State of Venture 2025 & Stablecoins

Jun 19, 2025

Mega-funds swelled over the past decade, but an overhang of “zombie unicorns” (startups valued $1 B+ with dim exit prospects) and a prolonged IPO/M&A drought have left portfolios illiquid. Limited Partners (LPs) face a liquidity crunch, exemplified by Harvard and Yale’s multi-billion-dollar secondary sales. Meanwhile, a hype cycle in generative AI has crowded capital into that sector, delaying a full market correction. Bill Gurley cautions that time-to-liquidity is stretching longer than ever, as private markets provide alternative “by-appointment” exits (e.g., Stripe’s massive private rounds) and companies delay or forego IPOs.

At the same time, stablecoins have leapt from crypto niche to mainstream fintech catalyst in 2025. Dollar-backed digital tokens like USDC and USDT now total over $250 billion in circulation and handled an astounding ~$30 trillion in transaction volume last year. Yet data on who uses stablecoins and for what remains surprisingly opaque – Artemis research notes that multi-chain fragmentation and pseudonymous addresses make tracking stablecoin usage difficult. Despite data gaps, the core promise is clear: stablecoins can collapse legacy payment value chains. Fintech analysts argue that stablecoins allow any firm to bypass traditional card networks and bank rails entirely, moving value as simple ledger transfers – a paradigm shift that could birth the first trillion-dollar fintech company. Policymakers have taken note: in June 2025 the U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan GENIUS Act, the first major federal stablecoin bill. It mandates full reserve backing and monthly disclosures for issuers, and explicitly limits Big Tech from issuing stablecoins. The legislative momentum – alongside Circle’s spectacular IPO (shares up ~6× since debut) – signals that regulated stablecoins are poised to become core “money rails of the internet,” not just of crypto.

This report explores how venture capital and stablecoins are meeting in today’s market. We examine Gurley’s sobering outlook for VC liquidity (Section 1) and the parallel rise of stablecoins as a disruptive force in payments (Section 2). We then dive into a case study of Stripe’s 2025 crypto strategy, including the Privy acquisition and stablecoin integration for Shopify, contrasted with Coinbase’s new merchant-payments push (Section 3). Section 4 analyzes where these trends intersect – from VC funding flows into crypto payment infrastructure (vs. waning bets on new L1 blockchains) to large secondary-market moves and crossover funding rounds that mirror stablecoins’ instant-transfer ethos. Finally, we map out scenarios for 2025–26 (Section 5), considering baseline, optimistic, and stress cases. Key takeaways: VC investors must adapt to longer liquidity horizons and a bifurcated market, while stablecoins’ maturation could reshape how startups raise, deploy, and earn capital. The combined implications will reverberate from Sand Hill Road to Capitol Hill as finance’s next chapter unfolds.

State of Venture 2025 – A Gurley-Eyed View

The Gift and The Curse of Staying Private with Bill Gurley

Bill Gurley recently enumerated seven “market realities” affecting venture capital in 2025. These inter-linked factors paint a sober picture of an industry adjusting to the end of an easy-money era. Gurley’s list serves as a useful framework for understanding the headwinds investors and founders face:

1. The Mega-Funds Era. Top-tier venture firms have ballooned in size. What used to be $500 million funds focused on early-stage have morphed into multi-billion-dollar behemoths deploying “large checks” at every stage. Crossover investors and hedge funds – from Coatue to Altimeter – piled into late-stage rounds in recent years, as did megafunds like SoftBank’s Vision Fund. The result is a vastly expanded capital supply chasing a finite set of deals. Gurley notes that today it’s not uncommon to see a $300 million investment in a startup barely a year old, under the euphemism of “late-stage” when it’s really just unprecedented check size. This super-sized fund phenomenon has changed the game for everyone – raising valuations (and expectations) but also increasing the risk of over-capitalizing companies.

2. “Zombie Unicorn” Overhang. A by-product of the mega-fund boom is the swelling ranks of private unicorns with outsized valuations and no urgent path to exit. By Gurley’s count, roughly 1,000 VC-backed companies have reached $1 billion-plus valuations in recent years, collectively raising on the order of $300 billion. Many last priced in the 2020–21 bull market at revenue multiples that are now implausible. Their growth rates have slowed, yet few have been forced to reset valuations. With ample cash in the bank (often $200–300 million each), these unicorns can survive a long time – in some cases even achieving breakeven – but without growing into their valuations. Gurley calls them “zombies” not to demean their products, but to highlight a stalemate: they’re alive, perhaps indefinitely, without the growth to justify 2021 prices. This valuation distortion means the true equity risk isn’t being fully acknowledged on balance sheets, tying up a huge chunk of LP capital in limbo, waiting for eventual price discovery.

3. Misaligned Incentives and Stalled Resets. Those perverse incentives have delayed the healthy “reset” that normally follows a boom. Gurley points out that during the zero-interest-rate period (ZIRP) of the 2010s, venture valuations decoupled from fundamental reality – with cheap capital fueling speculation rather than disciplined pricing. When rates rose and the 2021 bubble popped, one would expect widespread down-rounds or wind-downs. Instead, many startups cut costs and chased breakeven, hoping to wait out the downturn without repricing. This widespread belt-tightening was initially a positive development for business health, but ironically it’s enabled more zombie survival: by trimming to become cash-flow-neutral, a startup can avoid raising new equity at a lower valuation – indefinitely delaying price discovery. Layer on the fact that any merger or sale faces the overhang of liquidation preferences (investors reclaiming their $300 million before common stock gets a cent, for example), and it’s clear why so few down-exits have occurred. Gurley emphasizes this feedback loop: everyone clings to 2021 valuations on paper, so the market can’t clear, prolonging the stalemate.

4. Exit Desert: IPO & M&A Drought. The stalemate is exacerbated by a nearly shut public-exit window. “I have never seen a situation where the Nasdaq is up 30 % and the IPO window is still closed,” Gurley remarks of 2024. Indeed, after a flurry of listings in 2021, virtually no major VC-backed IPOs have priced in the U.S. since late 2021. The same goes for big-ticket acquisitions – partially due to antitrust pressures scaring off Big Tech buyers. Gurley notes that even deals that are announced (like a recent $300 million-plus acquisition of Wiz) come with warnings of a year-plus regulatory-approval timeline, deterring corporate acquirers. This frozen-exit market means startups that might have gone public by now are staying private by necessity, feeding the zombie-unicorn problem. Gurley and others are puzzled by the persistence of the drought despite strong broader markets – suggesting structural issues (e.g., cumbersome IPO process and high 30 %-plus effective cost of capital for going public) are at play. Until something gives, time-to-liquidity for VC investments has dramatically lengthened.

5. LP Liquidity Crunch. The bill is coming due for limited partners who over-allocated to illiquid assets during the boom. With far fewer distributions coming back from VC and PE funds, LPs like endowments and pension funds are feeling a squeeze. In Q1 2025, U.S. universities issued $12 billion in new debt – the third-highest quarter on record – largely to fund operational budgets that used to be covered by endowment gains. Some top universities are now literally borrowing to meet capital calls. More tellingly, both Harvard and Yale announced in 1H25 plans to sell chunks of their private-equity portfolios on the secondary market (roughly $1 billion and $6 billion respectively). Yale’s move is especially striking: the pioneer of the endowment model is backing away from the illiquid strategy it once championed. Gurley flags this as a sea-change – if the most influential LP begins reducing exposure, it signals that the last decade’s VC glut is unsustainable. The implication: new VC fundraises may face more skeptical (or cash-constrained) LPs, and some LPs will transact in secondaries at discounts, crystallizing losses. This dynamic pressures VCs to find liquidity solutions for their portfolios lest LP support wane.

6. “Private Is the New Public.” An ironic twist to the closed IPO window is that many successful startups no longer need IPOs as they once did. Ample private capital means late-stage companies can raise huge rounds to fund growth or provide liquidity for employees while staying private indefinitely. Gurley quips that in today’s climate, being private has become more attractive than being public for many growth firms. Avoiding the compliance burdens of public markets – and the scrutiny of quarterly earnings – is appealing if you can still access cash. We’ve seen the rise of private secondary marketplaces and tender offers that give early investors some liquidity without a public listing. Moreover, new entrants like Thrive Capital have created a “reservation-only” market for pre-IPO giants. Stripe, one of the most prominent private decacorns, orchestrated a $6.5 billion round in 2023 that functioned as a private IPO, allowing employees to sell stock while bringing in large investors who might otherwise have bought in at IPO. Such deals indicate a quasi-public market operating by appointment, where select late-stage funds take sizable stakes (10–30 % ownership) in lieu of a public float. This trend siphons off returns that used to accrue to public-market investors and challenges the venture model: VCs may hold their winners far longer or even get partially cashed out in these mega-private rounds. In sum, the traditional venture timeline (Series A to IPO in ~8 years) has warped; companies might stay private 12–15 + years with interim liquidity engineered behind closed doors.

7. AI Mania and the Short-Circuited Correction. One final reality: just as the venture market was cooling in 2022–23, a new hype cycle arrived – generative AI. The launch of ChatGPT and related breakthroughs in large language models in late 2022 sparked what Gurley calls an incredibly opportune wave of enthusiasm. By mid-2023, venture sentiment had flipped from fear to FOMO once again, this time around all things AI. Investors who had been pulling back suddenly poured into AI startups at valuations 10–20× higher revenue multiples than normal. This influx, including non-traditional capital from sources like Middle Eastern sovereign funds, effectively crowded in new money and propped up the venture market just when a healthy correction was underway. While the technological excitement is justified, the timing meant the venture ecosystem never fully “reset” valuations across the board. Many non-AI companies benefited indirectly – the rising tide lifted funding sentiment generally in early 2024. Gurley’s takeaway is not that AI is over-hyped per se, but that it postponed the day of reckoning for over-valued legacy unicorns. For venture investors, this means navigating two conflicting currents: pressure to invest in AI or risk missing out, versus a backlog of over-valued portfolio companies still needing exits or down-rounds. Gurley’s caution to peers and founders is clear – don’t mistake this AI-driven reprieve for a return to 2021 conditions. Liquidity will still be hard-won and selective.

Gurley’s Bottom Line

The VC industry in 2025 is defined by delayed consequences. Easy money and exuberance led to too many unicorns, too few exits. Rather than a sharp crash, we have a slow bleed of time. Gurley’s message is that patience will be paramount – funds may need to extend lifecycles, reserves must be managed carefully, and GPs should brace LPs for muted paper returns until real exits materialize. The smart money is exploring new liquidity avenues (secondary sales, structured deals) to adapt. All told, venture capital is being stress-tested in a way it hasn’t been since the dot-com bust, with the added twist that private markets are far larger now. So what? Investors and founders must adjust expectations: the path to cashing out could be longer and circuitous. In this context, it’s no surprise VC attention is shifting to sectors with nearer-term revenue potential – and one of those is financial infrastructure. Enter stablecoins and the new world of crypto-enabled commerce, which promise both growth and, potentially, faster liquidity (at least in the literal sense of moving money). In Section 2, we pivot to the parallel universe of stablecoins: a fast-evolving market that, in an odd way, aims to solve some problems (slow, costly payments) even as venture grapples with others (slow, elusive exits).

Stablecoins 2025 Snapshot – From Data Gaps to Mainstream Breakout

While venture investors regroup, the stablecoin sector has been charging ahead, reaching scale and legitimacy in 2025 that few would have predicted a few years ago. Stablecoins – digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies (mostly the US dollar) – have become “the talk of the town” in fintech. Every week brings headlines: Stripe enabling stablecoin payments, PayPal launching a stablecoin on new blockchains, Congress pushing new laws. This section examines the state of stablecoins as of June 20 2025, focusing on: (a) data and usage trends, (b) stablecoins’ disruptive potential in payments, and (c) the regulatory watershed moment unfolding in the U.S.

Growing Adoption, Murky Data. By mid-2025, the total market value of USD-backed stablecoins exceeds $220 billion. For context, that’s roughly the market cap of a top-20 U.S. bank. The two largest coins, Tether (USDT) and Circle’s USD Coin (USDC), account for the lion’s share (each ranging from $60–100 billion in circulation), with newer entrants like PayPal’s PYUSD and various fintech or DeFi tokens making up the rest. Usage is even more impressive: Coinbase reported that stablecoins facilitated about $30 trillion in transaction volume in 2024, roughly triple the prior year. Much of that volume comes from crypto trading and DeFi activity (where stablecoins are the default liquidity medium), but increasingly stablecoins are used in real-economy transactions and remittances. Stripe noted that over $94 billion in stablecoin payments were settled globally in just the past two years, with monthly payment volume growing from <$2 billion to >$6 billion.

Paradoxically, despite being built on transparent blockchains, stablecoin usage is harder to analyse than it looks. A recent Artemis research piece highlighted how fragmented the data is across dozens of blockchains and layer-2 networks. USDC alone now operates on Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Stellar, Base, and more. Each chain has its own data format and quirks, so tracking a stablecoin’s total usage means stitching together many disparate data sources. As Artemis quips, we’re in the era of blockchains akin to the early PC era – “every major chain speaks a different language.” For example, analysing PayPal’s PYUSD flows now requires understanding Ethereum and Stellar (after PYUSD’s recent Stellar integration) and even LayerZero bridge transactions that connect those networks. This technical complexity means even sophisticated analysts struggle to answer basic questions like who is using a stablecoin and for what. On-chain addresses are pseudonymous strings; without off-chain context (exchange labels, known merchant wallets, etc.), one “$100 transaction” looks much like another. Artemis debunks the myth that blockchain data is fully transparent – in reality, making sense of stablecoin flows requires a great deal of enrichment and assumption. The upshot is that while headline figures (market cap, volume) are huge, the granular picture (e.g., retail vs. institutional usage, domestic vs. cross-border) remains somewhat opaque in 2025. This data gap is one reason regulators have been cautious – it’s hard to supervise what you can’t easily measure.

Despite the imperfect visibility, several qualitative usage trends are evident. Stablecoins are heavily used in: (i) Cross-border payments and remittances (particularly in emerging markets where accessing USD is vital – stablecoins provide digital-dollar liquidity in places like Argentina or Nigeria without needing a U.S. bank); (ii) Crypto trading and DeFi (the original use-case: stablecoins are the on/off-ramp and safe harbor in volatile crypto markets; billions flow through stablecoin liquidity pools and lending protocols daily); (iii) E-commerce and merchant payments (an emerging use-case in 2025, exemplified by Shopify enabling USDC); (iv) Corporate treasury and fintech apps – companies like Stripe now offer Stablecoin Financial Accounts for businesses, allowing them to hold and send funds in USDC or other stablecoins as easily as in fiat. This is aimed at businesses operating in multiple countries or unstable currencies, who benefit from dollar stability and crypto-speed settlement. The breadth of these use-cases underscores why stablecoin supply is at all-time highs even after the 2022 crypto downturn: they fulfil a fundamental demand for fast, programmable dollars.

Payments-Disruption Thesis – Bypassing Legacy Rails. In April 2025, Rob Hadick provocatively argued that stablecoins herald “the collapse of the legacy payment model.” His thesis: stablecoins aren’t just a fintech fad or a bolted-on feature to existing payment networks – they are an entirely new end-to-end payments stack that can obsolete the traditional patchwork of banks and processors. Today’s card-payment model involves a tangle of intermediaries – issuing bank, acquiring bank, card network, payment processor, gateway, etc. – each taking a fee. A merchant might wait days for settlement and lose 2–3 % in fees. Stablecoin payments, by contrast, settle peer-to-peer in minutes on a blockchain for pennies, without central intermediaries. If a merchant and a customer use the same stablecoin (say USDC), the payment is essentially a ledger update – or as Hadick puts it, “everything is just a book transfer” in a stablecoin-native system. This collapses the value chain: many of the legacy middlemen and their fees can be bypassed entirely.

Crucially, stablecoins enable non-banks and tech firms to operate payment systems at scale. A startup can integrate a stablecoin wallet into its app and effectively become its own “payment network,” something impossible in the card era without a banking licence or partnering with card processors. We are already seeing a new class of companies built around this idea: fintechs offering stablecoin-based payroll, remittance companies using stablecoins to arbitrage cheaper FX rates, and merchants beginning to accept stablecoins for online goods. Hadick predicts the first trillion-dollar fintech will be one that fully embraces stablecoins to reinvent payments. While that remains to be seen, incumbents are taking notice: Visa’s CEO called stablecoins a “promising” innovation for their ability to do 24/7 settlement and even launched pilot programmes to settle USDC for cross-border transactions. Likewise, Mastercard in 2025 struck partnerships to enable stablecoin payments for consumers and merchants via its network. In short, the disruption thesis is that stablecoins could do to payments what VoIP did to telecommunications – digitise and disintermediate it, lowering cost to near-zero. Importantly, stablecoins also bring programmability: a payment can be a smart contract, enabling new business models (e.g., escrow that releases funds on delivery, micro-tolling per API call, etc.) far more easily than legacy systems.

Hadick’s view isn’t just theoretical. Real-world signals abound: PayPal launched its own USD stablecoin (PYUSD) in 2023 and in 2025 announced it would integrate it natively on multiple blockchains (Ethereum and Stellar). Stripe’s moves also align with the idea of stablecoins as a new payment rail. And Coinbase – traditionally a crypto exchange – is moving into merchant payments using stablecoins. Each of these initiatives bypasses at least one layer of legacy infrastructure. It’s telling that Shopify’s CEO recently said stablecoins are a “natural” solution for internet commerce, hinting that for global platforms, dealing with dozens of national banking systems is a burden they’d happily shed in favour of one interoperable dollar token. There are of course challenges (volatility is solved, but things like handling refunds, fraud, compliance all need new approaches in a stablecoin world), yet the momentum is clearly building.

Regulation and the GENIUS Act. A major development in mid-2025 is that policymakers are finally providing guardrails for stablecoins. On June 18, the U.S. Senate passed the Government Electronic National Institutional Unit of Stablecoin (GENIUS) Act – the first comprehensive federal stablecoin legislation. The bill sailed through the Senate with rare bipartisan support (68–30 vote) and at this writing is expected to pass the House by late summer. Key provisions include: (a) requiring any payment-stablecoin issuer to hold 100 % reserve assets in highly liquid form (cash, T-bills, etc.) and to publicly disclose reserves monthly; (b) limiting issuance to regulated entities and explicitly barring large tech companies from issuing their own stablecoins; (c) defining clear redemption rights; (d) assigning federal oversight to the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve. The market reaction was swift: Circle, the issuer of USDC, saw its newly IPO’d stock surge, and Coinbase’s shares jumped alongside it. Analysts declared that stablecoins could “evolve from the money rail of crypto to the money rail of the internet.” The bill’s passage signals that Washington is not going to ban or stifle dollar-stablecoins, but rather embrace them under oversight – legitimising the sector while raising the bar for would-be issuers.

We are also seeing regulatory movement elsewhere: the EU’s MiCA framework includes stablecoin rules, and many countries are pondering central-bank digital currencies that could co-exist with private stablecoins. In the U.S., a side effect of the GENIUS Act excitement is a renewed rush of corporate interest: multiple major financial institutions are exploring issuing their own stablecoins or tokenised deposits, and a coalition of large banks launched a pilot “deposit-backed stablecoin” project in early 2025. The lines between crypto and traditional payments are blurring fast.

In summary, by mid-2025 stablecoins stand at a breakout moment: mainstream tech and finance companies are integrating them at scale, users have transacted tens of trillions through them, and regulators are formalising their role in the financial system. Remaining challenges – data transparency, AML/KYC compliance, and technical UX quirks – are significant but under active development. The stage is set for stablecoins to move from peripheral to pervasive in the coming years, much as digital wallets or neobanks did in the prior decade. So what? For investors and policymakers, stablecoins present both an opportunity and a strategic variable: they can lower costs and expand financial access, but they also could shift profit pools and require updated oversight. For venture capital specifically, stablecoins represent a new arena of investment and a tool that could potentially improve how capital itself is managed and moved within the startup ecosystem.

Stripe, Privy, and the Stablecoin Stack in Action

No company better illustrates the intersection of big venture-backed fintech and stablecoins in 2025 than Stripe, Inc. Once known solely as a traditional online payments processor, Stripe has executed a decisive pivot into crypto and stablecoin infrastructure over the past year. This section examines Stripe’s strategy through the lens of its recent Privy acquisition (June 2025) and related moves, and compares Stripe’s approach with Coinbase’s parallel push into stablecoin payments.

Stripe’s Crypto Reboot

Stripe famously dabbled in Bitcoin payments early (supporting BTC in 2014) only to drop it in 2018 due to low demand and high fees. For years, Stripe stayed on the sidelines of crypto. That changed in late 2024, when Stripe’s CEO Patrick Collison declared an ambition to “build the world’s best stablecoin infrastructure.” The company quietly began assembling pieces to make stablecoins an integral part of its platform. In October 2024, Stripe acquired a startup called Bridge for a hefty $1.1 billion. Bridge (founded by former Stripe alums) is a “stablecoin orchestration” platform – essentially a middleware that lets businesses easily integrate stablecoin payments, custody, and conversions. Bridge had developed tech to connect stablecoins with fiat card networks as well. For example, Bridge partnered with Visa to allow fintech apps to issue Visa cards that spend directly from a user’s stablecoin balance. By February 2025, Stripe had closed the Bridge acquisition and folded the team into its new crypto division. The payoff was swift: using Bridge’s tech, Stripe launched Stablecoin Financial Accounts in May 2025, a product enabling businesses in over 100 countries to hold funds in stablecoins (initially USDC and a Stripe-issued USDB) and seamlessly send payouts or payments via those stablecoins. This essentially extended Stripe’s core payment offerings (which historically only dealt with government-issued money) into the realm of digital dollars – but with Stripe handling the crypto complexity under the hood.

Privy Acquisition (June 2025)

To complement Bridge, Stripe announced on June 11 2025 that it acquired Privy, a crypto-wallet infrastructure startup. Privy specialises in developer-friendly APIs for embedding wallets into apps – basically, it allows any application to create and manage blockchain wallets for its users without deep crypto know-how. Prior to acquisition, Privy had scaled to support 75 million+ accounts across clients like fintech and Web3 apps. It also had the backing of major VCs (Coinbase Ventures, Sequoia, Ribbit, etc.) in a $15 million March 2025 funding round, underlining investor belief in picks-and-shovels crypto infrastructure. Stripe’s purchase price for Privy wasn’t disclosed, but given Privy’s traction it was likely a significant acquisition (comparable in strategic importance to Bridge). Why did Stripe want Privy? Because Privy closes a key gap: wallet infrastructure. If Stripe is to handle stablecoin payments end-to-end, it needs to help merchants and users hold and transact those coins. Bridge gave Stripe the core payment rail and banking integrations; Privy gives Stripe the user-facing wallet layer. As Privy’s team put it, both Stripe and Privy share a vision of “marrying crypto and fiat” so seamlessly that the distinction blurs. With Privy under its wing, Stripe can offer any online business the ability to provision crypto wallets for their customers, manage keys, and facilitate on-chain actions – all through simple Stripe APIs.

Importantly, Stripe is letting Privy continue as an independent product for now. This mirrors how Bridge has been handled – Stripe kept the Bridge platform running for developers even as it integrated its tech internally. The dual approach (integrating tech but also offering it as standalone) helps Stripe become a platform for crypto services. A developer can use Stripe not just for credit-card processing but also for stablecoin transactions and wallet management – a full-stack offering.

Stablecoin Payments for Shopify and Beyond

The fruits of Stripe’s crypto integration became public in June 2025 with a headline partnership: Shopify and Stripe enabling USDC payments for millions of merchants. Announced on June 12, this rollout allows Shopify merchants in 34 countries to accept USDC (a dollar stablecoin) at checkout, with Stripe as the payments processor. Shoppers paying in USDC will do so on Base, Coinbase’s layer-2 blockchain, using any compatible wallet. On the backend, Stripe gives merchants a choice: receive the payment in local fiat currency (Stripe will instantly convert the USDC and settle to the merchant’s bank in, say, EUR or INR) or keep it in USDC (Stripe will deposit the stablecoins to an external wallet of the merchant’s choice). Crucially, this requires almost no new effort from merchants – it can be toggled on via Stripe’s dashboard, abstracting away blockchain details. “Stripe has long handled the hard parts of payments so our merchants don’t have to… now they’re doing the same for stablecoins,” said Shopify’s COO, highlighting that merchants can tap into a “booming global demand” for crypto payments without wrestling with exchanges or volatility.

From Stripe’s perspective, this stablecoin integration is a competitive differentiator. They can now reach customers who prefer paying in crypto (there’s a growing cohort of Web3-native consumers and overseas buyers who find stablecoins easier than card payments). It also positions Stripe well in emerging markets – for instance, a buyer in Argentina could pay a U.S. merchant in USDC, protecting both sides from FX headaches and high card fees. The scale is notable: Shopify has millions of merchants, so this isn’t a niche pilot – it’s stablecoins going mainstream in commerce.

End-to-End Stack Synergy

Combining these components – Bridge’s rails, Privy’s wallets, and Stripe’s existing merchant network – effectively creates an end-to-end stablecoin payment stack. Consider what Stripe now enables: a user on a platform (say a marketplace) could hold a balance in USDC (with Stripe/Privy managing their wallet keys behind the scenes), spend it via a Visa card offline (thanks to the Bridge-Visa integration) or online at Shopify stores (through the new Stripe checkout), and the merchant can receive funds and either keep them in crypto or cash out to fiat immediately. All of this with compliance, fraud checks, and user experience handled by Stripe’s layers. In essence, Stripe is positioning itself to be the AWS of money movement in a crypto-enabled world – providing the toolkits so developers and merchants don’t need to understand blockchains or deal with multiple intermediaries.

It’s worth noting Stripe’s timing. They reignited their crypto efforts just as regulatory clarity improved (the U.S. Treasury Secretary even projected stablecoin markets could hit $2 trillion by 2028) and as real use-cases like the Shopify deal emerged. Stripe’s valuation and ambitions have always been enormous (they avoided an IPO in part to keep building boldly), and these moves aim to ensure Stripe remains at the forefront of payments innovation. For venture observers, Stripe’s crypto chapter is also a case of a mature unicorn (valued ~ $50 billion in secondary trades) finding new growth by embracing what was once seen as a risky frontier.

Coinbase’s Competing Launch. The stablecoin payments space is heating up with not just fintech incumbents like Stripe and PayPal, but also crypto-native firms. Just a week after Stripe’s Shopify news, Coinbase unveiled “Coinbase Payments” on June 18 2025. This is Coinbase’s bid to enter the global merchant-payments market using its own advantages: namely, its Ethereum L2 network Base and its large crypto user base. Coinbase Payments, as described in their announcement, allows merchants to accept USDC stablecoin payments 24/7, globally, without needing any blockchain expertise. It, too, is live with Shopify as an initial partner, indicating Coinbase likely collaborated on the same Shopify integration but offers its services to merchants who prefer Coinbase as the provider. The details show a slightly different approach: Coinbase’s solution emphasises a modular stack – including a Stablecoin Checkout (a widget supporting wallets like MetaMask and Coinbase Wallet for customers to pay, with Coinbase covering the gas fees to make it “gasless” for users), an E-commerce Engine (APIs for merchants to handle things like refunds and ledgering, akin to what Stripe’s Connect does), and a Payments Protocol that uses smart contracts for advanced functions such as on-chain escrow. Essentially, Coinbase is leveraging smart-contract programmability to match features of legacy payments (such as delayed capture of funds and dispute mediation) on-chain.

From a competitive standpoint, Stripe vs Coinbase in stablecoin payments may shape up similarly to their core businesses: Stripe selling ease-of-use and integration to mainstream businesses, Coinbase selling crypto-native capabilities and its user ecosystem. Notably, the market is large enough that both approaches can flourish – indeed Shopify is happy to have both Stripe and Coinbase enabling USDC, since the end goal is more payment volume for merchants. The real competition might be in who captures the economics and mindshare of this new payments segment. For now, both got a nice boost: Coinbase’s stock jumped on its Payments launch, and Circle (issuer of USDC) soared as well. That reflects investor optimism that these payment flows will drive higher adoption (and reserve balances) of stablecoins, which directly benefit Circle’s revenue (earning interest on reserves) and Coinbase’s transaction fees.

Shopify & Coinbase vs. Legacy. It’s telling that Shopify – which processed ~$200 billion of gross merchandise in 2024 – is a common partner here. They are effectively sanctioning a parallel payment rail alongside Visa/Mastercard on their platform. Shopify’s CEO Tobi Lütke has even been an advocate of crypto (famously holding Bitcoin and Ethereum personally). If the pilots with USDC show even modest success (e.g., higher conversion rates in countries where credit-card penetration is low, or cost savings on payment fees), one can imagine Shopify rolling it out more broadly and promoting it. That could spur competitors like WooCommerce, Amazon, or Walmart to explore stablecoin acceptance as well, lest they fall behind in offering payment choice. It’s early days, but the pieces (Stripe, Coinbase, Circle, Visa, etc.) indicate a concerted push to bring stablecoins into everyday commerce, not just crypto niches.

In summary, the Stripe-Privy case study illustrates how a large, well-funded private company can leverage acquisitions to assemble a new tech stack and address an adjacent opportunity. Stripe used venture-scale capital (and shares) to buy Bridge and Privy – both venture-backed startups themselves – in order to fast-track innovation that might take years in-house. The result is arguably a full-stack stablecoin payment ecosystem under one roof. So what? This underscores a new pattern: fintech and crypto are converging. For VCs, it means some of the exits for crypto-infrastructure companies will come from fintech incumbents needing that tech (as we saw with Privy). It also means the competitive lines are blurring: a16z’s crypto fund might find itself collaborating with or competing with Sequoia’s fintech investments in the same domain. In the end, whoever delivers the smoothest, safest experience for merchants and users will win the stablecoin-payments race. Stripe’s head start in UX and distribution is significant, but Coinbase’s crypto know-how and Base network could give it an edge in innovation speed. The coming year will likely see rapid iteration from both.

Where Venture Capital and Stablecoins Intersect

At first glance, the worlds of VC funding and stablecoins might seem tangential – one is about how startups get financed, the other about how payments get processed. However, in 2025 these domains are increasingly crossing paths. This section explores two main interconnections: (a) how venture-capital flows are being directed into the stablecoin and crypto-payments space (versus other crypto segments), and (b) how the broader liquidity and funding dynamics in venture (from secondary sales to late-stage rounds) are taking cues from mechanisms akin to stablecoins’ always-on, global liquidity.

VC Investment Shifts: Crypto Infrastructure Over Hype. After the speculative excesses of 2018 and 2021, venture investors have become more discerning in crypto. The collapse of many crypto tokens and exchanges in 2022–23 sobered the market. In 2025, the renewed enthusiasm around crypto is largely focused on infrastructure with clear utility, and stablecoin-related startups are prime examples. Instead of pouring money into yet another new Layer-1 blockchain or a memecoin, VCs are backing companies that build picks and shovels for the digital-dollar economy. Privy’s story (Section 3) is illustrative: a B2B crypto-infrastructure company with no flashy token, yet it attracted blue-chip investors (Ribbit, Sequoia, Coinbase) and ultimately a lucrative exit to Stripe. Similarly, startups offering compliance tools for stablecoins, API platforms for integrating wallets, or B2B cross-border payment services using stablecoins have been raising capital – often at healthy valuations, even as pure crypto-speculative plays languish. PitchBook data indicates that in H1 2025, VC funding for crypto/blockchain infrastructure (which includes payments, custody, developer tools) has held up far better than funding for, say, consumer-facing crypto apps or new protocols. In fact, much of the crypto VC dry powder has refocused on what one might call “picks & shovels 2.0” – the companies enabling mainstream adoption of crypto assets (stablecoins, tokenized real-world assets, etc.) within existing industries like payments and banking.

One driver is that these infra startups often have real revenues or at least clear paths to monetization (via SaaS models or transaction fees). That fits the post-2022 investor preference for businesses with tangible traction over growth-at-all-costs. Another driver is strategic: many traditional fintech investors now see stablecoins not as a fringe idea but as a core part of fintech’s future. So VC firms that might have avoided “crypto” deals in the past are leading rounds for stablecoin payment gateways or on-chain FX platforms. We can see parallels to the early internet: after the dot-com bust, investors shifted to funding the picks and shovels (like cloud infrastructure), which paid off massively a few years later. Likewise, today’s bets on stablecoin infrastructure could end up financing the next Stripes and PayPals of the Web 3 era. Indeed, the venture arms of financial incumbents and even sovereign-wealth funds have joined some of these deals, bridging traditional and crypto finance. In short, the intersection is one of capital allocation: stablecoin-related ventures are emerging as a favored target for deployment of VC dollars – a bright spot in an otherwise constrained venture environment.

Crypto Funds Repurposed? Interestingly, some crypto-native VC funds that raised huge sums in 2021 (multi-billion-dollar crypto funds from firms like Andreessen Horowitz, for example) have had to adapt their strategies. With token investments riskier and often less liquid than hoped, these funds are now more frequently doing equity deals in companies like Circle (which went public), Ledger, Fireblocks and other infrastructure. Circle’s NYSE debut in June 2025 was itself a VC-liquidity event: after a cancelled SPAC in 2022, Circle’s successful IPO gave long-term backers (Goldman Sachs, Digital Currency Group, etc.) a chance to realize gains. It also created a public-market benchmark for stablecoin companies – Circle’s ≈ $44 B market cap (with USDC at $61 B circulating) sets valuation comps for others in the space. VC investors will use that reference when funding the next wave of stablecoin startups (e.g., a startup issuing a stablecoin in Asia or a DeFi protocol using stablecoins heavily might be benchmarked at a fraction of Circle’s value).

Secondary Markets and Liquidity Innovations. Another crossing point is in the quest for liquidity. As discussed in Section 1, LPs and VCs are seeking liquidity via secondary sales given the IPO drought. Interestingly, some of the mechanisms mirror the always-on nature of crypto markets. For instance, consider Yale’s unprecedented $6 B sale of private-equity stakes. This kind of block trade in the secondary market requires a continuous market of buyers – specialist secondary funds, sovereign funds, etc. In effect, a quasi-exchange for private assets is emerging, albeit not public. One can analogize stablecoins here: stablecoins provide 24/7 liquidity for dollars around the world; similarly, the venture ecosystem is developing 24/7 channels to trade startup equity (be it via secondary marketplaces like Forge/EquityZen or direct LP-portfolio sales). It’s not that stablecoin technology is used for VC secondaries (though tokenization of fund interests is a nascent idea), but rather the mindset shift: investors expect liquidity on-demand, not on a 10-year fund cycle. This ethos, common in crypto markets, is seeping into venture.

Notably, some crypto funds have even proposed tokenizing VC-fund interests or using stablecoins for quarterly LP distributions (instead of wiring fiat). For example, a VC fund might distribute USDC to international LPs, simplifying cross-border issues. These are small developments but signal the influence of stablecoin infrastructure on financial operations beyond just retail payments.

Late-Stage “Private IPOs” – Lessons from Stripe and Databricks. Gurley’s 7th reality (Section 1) highlighted how late-stage VCs and crossover investors are creating an alternate exit pathway by orchestrating large private rounds that mimic IPO-liquidity events. This intersects with stablecoins conceptually in that it reflects an on-demand liquidity philosophy. In crypto, one can trade assets any time; in venture, the equivalent is being able to buy or sell a stake in a hot startup at mutually agreed terms at almost any time, rather than waiting for a formal IPO window. Firms like Thrive Capital and Coatue have essentially become market makers for late-stage startup equity, always ready to bid on a piece of a Stripe or Databricks. When Stripe did its $6.5 B Series I in 2023, it was oversubscribed by a who’s-who of crossover funds – a testament that private markets had ample liquidity even when public markets were shut. Databricks in late 2023 similarly raised $500 M at a $43 B valuation in a round led by capital that otherwise would have gone into an IPO. These transactions are negotiated bilaterally (hence “by-appointment”), but there’s a sense that an informal continuous market exists for the equity of the top-tier unicorns.

This trend benefits venture firms as well: those in need of returning cash to LPs can sell portions of their holdings in these rounds. It’s analogous to a stablecoin providing a quick conversion to cash – here, a VC can quickly convert some private shares to cash by selling to a secondary buyer or joining a large round as a seller. The Yale model of holding illiquid assets is being tweaked so that even illiquids have periodic liquidity points.

To avoid over-mixing metaphors: no, VC equity isn’t being traded on blockchain or via stablecoins (at least not yet in any significant way). But the presence of stablecoins and crypto markets has influenced expectations. We now have U.S. Treasury bonds trading 24/7 in tokenized form on some platforms, and some forward-thinking investors envision a time when fund interests or late-stage shares could trade in a regulated digital marketplace, with stablecoins used to clear the transactions instantly. It hasn’t materialized fully by mid-2025, but pilots are out there (e.g., a few investment firms have tokenized fractional shares of pre-IPO stocks for trading among accredited investors). Venture investors are watching these experiments closely, as they hint at a future where raising and returning capital could be more fluid.

VCs Funding the “Next Stripe” of Stablecoins. Finally, we should note that venture capital’s intersection with stablecoins is not just through infrastructure but also through competition and coopetition. As stablecoins threaten to cut into traditional-payment revenues, many VC-backed fintechs (think Stripe, Adyen, Wise) must adapt or invest in this area – which we’ve seen through acquisitions and partnerships. Conversely, crypto-native firms like Circle and Coinbase, now partly public, still rely on venture-style risk capital for new initiatives (e.g., Circle’s venture arm invests in startups that drive USDC adoption). So there is a symbiosis: venture funding is fueling stablecoin adoption, and stablecoins in turn might eventually facilitate venture investing (imagine DAO-like investment syndicates using stablecoins to fund startups globally – a niche trend already happening on a small scale).

In summary, the VC-stablecoin intersection is subtler than a direct overlap, but it’s growing in significance. Venture capitalists are channeling money into the picks and shovels of the stablecoin boom, just as they did in past tech booms. They are also borrowing some of crypto’s liquidity innovations to solve their own challenges of long exit cycles. If stablecoins are about making money movement fast and borderless, it’s natural that those benefits will eventually permeate how investment capital itself flows – whether it’s LP-capital calls, secondary sales, or even startup fundraising (some startups now accept investments in USDC, speeding up closing times). So what? The key takeaway is that VCs ignore the stablecoin/crypto-finance revolution at their peril. It’s no longer a separate domain of weird tokens; it’s entwined with the future of commerce and potentially the mechanics of VC itself. Forward-thinking funds are engaging with it – either by investing in it or by using it as a tool – while those clinging to old models may miss out on both returns and efficiency gains.

5. Looking Ahead: Scenarios for 2025–26

Given the complex backdrop we’ve outlined – a venture-capital industry in a holding pattern and a stablecoin sector accelerating into the mainstream – what might the next 18 months hold? In this concluding section, we map out three plausible scenarios for 2025–26 and assess their implications for mega-funds, mid-sized VCs, and stablecoin adoption.

Baseline Scenario: “Slow but Steady”

In our baseline case, the current trends continue without dramatic shocks. The IPO market gradually thaws in late 2025 but only for top-tier companies (a few marquee tech IPOs or direct listings slip through). M&A picks up slightly as interest rates stabilize and regulators clarify guidelines (perhaps a new FTC leadership is more open to letting Big Tech make strategic acquisitions under certain caps). This means some of the zombie-unicorns do find exits, but at moderate valuations – think trade sales at 30–50 % below their last private valuations, which LPs largely anticipated. Mega-funds in this scenario moderate their deployment pace; they continue to invest in AI and fintech leaders, but with more realistic price discipline. We might see some mega-funds choose not to raise their next fund as large, focusing on management of existing portfolios (indeed, several prominent Sand-Hill Road firms have already signaled smaller follow-on funds than their 2020 vintages). Mid-market VCs (funds in the $200 M–$1 B range) find a niche by being more hands-on and specialized – in a world where capital is abundant but exits are scarce, founders seek investors who can actually add value beyond the check. These mid-sized funds differentiate by domain expertise (e.g., life sciences, climate tech, or specific regions) and by helping arrange secondary liquidity for founders to keep them motivated during longer paths to exit.

Stablecoin adoption in the baseline continues its upward trajectory but within the bounds of existing regulatory progress. The GENIUS Act likely becomes law by late 2025, creating the first U.S. federal framework. Implementation takes time, but major issuers like Circle and Paxos comply and possibly some new bank-issued stablecoins emerge under the new rules. We do not assume a U.S. central-bank digital currency arrives in this period, so private stablecoins remain the main game in town. Payments with stablecoins grow steadily in e-commerce and cross-border business payments, especially once Stripe’s Shopify integration moves out of early access and into general availability for millions of merchants. We anticipate some bumps – perhaps technical glitches or a notable hack/theft incident on a smaller stablecoin – but no systemic failure. Stablecoin market cap might grow from ≈ $250 B to perhaps $400 B by end-2026 in this baseline, fueled by increasing velocity of money through these tokens (not just buy-and-hold usage). Many consumers will still be largely unaware they are transacting via stablecoin (thanks to companies like Stripe abstracting it), much like many users of the internet don’t know if their app runs on AWS or Azure.

For venture capital, baseline means a period of lower returns but not crisis. Fund vintages 2019–21 will go down as sub-par, but vintage 2023–25 deals (done at saner prices) could yield solid outcomes by 2027+. VC fundraising from LPs will be lukewarm – LPs honor existing commitments but are picky about new ones, leading to a shakeout of marginal managers. Stablecoin and crypto-infrastructure plays, however, could be among the bright spots in returns: if some of those companies achieve fintech-level success, they could IPO or be acquired (Circle’s IPO being a harbinger). We also expect collaboration between traditional finance and stablecoin startups to deepen (e.g., more partnerships like Visa + Stripe + Bridge), which could lead to some acquisitions of crypto startups by banks/payment giants, providing modest exits for those VC-backed firms. Overall, “slow but steady” implies no dramatic boom or bust – a continued muddling through for VC liquidity and a controlled, steady rise of stablecoin integration into the financial fabric.

Optimistic Scenario: “Soft Landing and Surge”

In a rosier outlook, several things break positively. Global macro conditions improve – inflation is tamed without a deep recession, allowing central banks to gently lower interest rates by mid-2026. Cheaper capital and higher risk appetite reopen the IPO window fully: by spring 2026 we see a rush of tech IPOs, including some of those unicorns that had been stuck in waiting. This pent-up supply meets investor demand, and notable successes (say an Instacart or Databricks IPO that pops) restore confidence. M&A also accelerates as Big Tech, flush with cash, gets the green light (perhaps due to clearer antitrust guidelines) to buy mid-sized companies again. In this scenario, mega-funds quickly capitalize: they might even launch new growth funds to invest in pre-IPO rounds, and their existing portfolios deliver long-delayed exits, allowing them to distribute windfalls to LPs. The “soft landing” would validate mega-fund strategies to some extent – though it could also tempt them to inflate another bubble if not careful. Mid-market VCs benefit too: many solid startups that were on ice can find exits or raise late-stage at reasonable terms. LPs, seeing distributions resume, re-up commitments, perhaps gingerly at first but then more confidently by 2026.

For stablecoins, an optimistic case builds on regulatory clarity unlocking new mainstream adoption. Suppose not only is the GENIUS Act law, but it also spurs international harmonization (other jurisdictions adopt similar standards, making cross-border stablecoin use legally smoother). Perhaps major tech platforms integrate stablecoin payments – envision Apple Pay or Google Pay adding USDC as a currency option, or Shopify expanding stablecoin acceptance from a limited pilot to a default global offering. In a soft-landing economic scenario, consumer spending is strong, and if even a small percentage shifts to stablecoin rails for their efficiency, the volume could skyrocket. By 2026, we might imagine stablecoin market cap exceeding $1 trillion if institutional money and tokenized bank deposits flow in alongside retail usage. Circle and Coinbase, being public companies now, could soar in valuation – potentially encouraging more crypto firms to IPO (a reversal from the hesitance of 2022–24). The optimistic scenario could also see a convergence of stablecoins and traditional banking: for instance, some large banks issue their own stablecoins for institutional clients, and it works well, further legitimizing the concept.

Under these conditions, VC investors in fintech and crypto might enjoy a mini-golden age. The combination of public-market validation and real revenue growth at stablecoin-powered companies could produce multiple unicorns and decacorns. We might see new entrants – imagine a startup that becomes the “Stripe of stablecoin payments” for a particular region or industry, scaling to massive volume and going public in 2026. Venture funds holding equity in such winners would see outsized returns. Additionally, LPs flush with cash from the broader market upswing might reverse course and increase allocations to venture again, giving VCs more dry powder. Of course, the risk in this happy scenario is overheating – a return to easy money could re-inflate bubbles in both startup valuations and crypto prices. But that might be beyond 2026. For the immediate horizon, a soft landing would essentially mean the venture-stablecoin convergence was well-timed: just as stablecoins became mainstream, the capital markets reopened to reward their builders.

Stress Scenario: “Regulatory Shock and Reset”

In a pessimistic turn of events, we contemplate a regulatory or macro shock that disrupts both venture and crypto. On the venture side, imagine inflation proves stickier or a geopolitical crisis triggers a major risk-off environment – interest rates stay high or rise, and equity markets tumble in late 2025. This would further compress multiples and could finally force a true valuation reckoning for private markets. Many unicorns might have to raise down-rounds at 70 %+ valuation cuts or shut down. Mega-funds in this case face significant write-downs in their portfolios and may pull back strongly on new investments, effectively pausing deployment. We could even see consolidation or shrinkage among brand-name funds (perhaps a major VC firm’s growth fund spins down or a crossover fund exits venture entirely after losses). Mid-market VCs could suffer too – fundraising would be extremely difficult as LPs retrench. Only the top decile of VC funds with unique theses or track records would get funded; others might quietly wind down.

For stablecoins, a stress scenario likely involves a regulatory setback or a trust incident. Perhaps the House fails to pass the GENIUS Act, leaving stablecoin regulation in limbo or, worse, enforcing a patchwork of state rules. Or imagine a major stablecoin issuer faces a crisis – e.g., a reserve-mismanagement scandal or a cyber-attack that wipes out reserves. In such a case, the market cap of stablecoins could plummet as users flee to safety. Another angle: global coordination fails and instead we get regulatory fragmentation – the EU or China might ban non-CBDC stablecoins in their jurisdictions, splitting the world into silos. Under these stresses, stablecoin adoption would slow or even reverse in some areas. Merchants might hesitate to integrate a technology under such uncertainty; some early adopters could drop stablecoin options if they encounter compliance headaches. A harsher scenario could even see stablecoin issuers facing capital requirements or constraints that limit their growth, akin to how strict banking rules can stifle innovation.

If multiple compression hits tech valuations hard, that will feed into crypto as well – for instance, the valuations of Circle, Coinbase, etc., would drop, dampening enthusiasm and investment in the sector. A prolonged crypto-winter 2.0 could ensue, where venture funding for crypto dries up significantly (as happened in 2019). Projects might shelve stablecoin initiatives if they don’t see near-term profitability or clarity.

However, even in this stress scenario, not all is doom. One could argue stablecoins themselves would find use if the mainstream system falters – e.g., in a severe downturn, more people might actually trust digital dollars over local currencies in emerging markets, preserving a bottom-up demand. But the key difference is it wouldn’t be institutional or official adoption, rather an informal one, which VCs can’t easily monetize. So, from a venture perspective, the stress case means few exits, painful write-downs and a cautious stance toward anything perceived as risky or unregulated.

Interestingly, a stress scenario might spur the ultimate reset Gurley talked about. If things get bad enough, the system could flush out many of the zombies (through fire-sale M&As or closures), and when it recovers, it might be healthier. For stablecoins, a regulatory crisis could hasten the introduction of something like a Fed-issued digital dollar to replace private ones, which would transform the landscape yet again. VCs would then have to pivot to new opportunities (perhaps building on top of CBDCs instead).

Implications Recap:

In Baseline, mega-funds tread water, mid-funds hustle for differentiation, stablecoins steadily penetrate finance.
In Optimistic, liquidity returns broadly – venture portfolios pay off, and stablecoins become mainstream rails with explosive growth, benefiting fintech innovators and their investors.
In Stress, the venture industry endures a shakeout and stablecoin progress stalls under regulatory pressure, delaying the payoff of recent investments and possibly changing the rules of the game (with only the most robust players surviving and consolidating).

Each scenario carries lessons for policymakers and investors. Regulators should note that providing clarity (as in the optimistic case) can unleash innovation, while uncertainty or overreach (stress case) can dampen a sector that might enhance economic efficiency. Investors should prepare for longer timelines (baseline) but stay ready to capitalize quickly if conditions improve (optimistic) – or conversely, have contingency plans if another leg down hits (stress). For example, funds raising now might include more-flexible mandate language to allow secondary deals or token investments, giving themselves agility no matter which scenario plays out.

Conclusion

The convergence of venture capital’s new reality and stablecoins’ rise is shaping funding, payments and liquidity in real time. The rest of 2025 will test how resilient both the Silicon Valley and crypto communities are in navigating these changes. For now, caution and conviction go hand in hand: caution in acknowledging that the go-go years are over (for the moment), and conviction that transformative opportunities – like a truly global stablecoin-payments network – are emerging from the ashes of the old playbook. As one investor put it, “price risk reasonably and keep markets functioning” – if we achieve that, innovation and capital will find their equilibrium again. The coming years will reveal whether 2025 was a turning point that led to a new boom of productivity and financial innovation, or a warning shot that forced a return to fundamentals. Savvy investors are positioning for the former while guarding against the latter, as venture capital meets stablecoins in an unprecedented synthesis of tech and finance.

Sources

Risk Disclaimer:

insights4.vc and its newsletter provide research and information for educational purposes only and should not be taken as any form of professional advice. We do not advocate for any investment actions, including buying, selling, or holding digital assets.

The content reflects only the writer's views and not financial advice. Please conduct your own due diligence before engaging with cryptocurrencies, DeFi, NFTs, Web 3 or related technologies, as they carry high risks and values can fluctuate significantly.

Note: This research paper is not sponsored by any of the mentioned companies.