repubblica.it
Stablecoin Boom: Circle's Stock Soars, Tether's Profits Exceed Major Banks
The US Senate's approval of the Genius Act spurred a tenfold increase in Circle's stock price, highlighting the booming stablecoin market where companies like Tether generated $13 billion in profit in 2024, exceeding major Italian banks, while facing potential challenges from regulators and competition from traditional financial institutions.
- How do the profit models of Tether and Circle differ, and what factors contribute to these differences?
- The success of Circle and Tether highlights the lucrative potential of stablecoins, attracting interest from major corporations like Amazon. These companies see stablecoins as a way to generate substantial interest income on reserves, similar to Tether's $7 billion return from Treasury investments. The Genius Act, however, currently prohibits large tech firms from directly issuing stablecoins.
- What are the primary obstacles and opportunities for stablecoins to replace traditional banking systems and payment methods?
- The future of stablecoins hinges on their viability as payment and deposit alternatives. While their constant value and low transaction fees are advantageous, regulatory hurdles in markets like Europe pose significant challenges for widespread adoption as deposit substitutes. The potential for mass deposit migration away from traditional banks remains a key concern.
- What are the immediate financial implications of the US Senate's approval of the Genius Act on stablecoin companies like Circle and Tether?
- Circle, a US-based group, saw its stock price surge tenfold after its June IPO, reaching over $200 from an initial $30. This followed the US Senate's approval of the Genius Act, aiming to regulate stablecoins. Tether, another major stablecoin, reported a $13 billion net profit in 2024, exceeding that of Italy's largest banks.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing is generally positive towards stablecoins, highlighting their potential profitability and efficiency. The headline (although not provided) likely emphasizes the financial success of Circle's IPO and the potential of stablecoins for large corporations. The introductory paragraph sets a tone of excitement around the growing interest in stablecoins by major players. This positive framing could overshadow potential risks or criticisms.
Language Bias
The article uses language that leans towards enthusiasm, such as "boom in Borsa," "fantasmagorici numeri," and "ingolosire." While not explicitly biased, these terms suggest a positive viewpoint. More neutral phrasing could include descriptions that focus on factual growth and data, rather than emotional descriptors. For example, instead of "boom in Borsa," a more neutral option would be "significant stock market growth.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the financial aspects of stablecoins, particularly the profits generated by Tether and Circle. However, it omits discussion of potential downsides or risks associated with stablecoins, such as the possibility of de-pegging from the underlying asset, regulatory uncertainty in various jurisdictions beyond the US and Europe, and the potential for misuse in illicit activities. While acknowledging space constraints is reasonable, a brief mention of these risks would provide a more balanced perspective.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor scenario regarding the future of stablecoins, framing them as either viable replacements for existing payment systems and bank deposits or not. The reality is likely far more nuanced, with stablecoins potentially filling specific niches within the financial landscape rather than completely supplanting existing systems.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses stablecoins, which have the potential to reduce transaction costs, particularly for cross-border payments and in emerging markets. This could benefit individuals and businesses in developing countries, promoting financial inclusion and reducing inequalities in access to financial services. Lower transaction fees could also level the playing field for smaller businesses competing with larger corporations.