--- title: "Meta returns to stablecoins, whose money will it make?" type: "Topics" locale: "en" url: "https://longbridge.com/en/topics/32646245.md" description: "By | Kaori, Sleepy.txt Edited by | Sleepy.txt Meta (then known as Facebook) never intended to contribute to Web3 with its stablecoin project. It was more like a vision of a central bank or the IMF, as outlined in the white paper from the start. In 2019, Libra emerged as a global experiment led by tech giants, attempting to create a 'digital dollar alternative.' The Libra Association was headquartered in Switzerland, with its currency pegged to a basket of fiat currencies..." datetime: "2025-08-06T04:34:30.000Z" locales: - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/topics/32646245.md) - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/topics/32646245.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/topics/32646245.md) author: "[BlockBeats](https://longbridge.com/en/profiles/3305938.md)" --- # Meta returns to stablecoins, whose money will it make? By | Kaori, Sleepy.txt Edited by | Sleepy.txt Meta (then still called Facebook) never intended to contribute to Web3 by creating a stablecoin. It was a vision more akin to a central bank or the IMF, outlined in its whitepaper from the start. In 2019, Libra emerged as a global experiment led by tech giants to establish a "digital dollar alternative." The Libra Association was headquartered in Switzerland, with its currency pegged to a basket of fiat currencies, supported by a governance framework and reserve model. The whitepaper was steeped in IMF-like language. Before regulators could react, Congress sounded the alarm on Libra. Just three days after the whitepaper's release, Maxine Waters, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, initiated a public hearing, directly accusing Libra of harboring financial ambitions to "bypass sovereignty." Over the next three years, Zuckerberg was summoned to testify four times; the token model shifted from multi-currency pegging to a single dollar, with sensitive terms like "financial inclusion" removed; partner banks faced repeated rejections before finally partnering with Silvergate. The whitepaper evolved from 1.0 to 2.0, compromising step by step with reality. Meta retreated repeatedly, but with each retreat, its true destination became clearer. In January 2022, Diem's assets were sold to Silvergate for $200 million, marking the project's demise. Since then, no U.S. tech company has dared to publicly discuss issuing stablecoins, and Libra became a symbol of "overthinking." The end of the stablecoin saga was not abrupt but rather a case study written by regulators to delineate boundaries for Big Tech. From congressional hearings to the blockade of banking networks; from refusals by SWIFT and Visa to withdrawals by PayPal and Stripe; from internal disagreements within the wallet team to the enactment of the GENIUS Act—legislation explicitly prohibited platform companies from issuing fiat-pegged assets and repeatedly cited Diem as a "cautionary tale." Diem was consigned to history, leaving a lesson etched in Meta's mind. **Three years later, Meta changed its script** By 2025, Meta no longer seemed obsessed with issuing its own dollar but remained committed to the stablecoin race. Early in the year, a key figure from Meta's past reappeared in its organizational structure—Ginger Baker was appointed Vice President of Payment Products. A veteran with deep compliance expertise from Ripple, Plaid, and Square, she had led Facebook's payment system development in 2016. At the time, Libra had not yet been announced, but the team was already building a blockchain payment prototype. Her return was seen as a clear signal that Meta was preparing to re-enter the stablecoin arena in a different way. This time, it chose a smaller entry point. Instead of rebuilding the monetary system, it focused on payment scenarios—easier to control and scale. According to Fortune, Meta is in early talks with crypto infrastructure companies to explore stablecoins as a payment solution, particularly for content creator payouts on Facebook and WhatsApp. Meta reportedly plans to support multiple stablecoins like USDC and USDT, rather than relying on a single issuer. In this model, Meta does not handle reserves or clearing but manages payment routing between content and account systems. Structurally, it still controls three core financial gateways: who gets paid, where funds come from, and how accounts are settled. Soon, regulators took notice again. In June, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a joint letter to Zuckerberg, demanding clarity on whether Meta was circumventing regulations to relaunch a "private currency network." The letter highlighted that even without issuing stablecoins, controlling accounts and clearing paths still posed systemic risks. These seemingly disparate actions were tightly coordinated. From Ginger Baker's return to product testing and regulatory scrutiny, Meta's roadmap for re-entering stablecoins took shape. **Unable to issue stablecoins, Meta may profit from "distribution"** Meta's new approach diverges from Diem in its focus on distributing compliant stablecoins rather than issuing its own. Libra's ambition was to control every aspect of crypto payments, from blockchain to wallets. But this structure collapsed under regulatory pressure. Now, Meta embeds USDC as a dollar settlement module into its existing account system, outsourcing clearing and reserves while retaining its core strengths: traffic aggregation and account management. Diem aimed to capture seigniorage and network fees through cross-border payments. The GENIUS Act blocked this by prohibiting large platforms from issuing stablecoins and requiring bank-level compliance. Circle's CSO Dante Disparte called one clause the "Libra Clause"—a requirement for non-bank issuers to establish independent entities subject to Treasury oversight. This pushed Meta into a "distributor" role, partnering with Circle to embed USDC. Like Coinbase, Meta could leverage its traffic for financial gains. Compared to uncertain seigniorage, this compliant, revenue-ready model is more pragmatic. The shift lightens Meta's tech stack. Blockchain and reserves are managed by USDC issuers, while Meta handles accounts, identity verification, and payment routing. Compliance burdens shift, and Meta refocuses on user experience—account relationships, social ties, and seamless payments. Revenue models also change. Diem touted financial inclusion; now, micro-payments for creators shorten settlement cycles from months to days, easing cross-border cash flow. If successful, Meta could negotiate fees with Circle and monetize transaction insights for ads and financial services. This "light, fast, data-rich" approach fits internet platforms better than "building a central bank." But regulators remain wary. The senators warned that even without issuing stablecoins, Meta's control over accounts, payments, and data could still pose systemic risks. While Meta claims to use USDC only as a tool, regulators now scrutinize "who controls accounts and clearing." Meta, Stripe, and PayPal are converging on this path—embedding stablecoins invisibly, as tools rather than assets. When money flows like images or voice messages, the real competition shifts to controlling its movement. **Stablecoins fade into the background** Meta's pivot is part of a broader shift. The GENIUS Act set strict boundaries for stablecoins, requiring federal oversight for issuers while banning platforms from issuing them. This ended the "wild west" of private currencies. Now, platforms compete for "traffic gateways" rather than issuance rights. Stablecoins are becoming invisible infrastructure—embedded like APIs, enabling instant settlements without user awareness. This redefines payments. Money moves through platform-led networks, not banks. Issuers like Circle handle reserves; platforms like Meta control accounts and flows. The real change isn't users adopting crypto but unknowingly completing payments. When stablecoins become seamless, competition centers on who controls the flow—and profits. **Who is redefining finance?** If Diem was Meta's failed bid to become a "central bank," its USDC pivot brings it closer to finance's core differently. This time, it focuses on its strengths—identity, payments, and data—areas once managed by central banks and clearinghouses. Finance's foundations are being rewritten by platforms. The GENIUS Act drew lines but left questions: If a platform controls flows without issuing stablecoins, is it a tool or a new clearinghouse? Meta isn't alone. Stripe and PayPal also embed stablecoins invisibly, minimizing crypto's presence for smoother payments. As stablecoins become infrastructure, attention shifts from issuance to payment control—who sets fees, gates, and defines transactions. New questions arise: Will Circle share revenue with Meta? Will hearings follow? Can regulators track stablecoins hidden in Web2? Diem's story is over, but Meta's new chapter is just beginning. The debate on platforms and finance has only started. ### Related Stocks - [META.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/META.US.md)