Great thread here by @ccatalini I like to view this through the lens of The Innovator’s Dilemma, and see blockchain as the last major feature in the long process of how the internet is transforming banking and money. These processes usually unfold over decades or even centuries, so it’s plausible to frame it this way. Stablecoins, as the latest piece in this transformation, can be understood as either: a) Disruptive – shifting competition in banking and money to entirely new paradigms and valuation metrics. Users adopt the system based on performance metrics that didn’t matter before, and most of the new players are not incumbents. That means banks are sidelined, replaced by fintechs (Stripe being a prime example) and new players yet to be created. Value networks of partners change as well. Disruptive tech is hard for incumbents to implement because it requires different thinking and often starts from niche markets. b) Incremental – here, the largest incumbents remain dominant. Some fintechs may rise to the same level, but only a small number of new companies break into the market. The value networks of partners remain mostly unchanged. Incremental tech is easy for incumbents to adopt because it fits their existing paradigms. Forecasting whether a technology will be disruptive for a sector is very difficult. I tend to see the arc of internet → blockchain → stablecoins as disruptive. Many signs point in that direction, and I hope to contribute to the wave of players replacing the old incumbents in this long cycle. If the disruptive thesis holds true for stablecoins, then regardless of market strategies, interoperability and competition will remain. Attempts to replicate today’s banking models will fail, because users will inevitably want something different.