Why does Bridge think Tether and Circle dominance is bad for stablecoins?

Bridge executive Ben O’Neill said the stablecoin market is too concentrated around USDT and USDC. He argued that limited competition slows innovation and prevents stablecoins from being optimised for different payment and settlement use cases.

What problems did Bridge identify with USDT and USDC?

O’Neill said both stablecoins were designed for different eras of crypto adoption and have trade-offs. He criticised redemption fees, minting costs and operational uncertainty, arguing these issues make large-scale payment settlement less efficient for businesses.

Why is stablecoin competition important for crypto payments?

More competition could lead to specialised stablecoins built for specific industries like payments, remittances or DeFi. O’Neill argued this would improve efficiency, lower fees and make stablecoins function more like traditional money.

How does Tether’s USDT differ from Circle’s USDC?

USDT grew rapidly through global crypto trading and Chinese export markets, creating what O’Neill described as a “shadow dollar economy” outside the US banking system. USDC focused more heavily on US regulation and decentralised finance integrations.

Why are stablecoin redemption fees a concern for payment companies?

O’Neill said payment firms need predictable costs when moving large amounts of money. If redemption or “burn” fees rise, companies processing trillions of dollars through stablecoins could face significant costs that reduce adoption incentives.

Could stablecoin fees hurt broader crypto adoption?

Potentially. Higher minting and redemption costs may discourage payment networks, fintech firms and merchants from using stablecoins for everyday transactions, especially when traditional payment rails remain cheaper or more predictable.

What did Bridge suggest as a solution for the stablecoin market?

O’Neill said the industry needs more specialised stablecoins and better clearing infrastructure. Clearing systems could make it easier and cheaper to swap between stablecoins, improving liquidity and usability across different platforms.

How big are Tether and Circle in the stablecoin market right now?

According to the discussion at Consensus 2026, USDT has a market capitalisation of roughly $189.5 billion, while USDC is valued at around $71 billion, making them the dominant issuers globally.

Bridge warns stablecoin giants curb competition

Written by Liezl GambePublished May. 7 2026Last Updated May. 7 2026

Bridge head of money movement Ben O’Neill said the dominance of Tether and Circle Internet Group is a “net bad” for the long-term growth of stablecoins because the market lacks sufficient competition.

Speaking during a panel at the Consensus 2026 conference in Miami Beach, O’Neill said the two largest stablecoin issuers each built products suited to different phases of crypto adoption but neither serves every payment or settlement use case effectively.

“I think it's a net bad for the growth of stablecoins as a whole, because you have two counterparties that have pros and cons to what they've built, and the design choices they've made,”

Said Bridge head of money movement, Ben O’Neill.

O’Neill said USDT became dominant through Chinese export trade demand and created a shadow dollar economy outside the US financial system, while USDC focused on becoming a regulated US-based stablecoin closely linked to decentralised finance applications.

He argued that fee structures attached to minting and redeeming stablecoins make them difficult to use efficiently for large-scale payment companies, adding that uncertainty around redemption costs could discourage firms such as Visa from settling trillions of dollars through stablecoin rails.

“For Circle, their whole business is AUM, and they keep kind of notching up those burn fees,”

Said Bridge head of money movement Ben O’Neill, adding:

“If I'm someone like Visa, and I want to do trillions of dollars of card settlement and stablecoins, I'm burning a bunch of USDC, and that's gonna be a net bad.”

O’Neill said the industry needed more specialised stablecoins designed for specific use cases alongside more efficient clearing infrastructure to make swapping between stablecoins cheaper and help digital dollars function more like traditional money.