Share Sheet: stablecoin issuer economics model for the fintechs holding the float
Models what each stablecoin issuer would pay a distributor and what switching costs. Wallets and neobanks pay.
Early · Flat supply, rivals outbid Circle
Written for: Small startup team
Next step
Call the CFO of a wallet or neobank holding USDC float that a rival issuer has approached, and ask what number would make them switch and what they would need modelled before taking it to their board.
Why now
When supply stops growing, issuers compete for distribution, and the fintechs holding float suddenly have bargaining power. They have no neutral way to compare offers once redemption speed, card-program support and liquidity risk are counted.
What became possible
Stablecoin payments rose 45% to $482B year to date while supply grew 0.4%. With supply flat, rivals are courting Circle's partners with a bigger revenue cut, and JPM Coin deposit tokens are reportedly heading to Ethereum.
Two ways in
- Share Sheet
Takes a distributor's balances and flows and models net revenue under each issuer's and deposit token's terms. It counts redemption, chain and card-program costs and gives a switching plan with liquidity timings.
- Customer
- CFOs and treasury leads at wallets and neobanks holding $50M+ of stablecoin float
- Model
- Paid model build, then an annual subscription with term updates
- Terms Benchmark
Anonymised benchmark of the rev-share terms that participating distributors were offered.
- Customer
- Same buyers plus their investors
- Model
- Data subscription
Competition
I found no neutral, distributor-side tool that takes a wallet's or neobank's actual balances and flows and models net revenue across competing offers. Those offers include Paxos USDG, Agora AUSD, M0-based coins, Bridge Open Issuance, Brale, USDC and bank deposit tokens.
Full competition notes (8 competitors)
I found no neutral, distributor-side tool that takes a wallet's or neobank's actual balances and flows and models net revenue across competing offers. Those offers include Paxos USDG, Agora AUSD, M0-based coins, Bridge Open Issuance, Brale, USDC and bank deposit tokens. No such tool nets out redemption, chain and card-program costs or produces a switching plan with liquidity timings. I also found no anonymised benchmark of the rev-share terms distributors are offered. Real terms are negotiated privately, and the only widely public reference is the Circle-Coinbase agreement disclosed in Circle's filings. The supply side is crowded: many issuers and issuance platforms are competing for distributors by sharing reserve income. That makes an independent, buyer-side view more valuable, and the reworking of reserve economics after the GENIUS Act adds urgency. The risks are that the buyer pool with $50M or more of float is small, issuers may restrict sharing of terms through NDAs, and issuers or orchestrators could give away free calculators. The benchmark is the more defensible asset if enough participants sign up to anonymise it credibly. The modeling tool can be the way in to collect that data.
- Spark stablecoin issuer revenue comparison
Free page comparing revenue, reserve income and profit at the issuer level for Tether, Circle, Paxos and Ethena, built from public filings. It does not model a distributor's own balances, rev-share terms or switching costs. It is the closest analytical tool I found.
- Paxos Global Dollar Network (USDG)
Paxos shares most of USDG's reserve revenue with distributors such as Robinhood, Kraken and Nuvei. It is an offer the model would need to price, not a tool for comparing terms.
- Agora (AUSD)
White-label stablecoin issuer that shares reserve yield with KYB'd partners and raised a $50M Series A led by Paradigm. Another seller of rev-share terms, not a neutral comparison.
- M0
Wholesale issuance layer that lets issuers set revenue-sharing logic and rewards for each partner. It names PayPal, MetaMask, Exodus and Kast as partners. It shapes the terms distributors are offered but provides no benchmark or switching model.
- Bridge (Stripe) Open Issuance / USDB rewards
Passes reserve rewards to the brand issuing the coin, minus Bridge's issuance fees, paid monthly. It is a strong option for wallets and neobanks, and its own docs explain the economics only for Bridge.
- Brale
White-label stablecoin issuance for fintechs, wallets and banks. Its reward-split terms are not public, which is the opacity a terms benchmark would address.
- Eco
Stablecoin orchestration vendor focused on routing, holding several issuers' coins and sweeping idle balances into tokenized money-market funds. It is next door on the treasury side, but it does not compare rev-share contracts or plan switches.
- Circle-Coinbase Collaboration Agreement
The only widely disclosed set of distributor terms: Coinbase gets 100% of reserve income on its platform and 50% elsewhere, renewed through 2029. It is a public data point for a benchmark, not a product.
Checked 2026-10-19
Risks
- Deal terms are private, so the benchmark depends on customers sharing data
- Few buyers, and it can look like consulting
- Issuers may publish standard terms
- BIS work suggests banks paying savers more could slow stablecoin growth
Strong tech readiness; market pull is the weak point (5).
tech 9 · pull 5 · space 7 · fit 8 · build 6
Exposed
Companies that could benefit or be threatened. News and context, not investment advice.
Momentum of its main topic
Sources
- Allium: stablecoin payments rose 45% YoY to $482B YTD through September 30, with transactions up 71% to 1.04B, while circulating supply grew just 0.4% (Krisztian Sandor/CoinDesk)Techmeme
- Stablecoin supply stalls, but payments jump 45% as Visa, Mastercard and Stripe connect crypto to cashCoinDesk
- Circle defends USDC economics as stablecoin rivals court its partners with bigger cutCoinDesk
- JPMorgan's JPM Coin, representing dollar deposits, is coming to Ethereum: BloombergCoinDesk
- Banks could slow stablecoin growth by paying savers more, BIS paper findsCoinDesk
Status history
- 2026-10-19 Flagged as buildable