical gold held in Swiss vaults. This product accounts for more than half of the total market capitalization of gold-backed stablecoins, and its underlying asset size continues to expand. New business development is also progressing simultaneously. Tether's proprietary investment portfolio exceeds $20 billion, broadly distributed across artificial intelligence, energy, media, and communications sectors. This portfolio is completely independent of Tether's reserves, serving as a growth engine for surplus capital, reinvesting profits generated from stablecoin issuance into long-term growth drivers. Key takeaways: Tether's case offers several structural insights for any company considering entering the stablecoin business. First, stablecoin issuance is a business of scale. Every Tether issued corresponds to an investment in US Treasury bonds. As issuance increases, Treasury bond holdings increase, and interest income rises accordingly. Understanding this direct link between issuance and assets under management is the starting point for analyzing any stablecoin business model. Second, regulatory compliance is a prerequisite, not an option. Even Tether must operate within a regulatory framework. Regardless of the ambiguity of the current regulatory framework, the design of a business structure must consider inclusion in the regulatory system from the outset. Stablecoins are essentially an industry operating within a regulatory framework. StraitsX: A Stablecoin Issuer Targeting the ASEAN Real Economy. StraitsX is a Singapore-based stablecoin issuer. Its core products are XSGD (pegged to the Singapore dollar) and XUSD (pegged to the US dollar), and it has expanded its business to major ASEAN currencies such as the Indonesian rupiah. More noteworthy than its digital asset issuance itself is that StraitsX is building a payment infrastructure directly connected to the ASEAN real economy. According to data from the on-chain data platform rwa.xyz, XSGD's monthly transaction volume (approximately US$39.9 million) is about 2.5 times its market capitalization (approximately US$15.8 million). Compared to mainstream global stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, StraitsX's absolute asset size and turnover are still relatively small, but its application scenarios are fundamentally different. Mainstream stablecoins are primarily used for investment transactions on cryptocurrency exchanges, while StraitsX's tokens are used for everyday real-world business activities. Business Model: StraitsX's revenue model is centered on transaction fees. Reserve interest income is constrained by external variables such as circulation and interest rates, while transaction fees are linked to trading volume and can expand in tandem with business growth. Reserve Interest Income: Reserves corresponding to circulating XSGD and XUSD are held in trust accounts at DBS Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, and United International Bank.According to the regulations of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, interest belongs to the company, not the token holders. Based on a total circulating supply of approximately US$65 million, the annual revenue is estimated to be between US$2.6 million and US$3.25 million. Payment processing fees: These are generated each time a payment or settlement is made using stablecoins. The main channels include fund inflows and outflows, QR code payment networks (integrated with Alipay+ and GrabPay), and bank card issuance (sponsored by Visa). This revenue is linked to transaction volume, not a fee rate. OTC trading and FX swap spreads: The FX spreads earned from stablecoin swaps, buying and selling transactions, and large-scale OTC transactions. Payment fees are primarily generated through StraitsX's external network integration. Major mobile payment platforms such as Alipay+ and GrabPay, as well as global exchanges such as Binance and Bybit, have adopted StraitsX's system for fund settlement, covering a variety of application scenarios. Notably, internal StraitsX data shows that stablecoin payments linked to Visa cards have increased 40-fold in the past year, while card issuance has increased 83-fold during the same period. Regulatory Positioning: The crypto industry generally believes that strict regulation limits business expansion. StraitsX, however, has taken the opposite approach, transforming the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) regulatory framework into a competitive defense. This strategy is based on StraitsX's MAS Principal Payments Institution license. With this license, StraitsX is authorized to operate six of the seven principal payment services regulated by the MAS. This allows the company to legally conduct cross-border remittances, foreign exchange, merchant payments, and account issuance within a single legal entity, far exceeding the scope of simple token issuance. XSGD and XUSD have been recognized as stablecoins substantially compliant with the MAS's single-currency stablecoin regulatory framework. For institutional capital to enter the blockchain ecosystem on a large scale, bank-level Know Your Customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) systems are fundamental prerequisites. Most crypto companies operating outside the regulatory sphere fail to meet this standard. StraitsX is collaborating with regulators to develop a next-generation cryptographic identity verification system. Its strategy is to meet compliance standards required for future institutional funding inflows in advance, thereby ensuring its exclusive ability to absorb this capital. Growth Strategy: After establishing a sustainable revenue model, StraitsX's next goal is to enter new settlement markets. Its long-term growth driver primarily comes from real-world asset settlement. As traditional assets such as stocks and bonds gradually migrate on-chain, the demand for tokenized cash as a settlement method will also increase.StraitsX plans to capture institutional settlement needs by providing cross-chain interoperability across multiple blockchain environments. Key takeaway: The StraitsX case demonstrates that long-term growth is primarily driven by real-world asset settlement. As traditional assets such as stocks and bonds become on-chain, the demand for tokenized cash as a settlement medium will grow accordingly. StraitsX plans to seize institutional settlement needs early by providing cross-chain compatibility across multiple blockchain environments. First, turnover rate is more important than total supply. Non-USD stablecoin issuers cannot achieve growth solely through issuance size. They must prioritize ensuring real-world application scenarios and integration into corporate settlement networks. The key metric is turnover rate, not market capitalization. Second, regulatory compliance is a competitive moat. StraitsX obtained a license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore early on, transforming regulatory requirements into a structural barrier to entry. Stablecoins are at the intersection of the crypto world and traditional finance, and are inherently a regulated industry. The speed at which issuers achieve regulatory compliance, and the closeness of their cooperation with regulators, will be key variables determining competitive success. M0 Company: Shared Infrastructure for Stablecoin Builders and Issuers. M0 Company provides shared infrastructure, enabling businesses to launch stablecoins and financial institutions to issue them. Instead of directly issuing stablecoins, M0 Company provides the infrastructure, allowing multiple builders to launch their own stablecoins on a common technological foundation. This architecture solves two core problems. First, the stablecoin market is fragmented, with each issuer operating its own independent stablecoin issuance technology stack, leading to structural difficulties in cross-currency compatibility. Second, without M0 Company, stablecoin builders face a "cold start" problem: they must build liquidity, partnerships, and network effects from scratch on launch day. M0 Company solves both problems simultaneously through a shared layer. Every stablecoin on this platform is built on common standards and technology, sharing existing liquidity from launch and being exchangeable 1:1 with all other M0-powered stablecoins on the platform. Currently, stablecoins built on the M0 infrastructure include MetaMask's mUSD, Exodus' XO Cash, KAST's USDK, Noble's USDN, and Usual's UsualM, with many more projects under development. Issuers powered by the M0 issuance technology stack include Bridge (a Stripe subsidiary), MoonPay, and 1Money.Business Model: The issuer refers to a regulated institution that holds reserves as collateral, uses M0 infrastructure to mint stablecoins, and pays a predetermined fee to the platform from a portion of the interest earned on the reserves. The builder refers to an entity with a specific use case that uses M0 companies to launch and control its own stablecoin, thereby gaining economic benefits and directly customizing the currency's operation into its own products. MetaMask's mUSD case clearly demonstrates how these two roles collaborate in practice. MetaMask, leveraging M0 technology, designed and built its own stablecoin under the mUSD brand, adding the necessary functionalities and product layers. The Bridge company, holding a regulatory license, manages the US Treasury bonds used as collateral and fulfills its platform obligations, ultimately minting and burning mUSD as needed. These two roles are completely separate. The Bridge company does not own the final use case or product; MetaMask never handles the collateral. However, the stablecoin that ultimately reaches users can be instantly exchanged 1:1 with all other M0-driven stablecoins on the network, and liquidity is shared from day one, eliminating the need to build from scratch. The revenue stream originates from the interest on government bonds generated from the collateral held by the issuer. While collecting this interest, issuers are also required to pay a separate minting fee (3.33% as of March 2026) to the platform for the outstanding issuance volume. M0's current circulating supply is approximately $276 million. This figure is expected to continue to grow as more issuers and builders adopt the platform. Regulatory Engagement: M0 positions itself as a technology platform and structurally separates compliance obligations to each issuer. M0's core stablecoin module technically embeds the compliance functions required by issuers, including allowing list management, suspension of transactions, and asset freezing. However, the actual implementation of these functions, as well as all other regulatory obligations such as licensing, anti-money laundering, and Know Your Customer (KYC), remain the direct responsibility of each issuer. M0 provides the technical tools but does not replace the regulatory responsibilities that issuers should bear. For this division of responsibilities to work effectively in practice, issuers must comply with the relevant regulations in each market in which they operate. M0 believes that the United States is the market with the fastest progress in stablecoin regulation. The enactment of the GENIUS Act in July 2025 established a federal-level regulatory framework for stablecoins, after which corporate demand for stablecoins accelerated significantly. As major jurisdictions establish clear regulatory frameworks, the demand for stablecoins continues to expand, increasing the opportunity for M0 companies to establish their infrastructure as market standards.Growth Strategy: M0's current top priority is expanding the total circulating supply of M0-powered stablecoins on its platform. Since revenue based on price differences increases with circulating supply, developing a network of builders and issuers is the most critical metric at this stage. In a public interview, CEO Luca Prosperi stated that network expansion will be a top priority over the next two to five years. The builder base has already diversified across wallets, games, fintech, and payments, with participants including MetaMask, Exodus, Noble, Usual, and Kast. With the accelerated corporate adoption following the GENIUS Act, now is the optimal time to expand the issuer network. How many issuers and builders M0 can attract to its platform during this window will determine its long-term market position. Key Takeaways: M0's case reveals a shift in the competitive landscape of the stablecoin market: competition is shifting from "which stablecoin achieves the highest circulating supply" to "who controls the issuer and builder network and infrastructure standards first." First, rapid integration can generate network effects. Built on the M0 infrastructure, it automatically achieves compatibility with all stablecoin functions on the platform, eliminating the need for repetitive integration development for each stablecoin. Secondly, the value of the infrastructure grows with market size. Not every company has the capacity to independently issue stablecoins. As more issuers join, the value of shared infrastructure capable of handling licensing, technology, and liquidity management will continuously increase. This is precisely why the structural advantages of M0 companies can continue to strengthen with market growth. As long as the stablecoin market doesn't become highly concentrated among a few dominant players, the value of the universal infrastructure connecting numerous issuers and builders will continue to rise. The key question for the future is whether the shared standards promoted by M0 companies can become the industry's infrastructure layer. KRWQ: Bringing the Korean Won On-Chain. KRWQ is a stablecoin pegged to the Korean Won, launched in October 2025 by IQ in collaboration with Frax. It's worth noting that South Korea currently lacks a domestic regulatory framework for Won-denominated stablecoins. KRWQ's target market is not the South Korean domestic market, but the offshore market. The South Korean won is a currency legally used only within South Korea, but there is significant demand from overseas investors seeking to hedge against or speculate on the won's exchange rate volatility. For example, foreign investors holding Samsung Electronics stock are fully exposed to won exchange rate fluctuations: a stronger dollar means losses, while a weaker dollar means gains.Even investors wishing to mitigate this risk cannot directly hedge their won exposure outside of South Korea. This has given rise to non-deliverable forwards (NDFs): contracts settled in US dollars, with the settlement amount being the difference between the agreed-upon exchange rate and the actual exchange rate, without involving direct won exchange. Based on this structure, the won NDF market has developed into one of the largest markets globally in terms of trading volume. KRWQ's strategy is to first capture this offshore demand and then enter the domestic market once the domestic regulatory framework in South Korea is established. This is essentially "offshore first, onshore follow," only in reverse order to the traditional path. Business Model: The existing NDF market is an over-the-counter market built around bilateral negotiations between banks, characterized by opaque pricing and high transaction costs. South Korean government restrictions on offshore won trading have narrowed the pool of eligible participants and suppressed liquidity. Furthermore, transactions require waiting for contract expiration before settlement, creating inherent counterparty risk. KRWQ aims to address these limitations through perpetual contracts. Non-deliverable forwards (NDFs) and perpetual contracts are structurally identical products: neither directly converts to Korean won, both settle in US dollars based on price differences, and both can be used for hedging or directional betting on Korean won exchange rate risk. The only difference lies in the maturity date: NDFs have a fixed maturity date, while perpetual contracts have no maturity date, can operate on-chain 24/7, and offer the same functionality at a lower cost. Recently, KRWQ launched an NDF market through EDXM International. Regulatory involvement: KRWQ adopts a two-track strategy: first establishing operations in the offshore market, and then entering the onshore market after domestic regulations are finalized. KRWQ's design references the stablecoin legislation currently under review by the Korean National Assembly, aiming to become the first Korean won stablecoin to meet regulatory requirements. However, the domestic legislative environment in Korea remains complex. Regulatory uncertainty constitutes a barrier to market entry in the short term, but for KRWQ, it also buys time to establish a leading offshore liquidity advantage over competitors. In its final phase, KRWQ plans to partner with regulated banks in South Korea to enable direct deposit and withdrawal of the Korean won, supporting the issuance and redemption of stablecoins. Growth Strategy: KRWQ's growth strategy is divided into three phases. Phase 1, Offshore Demand Capture (Current Phase): Establishing a perpetual contract trading infrastructure based on KRWQ, targeting offshore institutions and decentralized finance protocols.The second phase is the onshore transition: after the passage of domestic legislation in South Korea, it will leverage existing offshore liquidity and infrastructure to enter the South Korean domestic market. The third phase involves replication and promotion to other Asian currencies: besides the Korean won, the Indian rupee, New Taiwan dollar, and Indonesian rupiah are all major non-deliverable forward (NDF) currencies in Asia. These currencies share similar structural characteristics with the Korean won, namely, capital controls and an active offshore NDF market. Key points: First, regulatory gaps can be seen as opportunities, not passive waiting. In the Asian stablecoin market, regulation is often considered a prerequisite for market entry, with most participants waiting indefinitely for legislation. The Korean Won Cash Corporation (KFC) takes a different perspective: regardless of domestic regulations, the demand from the offshore market is real. Offshore liquidity can serve as leverage for entering the onshore market. Second, the Korean won NDF market already operates outside the scope of domestic regulation. The KFC has taken the lead in absorbing this demand. Once the regulatory framework is in place, it will enter the South Korean domestic market with its established offshore liquidity and infrastructure. Their strategy isn't to wait, but to launch first in areas where revenue has already been generated. Where do latecomers still have opportunities? The stablecoin market is highly concentrated, with Tether and USDC together accounting for over 85% of the total supply. It's unrealistic for new entrants to compete on the same reserve interest model. However, the cases analyzed in this report show that there's more than one path to enter this market. The core principle for latecomers is to avoid competing with Tether and Circle on the same level. Winning in the reserve size race is impossible, but unique positioning can be found in different directions: payment networks, issuance infrastructure, offshore markets, etc. As the stablecoin market expands, the diversity of competition also increases. This industry is not repeating a single model, but rather diversifying, forming a market landscape where multiple different strategies coexist. It should be noted that the entities discussed in this report are no longer challengers, but have become leaders in their respective fields. Learning from their practices is valuable, but simply copying them is insufficient. The next generation of entrants must define and solve new problems that these pioneers have not yet addressed. Ultimately, the companies that will survive in the stablecoin issuance market will not only be those with differentiated entry strategies, but also those that can execute those strategies and solve the new problems that arise during the scaling process.The market has moved beyond the stage of "who can find a new model" and entered the stage of "who can truly implement and successfully run that model." [Tiger Research]