Why Coinbase, Visa, and Mastercard Are Still Backing USDC — and Why the Tensions Haven't Gone Away

The core proposition of Open USD was simple but disruptive: businesses could mint and redeem the stablecoin at no cost and with no volume limits, and nearly all of the interest earned on reserve assets would flow back to the consortium members instead of being kept by a single issuer . That model is a direct challenge to USDC's economics, where Circle retains the reserve yield.

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire responded by emphasizing USDC's entrenched network effects, pointing to roughly $21.5–$30 trillion in Q1 2026 on-chain transaction volume and approximately $77 billion in circulation . But the stock market's reaction suggested investors saw the threat as real.

The Public Reassurances: 'Multi-Stablecoin' Strategy

All three companies used their Q2 2026 earnings calls to address the concern directly. Their message was consistent: they intend to support multiple stablecoins, not pick a single winner .

• Coinbase: CFO Alesia Haas said the exchange has already met the conditions to renew its commercial agreement with Circle and will continue to drive USDC ecosystem growth. CEO Brian Armstrong stated that Coinbase remains a "multi-stablecoin platform" that wants to support whatever stablecoins its customers choose, noting it already supports USDC, USDT, and Pax Dollar . Executives described OUSD as "another network to connect to" rather than a replacement for USDC .
• Visa: Executives described Open USD as an additional settlement network, emphasizing a stablecoin-agnostic strategy that supports whatever digital dollars clients demand .
• Mastercard: Similarly said it would connect to both USDC and OUSD, characterizing the new stablecoin as complementary, not a substitute .

Major investors in the Open Standard consortium also publicly stated that OUSD is "designed to complement, not replace" USDC .

The Structural Tensions That Remain

Despite the coordinated messaging, several unresolved conflicts continue to concern investors.

Revenue cannibalization. The entire pitch of Open USD is to redistribute the economics of the stablecoin market. USDC's model lets Circle keep the reserve yield; OUSD proposes sharing that income among consortium members. If issuers and exchanges can mint OUSD for free or near-zero fees, USDC's revenue pool — and therefore Circle's stock valuation — shrinks .

Coinbase's conflicting incentives. Coinbase is USDC's most important distribution partner, retaining all interest income on USDC held on its platform and sharing half of its residual reserve income with Circle . But Coinbase is also a member of the OUSD consortium. That dual role creates a direct tension between protecting its USDC income stream and capitalizing on a rival token that could erode it . The revenue-sharing partnership between Coinbase and Circle is set to expire on August 18, 2026, and will be renegotiated .

Circle's stock has not recovered. When the OUSD consortium was announced on June 30, Circle's stock fell 15–20%. As of early August, it has not regained those losses, indicating that investors see the competitive threat as real regardless of the multi-chain rhetoric .

Governance asymmetry. USDC is ultimately controlled by Circle. OUSD is governed by an independent entity (Open Standard) with over 140 member companies, meaning the consortium's decisions may not always align with USDC's interests .

What Comes Next

The public reaffirmations are factual and sincere about supporting both tokens in the near term. But the structural tension arises because OUSD's economic model directly targets the very revenue streams that fund Circle's business — and the companies reassuring the market are the same ones building the competitor.

Open USD is expected to go live later in 2026, initially on Solana, Stellar, Base, and Polygon . Its success will depend on real payment adoption, liquidity, and merchant usage — not partner announcements . For now, the stablecoin market is watching whether the multi-stablecoin rhetoric holds when the economic incentives diverge.