[Kwon Seong-min Column] In the Stablecoin War, the Side with 'Use Cases' Will Ultimately Win

No matter how good a credit card is, it is useless if there are no stores that accept it. The same goes for stablecoins. Simply issuing a digital currency pegged to the dollar is not enough to capture the market. People must be able to easily acquire it, send it to others, and convert it to cash when needed.

The recent attention on Ripple's stablecoin RLUSD stems from this very point. More important than the news of increased issuance is that Ripple is entering the pathways where corporate funds are moving.

However, interpreting this as "Ripple is winning the stablecoin competition" only reveals half of the market. There are reasons why money is already flowing into Ethereum, Tron, and Solana. To understand the reality of the competition, one must look at the customers and use cases secured by each camp.

First, it is necessary to clarify the names. Ripple is the company, XRP Ledger is the blockchain. XRP is the unique cryptocurrency of that network, and RLUSD is Ripple's dollar stablecoin. The counterparts for comparison are RLUSD against Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC. The comparison for Ethereum, Tron, and Solana is with XRP Ledger.

In simple terms, a stablecoin is 'money,' and a blockchain is the 'road' on which that money moves. A single stablecoin can utilize multiple roads. In fact, among the $2.4 billion in circulation of RLUSD reported by CoinDesk, about $1.4 billion was on Ethereum, and about $1 billion was on XRP Ledger. This is why RLUSD's growth cannot be interpreted solely as an achievement of XRP Ledger.

The path Ripple has chosen is through corporate finance teams.

Last year, Ripple announced the acquisition of corporate cash management software company GTreasury for $1 billion. This company supports businesses in managing multiple bank accounts, calculating payable amounts, and sending funds to overseas subsidiaries. Through this acquisition, Ripple secured a foundation to access the routine cash operations of companies.

In April of this year, Ripple Treasury launched a feature that allows users to view and manage both cash and digital assets together. At that time, Ripple stated that the payment volume processed by this platform for customers in 2025 would be $13 trillion. However, this figure represents the total volume of existing payment operations. It does not mean that all that money has moved to RLUSD.

Ripple's vision is not complicated. Instead of asking companies to learn a new wallet and new programs, it aims to enable the use of stablecoins within the cash management screens they already use.

Consider a scenario where a Korean headquarters sends operating funds to its U.S. subsidiary. What the person in charge wants to know is not the name of the blockchain, but when the money will arrive, how much it will cost, and how it will be recorded in the books. If this issue can be resolved within existing operations, there will be a reason for companies to consider new payment methods.

This is Ripple's strength. However, not all existing software customers will become RLUSD customers. Companies will verify actual cost savings, repayment possibilities, and internal controls before adoption.

Ethereum has a different type of strength. It offers financial products and services that can be immediately connected after sending money.

BlackRock introduced its tokenized fund BUIDL on Ethereum for the first time in 2024. Following that, Circle announced a feature allowing eligible BUIDL holders to transfer fund shares to Circle and receive USDC. This created a pathway for converting invested money into digital dollars.

In such cases, the value of stablecoins does not end with remittances. They are also used in the process of buying and selling investment products or managing funds. If Ripple starts from corporate cash management, the Ethereum ecosystem can generate demand from already connected financial products and services. Of course, this does not mean that such businesses are limited to Ethereum alone.

Tron is significant as a network where USDT is widely circulated.

According to Tether's official announcement in May of this year, the circulation of USDT on Tron exceeded $88 billion. This was a figure based on that time, but it already shows that a substantial amount of digital dollars has established itself on this network.

In remittances, it is important whether the recipient uses the same money and network. If the sender is comfortable but the recipient cannot use it, the transaction does not take place. The foundation of USDT's widespread circulation is an asset that new competitors will find difficult to create in a short time.

However, one should not consider the total transfer amount generated on Tron as solely for overseas remittances or product purchases. Transactions such as deposits and withdrawals on exchanges or fund movements of the same entity may also be included. It is essential to distinguish between the fact that a lot of money is moving and the claim that there are many real economy settlements.

Solana shows a direction of connecting fast and inexpensive transaction processing with actual payment services.

PayPal has enabled its stablecoin PYUSD to be used on Solana following Ethereum in 2024. At that time, PayPal cited transaction speed and low costs as reasons for adding Solana. Users can view their PYUSD balance within PayPal and Venmo and choose the supported network when sending to external wallets.

The important aspect here is the combination of technology and customer networks. Solana's processing capability becomes a choice for users when connected to services like PayPal. Explaining the performance of the blockchain may be less direct for adoption than integrating into apps that people use.

Based on representative examples, the comparisons are as follows. The uses of each network are not limited to these.

A case that shows the possibility that this competition will not end with a single chain is Visa.

In April of this year, Visa announced that it would expand the support blockchains for its stablecoin settlement pilot project to nine. It added Base and Polygon to the existing Ethereum, Solana, Stellar, and Avalanche. The settlement scale presented in the same announcement was an annualized $7 billion. This is a different metric from the amount already processed over a year.

The direction that can be read from Visa's choice is clear. It aims to connect multiple networks that customers need and provide consistent services on top of that. The ability to allow users to send money without having to think about which chain to use is also a competitive advantage.

From this perspective, Ripple's 'trillion-dollar opportunity' should also be viewed calmly. Assuming 1% conversion, that would be $130 billion annually. However, this is a calculation to gauge potential, not a forecast of contracted volumes or sales. The same dollar can be used multiple times, so transaction volumes and stablecoin issuance are not the same.

The expression 'the adoption rate is still 0%' is also difficult to use as an accurate current figure. Ripple has already launched digital asset management features, but the proportion of RLUSD in total payments cannot be determined from the available data. In Europe, the dual issuance of RLUSD compliant with MiCA has been described as a target for promotion, and there is insufficient basis to conclude that it is already the first completed euro-dollar payment network.

Ultimately, the saying 'the distribution network beats the product' is only half correct. In finance, safe products, sufficient liquidity, and convenient customer touchpoints are all necessary. No matter how many customers are secured, if it is difficult to get the money back or if the exchange costs are high, they will not use it. Conversely, even if the technology is excellent, if it cannot enter everyday use cases, there will be limits to its spread.

The same questions need to be asked in discussions about Korean won stablecoins. One must ask not only who will issue them but also who will use them daily. It must be demonstrated how much faster and cheaper it becomes in specific tasks such as receiving payments from export companies, remitting to overseas subsidiaries, and settling online sellers.

The outcome of stablecoins is not determined the moment the issue button is pressed. It is determined when customers choose to use it again for the next payment. When comparing Ripple and Ethereum, Tron and Solana, the first thing to look at is not the name of the coin but the people using that money and the use cases.