Stablecoin War: The Winner Is the One With Real-World Use Cases

Just as a credit card is useless without merchants to accept it, stablecoins require real-world adoption. Issuing a dollar-pegged digital currency alone isn't enough—people must be able to easily acquire, send, and convert it to cash when needed.

Ripple's RLUSD has gained attention recently not just for increasing issuance volume but because Ripple is positioning itself at the financial touchpoints of enterprises. However, declaring Ripple as the clear winner in stablecoin competition would mean seeing only half the picture. Ethereum, Tron, and Solana already have significant money flowing through their ecosystems.

To clarify: Ripple is a company, XRP Ledger is the blockchain, XRP is its native cryptocurrency, and RLUSD is Ripple's dollar stablecoin—comparable to Tether's USDT or Circle's USDC. Ethereum/Tron/Solana are comparable to XRP Ledger, not RLUSD. In simple terms: stablecoins are 'money,' while blockchains are the 'roads' money travels on.

For example, of RLUSD's $2.4 billion circulating supply reported by CoinDesk, about $1.4 billion flows through Ethereum and $1 billion through XRP Ledger. This means Ripple's growth can't be solely attributed to XRP Ledger adoption.

Ripple is targeting corporate treasury teams. Last year, it acquired GTreasury, a software firm for enterprise fund management, for $1 billion. In April 2024, Ripple Treasury launched features allowing users to manage cash and digital assets together, claiming the platform processed $13 trillion in payments for clients by 2025—though this represents total existing payment volume, not necessarily RLUSD adoption.

Ripple's strategy is simple: integrate stablecoins into existing corporate finance tools rather than requiring businesses to learn new systems. For example, when a Korean headquarters sends operating funds to a U.S. subsidiary, the focus is on timing, cost, and accounting—not blockchain names. If this approach solves real problems within current workflows, companies may consider adopting RLUSD.

However, not all GTreasury clients will switch to RLUSD immediately. Enterprises will verify actual cost savings, repayment feasibility, and internal controls before adoption.

Ethereum's strength lies in its immediate connection to financial products. BlackRock launched the tokenized fund BUIDL on Ethereum in 2024, followed by Circle enabling USDC conversion for BUIDL holders. This creates a pathway from investment funds directly into digital dollars—a use case beyond simple remittance.

Tron's advantage is its massive USDT circulation: over $88 billion as of Tether's May 2024 announcement, making it the dominant network for USDT movement. But not all transactions on Tron represent cross-border payments—some involve exchanges or internal fund transfers.

Solana demonstrates speed and low cost in real-world payment services. PayPal added PYUSD support on Solana in 2024, citing transaction speed and low fees as key reasons. Users can view PYUSD balances within PayPal/Binance and choose the network when sending to external wallets—showing how blockchain performance becomes a user choice through integrated apps.

Visa's recent expansion of its stablecoin settlement pilot to nine blockchains—including Ethereum, Solana, Stellar, Avalanche, Base, and Polygon—shows another approach. The $7 billion annualized settlement volume announced suggests Visa aims to connect multiple networks while offering consistent services, reducing the need for users to constantly switch chains.

Ripple's claim of a $13 trillion opportunity (with 1% conversion yielding $13 billion annually) should be viewed cautiously—it reflects potential, not confirmed adoption or revenue. Similarly, saying RLUSD has 'zero adoption' is misleading without verified data.

Ultimately, stablecoin success depends on safety, sufficient liquidity, and convenient customer touchpoints—not just user acquisition. Even with many users, high costs or poor conversion rates will deter usage. Conversely, superior technology alone won't scale without daily use cases.

The same question applies to Korea's proposed KRW stablecoins: who will issue them, but more importantly, who will use them daily? Concrete examples like export payments, cross-border subsidiary transfers, and online merchant settlements must demonstrate tangible speed and cost benefits. Stablecoin competition isn't decided at issuance—it's won when customers choose it again for their next payment.