Stablecoin competition is entering a new phase: the fight is no longer only over which token attracts the most liquidity, but over who gets paid when that liquidity moves through the network. HTX Ventures, the investment arm of HTX, has published a report examining Open USD (OUSD), a dollar-backed stablecoin initiative unveiled June 30, 2026, and its attempt to redistribute reserve economics and governance across the institutions that help make a payment network work.
Stablecoin infrastructure is opening. The economics may be next.
The core idea behind HTX Ventures’ report, Open Infrastructure, Closed Financial Rails: Open USD, Revenue Redistribution, and Participant Governance, is straightforward: blockchain has made the technical infrastructure for moving digital dollars increasingly open, but the economic relationships built around that infrastructure remain largely controlled by individual companies.
That distinction is becoming more important as stablecoins move beyond crypto trading.
Visa said in April that its stablecoin settlement program had reached a $7 billion annualized run rate across nine blockchains, up 50% from the previous quarter. McKinsey’s analysis offers a useful counterweight to the headline numbers: it estimated that genuine stablecoin payment activity was about $390 billion in 2025, with B2B payments accounting for roughly $226 billion. That represented only about 0.02% of global payments, suggesting significant room for growth but also a substantial gap between blockchain activity and mainstream payment usage.
Open USD is designed around that gap.
Announced by Open Standard with backing from more than 140 companies, OUSD is intended to provide businesses with fee-free minting and redemption, no stated volume limits, shared reserve economics and partner-led governance. Participants include Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, American Express, Coinbase, BlackRock and BNY, among others. The stablecoin is expected to go live later in 2026.
The important part is not simply another dollar token entering an already crowded market. It is the proposed economic model.
Traditional fiat-backed stablecoins generally generate revenue by investing reserve assets such as cash and short-term U.S. government securities. The issuer typically captures the resulting interest income. Open USD proposes a different arrangement: after a management fee, reserve earnings are intended to be shared with participating businesses.
That creates a direct incentive for exchanges, wallets, payment companies and other distribution partners to help grow the network.
From issuer economics to network economics
HTX Ventures identifies three structural changes in the Open USD model.
The first is a shift from fee-based access to subsidized distribution. Rather than asking partners to absorb the cost of integrating and promoting a stablecoin, reserve income can potentially compensate them for activities such as acquiring customers, maintaining liquidity or supporting regional payment infrastructure.
The second is a move from bilateral commercial negotiations toward network-wide revenue sharing. Today, a payment company or financial institution generally negotiates separately with an issuer or infrastructure provider. A shared economic pool could give smaller regional banks and fintechs a clearer route to participate in the value created by the network.
The third is participant governance. Open USD’s backers are not merely prospective customers. The project is structured around an independent organization with partner representation, giving participating institutions a role in determining how the network develops.
This is where the proposal becomes more interesting — and considerably harder.
A consortium can attract attention with a long partner list. It cannot manufacture transaction volume.
The real test for Open USD will be whether companies actually hold balances, use OUSD for cross-border payments, provide market liquidity, connect merchants and support reliable redemption. For enterprise treasury teams, those operational questions matter considerably more than the number of founding partners.
The competitive benchmark is still USDC and USDT
Open USD enters a market dominated by established stablecoins, particularly Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC.
Its differentiator is therefore not simply dollar backing or blockchain settlement. Those capabilities are already widely available. The proposed distinction is who captures the economics around the stablecoin.
That could put pressure on the conventional issuer model if OUSD or similar structures achieve significant payment scale. At the same time, established issuers retain advantages in liquidity, integrations, brand recognition, exchange support and operational maturity.
The comparison also extends beyond Circle and Tether.
Visa and Mastercard already operate enormous payment acceptance networks. Stripe provides payment infrastructure to businesses. Coinbase operates a major crypto trading and custody ecosystem. BlackRock and BNY bring institutional asset-management and custody capabilities. Open USD’s unusual proposition is that competitors across these categories are participating in the same financial infrastructure initiative.
That resembles a network strategy more than a conventional fintech product launch.
Enterprise adoption will depend on the details
For banks and payment companies considering stablecoin infrastructure, the unresolved questions are practical.
How exactly is reserve revenue allocated? Is compensation based on balances, payment volume, customer acquisition or regional investment? How are disputes handled? Who controls reserve custody? Which chains will support OUSD at launch? What happens when interest rates fall and reserve income contracts?
HTX Ventures specifically warns that transaction-based allocation can be manipulated by artificial or internal transfers, while balance-based allocation can disproportionately reward institutions with greater capital.
Governance presents a similar challenge. A board with dozens of participants can provide representation, but representation does not necessarily produce fast decision-making. Enterprise financial infrastructure requires clear accountability for compliance, risk, technology upgrades and liquidity management.
For that reason, Open USD’s success may ultimately depend less on whether its governance is described as “open” and more on whether the rules produce predictable outcomes for regulated financial institutions.
The distinction is important because stablecoins are still early in their transition into mainstream payments. McKinsey found that actual stablecoin payment volumes remain a small fraction of global payments despite rapid growth, with B2B transfers currently providing the strongest real-world use case.
Open USD is therefore best understood as an experiment in financial network economics, not simply another stablecoin launch.
If it works, exchanges, banks, wallets, payment processors and other intermediaries could become economic stakeholders in the stablecoin rail rather than distribution channels paid through individual commercial agreements.
That would shift the strategic question from “Which stablecoin should an enterprise use?” to “Which financial network gives every participant a sustainable reason to use it?”
The answer could shape the next generation of digital payments infrastructure.
Market Landscape
The stablecoin market is moving simultaneously in two directions.
On the infrastructure side, established financial networks are integrating blockchain settlement. Visa’s nine-blockchain program shows that institutional adoption is becoming multi-chain rather than dependent on a single public network.
On the economic side, new models are challenging the assumption that reserve income should accrue primarily to the issuer. Open USD’s approach makes revenue distribution part of the product architecture.
The competitive landscape now includes:
- USDT and USDC: established liquidity and distribution leaders.
- Open USD: differentiated around shared economics and participant governance.
- Visa and Mastercard: incumbent payment networks adapting their settlement infrastructure to stablecoins.
- Stripe: building stablecoin capabilities into enterprise payments infrastructure.
- Banks and custodians: potentially gaining new settlement and custody opportunities while facing pressure on traditional correspondent-payment economics.
The strongest opportunity may be in cross-border B2B payments, treasury movement and institutional settlement, where stablecoins can reduce dependence on fragmented banking hours and intermediary chains. But consumer payments remain harder because card networks provide mature fraud controls, dispute processes and liability frameworks that blockchain settlement does not automatically replicate.
For enterprise teams, the implication is clear: stablecoin selection is increasingly an infrastructure and commercial-governance decision, not merely a token-selection exercise.
Top Insights
- Open USD proposes sharing reserve yield with network participants, potentially changing how payment companies, banks and wallets monetize stablecoin distribution.
- HTX Ventures argues stablecoin competition is shifting from issuance scale toward governance, liquidity, customer ownership, data control and infrastructure economics.
- Visa’s $7 billion settlement run rate shows institutional stablecoin infrastructure is gaining traction, while real payment volumes remain comparatively small.
- Open USD’s 140-plus partners provide distribution potential, but sustained balances, payment volume, liquidity and redemption reliability will determine commercial success.
- Enterprise adoption will depend on revenue-allocation rules, reserve custody, regulatory accountability and governance execution rather than consortium size alone.
Get in touch with our fintech expert
