Too many conversations about stablecoin adoption focus on narrow benefits: lower fees, faster settlement, etc. But payments are multiplayer games. Every transaction touches two or more of: users, banks, processors, issuers, liquidity providers... In many flows, like e-commerce or cross-border, multiple parties must adopt together. There’s no clean first mover. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Each stakeholder weighs perceived upside against real switching costs: operational burden, lost revenue (float, FX, interchange), retraining, and the mental inertia of behavior change, especially inside large organizations. This creates a coordination and sequencing problem. Even if the tech is “better,” adoption stalls unless incentives align across the value chain. Stablecoins’ disruptive potential can only be realized if the incentive design solves the multi-party coordination challenge. Smart builders look for wedges. Use cases where a single stakeholder with the most to gain can adopt unilaterally. Then they stitch together secondary use cases to build network effects. Once a network hits critical mass, it's very hard to dislodge. Example: Dollar access in the global south. A user downloads an app and solves their pain point. If their friend does too, P2P is unlocked. If not, it’s just one more node to recruit. This is also why stablecoin-backed cards will grow faster than direct merchant acceptance. The spending user acts alone, and instantly gets access to millions of merchants. As Charlie Munger said: “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” Founders who design around incentives, not just tech, will have the edge.

Too many conversations about stablecoin adoption focus on narrow benefits: lower fees, faster settlement, etc. But payments are multiplayer games. Every transaction touches two or more of: users, banks, processors, issuers, liquidity providers... In many flows, like e-commerce or cross-border, multiple parties must adopt together. There’s no clean first mover. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Each stakeholder weighs perceived upside against real switching costs: operational burden, lost revenue (float, FX, interchange), retraining, and the mental inertia of behavior change, especially inside large organizations. This creates a coordination and sequencing problem. Even if the tech is “better,” adoption stalls unless incentives align across the value chain. Stablecoins’ disruptive potential can only be realized if the incentive design solves the multi-party coordination challenge. Smart builders look for wedges. Use cases where a single stakeholder with the most to gain can adopt unilaterally. Then they stitch together secondary use cases to build network effects. Once a network hits critical mass, it's very hard to dislodge. Example: Dollar access in the global south. A user downloads an app and solves their pain point. If their friend does too, P2P is unlocked. If not, it’s just one more node to recruit. This is also why stablecoin-backed cards will grow faster than direct merchant acceptance. The spending user acts alone, and instantly gets access to millions of merchants. As Charlie Munger said: “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” Founders who design around incentives, not just tech, will have the edge.