Stablecoins are proving that blockchain-based utility trumps digital asset speculation, but in the short-term, the race by every entity under the sun to issue their own fiat-backed token (many on proprietary Layer-1 networks) risks confusing the market and slowing wider adoption. Baskin Robbins might need 31 flavours but the digital payments sector needs less fragmentation, not more. Not all platforms will be willing/able to support every new stablecoin and additional steps/fees to transfer from one platform to another could diminish uptake. The dollar-backed stablecoin market is dominated by USDT (Tether) and USDC (Circle), with market caps of $183B and $75B, respectively. Ripple’s RLUSD’s cap topped $1B last week, but it took 11 months to get there. PayPal’s PYUSD took two years to get to $2.8B. Staking out an early lead doesn’t guarantee longevity, as anyone who remembers WordPerfect or Atari will attest. But most new sectors act as a funnel, narrowing from a mass of hopefuls at the outset to a few major players as the sector matures and consolidates. Much of this fight will play out in the U.S., where USDT has compliance issues, and it seems unlikely that Tether’s new U.S.-focused stablecoin (USAT) can repeat USDT’s dominance (although USAT will likely have the Commerce Secretary lobbying financial institutions to adopt it). I’m more interested in broader stablecoin adoption. They’re popular with ex-pats looking to send remittances quickly/cheaply, and with people in developing markets avoiding local currency devaluation. But attracting users in developed markets faces additional hurdles. For instance, consumers used to the concept of chargebacks will need educating/convincing on the finality of stablecoin transactions. Circle recently floated the idea of reversible USDC transactions and was swiftly tarred and feathered by blockchain purists. It may take longer than some expect or hope, but stablecoins are definitely out of the bag and there’s no stuffing them back in.