Stripe, Circle, and Tether are building chains that only move dollars. Over $1B raised, big names attached, but Tron's head start still looks untouchable.
Stablecoins won this cycle. With over $310 billion in circulation and transfer volumes rivaling “legacy” card networks, digital dollars are crypto's one undisputed product-market fit.
Now the companies behind them want dedicated blockchains to match: Stripe built one, Circle is building one, and Tether has backed two. They're called stablechains, and more than $1 billion has been raised to launch them.
So far, however, the dollars haven't followed.
What Is a Stablechain?
A stablechain is a layer-1 built for one primary job: moving stablecoins. On a general-purpose chain like Ethereum (ETH) or BNB Chain (BNB), sending 10 digital dollars means first buying a volatile token just to pay gas.
Stablechains scrap that design and instead use stablecoins as the native asset. Fees are paid in dollars, and the rest of the design (throughput, sub-second finality, compliance hooks, batch payments) is tuned for settlement rather than open-ended experimentation.
Stripe CEO Patrick Collison made the case for stablechains when introducing Tempo: fees on existing chains are denominated in volatile tokens that are meaningless to ordinary users, batch transfers matter far more for payments than trading, and throughput falls short of payment-system needs.
Circle's Jeremy Allaire pitched Arc as something even bigger, calling it an "Economic OS for the internet."
The Rise of Tron (and the Failed Ancestor)
The most successful stablechain never set out to be one. Tron launched in 2018 as a general-purpose entertainment chain and evolved into the world's primary USDT settlement rail.
It now hosts $91.5 billion in stablecoins, nearly half of all USDT, and overtook Ethereum in USDT supply early this year, though it still lags Ethereum in overall stablecoin supply.
Chart: The Block, Source: DefiLlama
The reason behind the dramatic expansion of stablecoins on Tron comes down to money. USDT users pay an estimated $2.9 billion a year in fees to blockchains Tether doesn't control, with revenue flowing mostly to Tron and Ethereum rather than to Tether in the form of transaction fees.
Tether's answer was to back two competing chains at once, Plasma and Stable, a strategy one analyst described as Tether funding both sides of its own chain war.
The category also has a cautionary ancestor. Terra was arguably the first purpose-built stablecoin chain, and it collapsed in May 2022—erasing roughly $40 billion from the market—because its stablecoin UST was algorithmic and unsound.
Terra’s collapse cut the crypto industry, but also catalyzed the development of sound stablecoin infrastructure and peg-keeping mechanisms.
Who’s Who in Stablechains
Currently, four new players are mopping up most of the attention and funding in the stablechain landscape.
Plasma is aligned with Tether and retail-oriented, with zero-fee USDT transfers, EVM compatibility, a ~$373 million token sale that was seven times oversubscribed, and a neobank app (Plasma One) with a Visa card in 150+ countries.
Tempo, incubated by Stripe and Paradigm, raised $500 million at a $5 billion valuation, and launched mainnet in March with Deutsche Bank, OpenAI, and Shopify as design partners and Visa running an anchor validator node. It’s currently tokenless.
Stable, backed by Bitfinex and Hack VC with a $28 million seed, uses USDT itself as gas and targets institutions via Anchorage and PayPal Ventures.
Arc, Circle's USDC-powered chain, remains in testnet with a Wall Street partner directory (Visa, BlackRock, HSBC) and a $222 million token presale at a $3 billion valuation.
*DefiLlama, Aug. 8, 2026
The Reality Check
Together, the new stablechains hold just under 0.3% of the $310 billion stablecoin market, while Ethereum and Tron still control 78%.
Source: Stablecoins Screener Page
The launch curves have been brutal. Plasma attracted $6.35 billion in stablecoins within two weeks of launch, then bled roughly 85% as incentives expired.
Stable fared worse: despite $2 billion in pre-deposit commitments, its on-chain supply peaked at just $706 million eight days after launch, then collapsed 96% to $27 million. Despite this, its stablecoin TVL has been ticking up since May 2026.
Skeptics on Crypto Twitter call them "enterprise ghost chains," arguing that everything they offer is achievable on an L2.
The bulls' counterargument is that parked supply is the wrong metric for a payment rail: velocity matters more than balances.
Tempo, one of the smallest chains by stablecoin deposits, is the only one growing, and Stripe’s CEO pointed to billions in run-rate payment volume. DoorDash now routes merchant payouts through the chain, Meta uses it for creator payouts, and Deel uses it for contractor payments.
A chain processing salaries doesn't need dollars sitting idle on it.
How To Try Them
The four most popular stablechains are EVM-compatible, so one wallet covers everything. Rabby or MetaMask both work, as well as practically any other wallet that allows you to add custom chains.
Plasma is the easiest test drive since you can bridge in USDT and send it for free, no gas token required, or download Plasma One for the full neobank experience. Stable works similarly with USDT0 as gas, but with fewer incentives available.
Tempo takes one extra step: add the network via Chainlist, then bridge USDC or pathUSD in via Relay. Because Tempo currently has no token, airdrop hunters are farming a potential airdrop with daily check-ins and .tempo domain registrations, among other activities.
Arc is testnet-only, but Circle runs builder programs encouraging users to develop on the chain and is launching a builders fund to back early-stage teams building on the platform.
Whether any of this farming pays off is speculation. The larger bet is about which stablechain will become the dominant stablecoin rail, and how traditional finance institutions will weave stablechains and stablecoins into their product offerings.
Tron and Ethereum have an enormous head start, but the challengers have more than $1 billion to spend closing it.
This article contains links to third-party websites or other content for information purposes only (“Third-Party Sites”). The Third-Party Sites are not under the control of Vortex, and Vortex is not responsible for the content of any Third-Party Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Third-Party Site, or any changes or updates to a Third-Party Site. Vortex is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement, approval or recommendation by Vortex of the site or any association with its operators. This article is intended to be used and must be used for informational purposes only. It is important to do your own research and analysis before making any material decisions related to any of the products or services described. This article is not intended as, and shall not be construed as, financial advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s [company’s] own and do not necessarily reflect those of Vortex.
