If you're reading this and still haven't signed up, click the subscribe button below!
This week Simon Taylor and Cuy Sheffield are joined by two builders working the connectivity problem from opposite ends of the stack. Rene Reinsberg is co-founder of Celo, one of the few chains to support native USDC and USDT alongside a long tail of non-USD stablecoins, and the team behind years of investment in local on/off-ramp infrastructure. Charles Hamel is Head of Product for MiniPay at Opera — a self-custodial global dollar wallet built into Opera Mini that uses phone numbers instead of wallet addresses to bring stablecoin payments to mainstream users across the global south. Between them, they make this episode less about who issues a coin and more about who actually connects the rails.
SoFi USD just became the first stablecoin issued by a nationally chartered US bank, landing directly inside an app with roughly 15 million members — backed 1:1 by reserves in SoFi's Fed master account. But the most useful read from this episode wasn't the milestone. It was the quiet admission running underneath it: the industry has largely given up on the idea that every bank issues its own coin.
That's why this conversation mattered now. The GENIUS Act opened the door six to nine months ago, banks ran the analysis, and a lot of them sobered up. The contest has moved from issuance to distribution, interoperability, and the unglamorous work of fiat connectivity. The interesting question is no longer who can issue a stablecoin — it's who actually gets used, and who connects the rails.
We cover:
Why banks quietly abandoned the "every bank issues a coin" thesis — and pivoted toward consortiums
SoFi USD and why the pairing with a tokenized deposit matters more than the coin itself
Fed-master-account backing, par redemption, and the deposit-flight debate reframed
The Galileo angle: SoFi as a "bank for other banks"
Cash App's USDC launch and the checking-account / savings-account split with Bitcoin
Fiat connectivity as the real moat: licensing "Russian dolls" and why even the biggest banks only directly cover ~60 markets
A short DeFi-security beat: where the real risk actually sits
Distribution Beats Issuance
The clearest message from this episode came from Cuy Sheffield. A year ago the reflex was "GENIUS passed, so every bank issues a stablecoin." Now, he said, "a lot of banks have kind of sobered on that idea" because "the distribution and the interoperability challenges have been just very real." The open question he left on the table: "Can any individual bank really eat into the market share that USDT and USDC have, or is it going to take an aggregation and consortium of banks?" The direction of travel is toward industry-led consortiums, not solo branded coins.
Rene Reinsberg pressed the same nerve from the issuer side. Reading the SoFi release, he wasn't sold: "I didn't see them give interest to their users or do something special... Is it marketing? Do they just want to earn on the float?" Coming from a co-founder of one of the few chains with native USDC and USDT, that skepticism carries weight.
SoFi's Real Trick Is Optionality, Not the Coin
Here's where the quieter story gets interesting. SoFi runs both a tokenized deposit and a stablecoin — and that pairing, not the coin, is the point. A tokenized deposit is better for the balance sheet but, as Simon Taylor put it, "stuck inside the four walls of the financial institution"; it can't reach any compatible wallet and tends not to run 24/7. A stablecoin goes instantly, globally, 24/7, anywhere it needs to go.
So, a SoFi customer gets both: a Fed-backed, par-redeemable instrument that Taylor called "the lowest risk stablecoin on the market," plus the ability to swap into a stablecoin, send it around the world, and swap back. That structure refuses the binary deposit-flight framing most banks are stuck in — SoFi is trying to win both ways.
This is the structurally novel part of the conversation: a Fed-backed stablecoin and a tokenized deposit sitting side by side, treated as interchangeable rails — a pairing we haven't seen another US bank ship to consumers yet. And the longer game may be infrastructure: SoFi owns Galileo, a large issuer-processor, which makes Taylor wonder whether the real ambition is to become "a bank for other banks."
Cash App Proves the Demand Is Mainstream
The headline-grabber — Block shipping fee-free USDC across Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, and Arbitrum after years of Bitcoin-only product work — is best read as evidence for the same thesis. Charles Hamel called it "a strong signal" that they see real demand. Sheffield went further, naming it "one of the biggest stories of the year," and pointing to Cash App's record as "one of the best user experiences for mainstream consumers" in financial products.
Reinsberg added rare first-hand color. Jack Dorsey was a seed investor in Celo back in 2017-18, and when Reinsberg asked whether he was Bitcoin-only or "saw a broader world," Dorsey said he was "open to all things." The takeaway: the man often painted as an ultra-maximalist holds a more balanced view, and Cash App's move is "a clear sign that more people and companies are recognizing that stablecoins are here to stay."
The genuinely fresh idea was how the two assets fit together. Cash App frames stablecoins as upgraded "fiat 1.0" and Bitcoin as "money 2.0" — and Sheffield's open question was whether mainstream stablecoin onboarding ends up driving Bitcoin demand rather than competing with it: stablecoins as the checking account, Bitcoin as the savings account, with Cash App betting both can compound. One operational detail did the heavy lifting on risk: Cash App won't refund transfers to wrong networks or erroneous addresses. Hamel used that to make MiniPay's case for phone numbers instead of wallet addresses — "so you always know where you're sending the money."
The Plumbing Problem: Connectivity Is the Moat
This is where the trade-off gets real, and where the guests were most operationally credible. Taylor described the payments industry as "Russian dolls" — open one company and there's another payments company inside it — all held together by licensing. Even the biggest banks are directly licensed in only about 60 markets, and rarely beyond. Stablecoins matter, he argued, because they turn that closed structure into an open -oop network — a property he thinks is really underpriced. His sharpest framing borrowed Henry at Privy's analogy: stablecoins are like getting to orbit. It's hard to get up there, but once you are, you move around fast — and getting back down to fiat still "sucks." The open question Taylor posed: do we reach a point where commerce simply stays in stablecoin land because it's so much easier to transact once you're native?
The two operating models came through clearly. Vertically integrated, licensed players like Wise have built one of the widest money-transmitter footprints anywhere — and still don't cover every market. Crypto-native, self-custodial players scale faster but, as Sheffield put it, the trade-off is "dependency on partners," outsourcing to licensed entities you don't control. He summed up the era bluntly: a lot of the strategic differentiation right now "is in the lawyers' hands."
Reinsberg's contribution was the most actionable. Celo spent five to six years seeding and even incubating local licensed on/off-ramp companies, because no single player was ever going to get global coverage alone — and he singled out MiniPay for building some of the most seamless on/off-ramp experiences in its markets by leaning on local partners. Hamel's contrast lands the whole distinction: custodial products work hard to enable new markets; non-custodial products work hard to disable them, then find the right partners to plug back in.
Crypto-Native Players Are Climbing the Regulatory Stack
The week's regulatory double-header reinforced the same theme. Mastercard secured a New York BitLicense — one of the toughest US regimes — while Aave Labs landed FCA registration in the UK. Simon laid out the mechanics: by pairing FCA registration with its existing EMI authorization, Aave controls both the fiat issuance rail and the digital asset exchange rail, opening zero-fee on/off-ramping into and out of DeFi for UK users. Hamel's read was the thesis: the merge of crypto infrastructure with fiat infrastructure is where you can finally build experiences that meet user expectations — and expect more crypto-native players to climb the stack for that connectivity and control. Reinsberg offered the deliberate counterweight — going up the stack means competing with the very ecosystem you've been trying to attract. "Pick your lane."
A Quick Word on DeFi Risk
On the "all DeFi is now unsafe" debate, Reinsberg pushed back: "I'm more worried about some bank that doesn't even have a serious two-factor." Most drained wallets, he noted, aren't protocol bugs — they're user error from "shitty tools" and unlimited token permissions. Real risk, wrong target.
The Bigger Point
A year ago, the milestone would have been simply that a bank issued a stablecoin. This episode treated that as table stakes and spent its energy elsewhere — on distribution, interoperability, and the licensing chessboard. The dollar is going to orbit. The contest now is the ground infrastructure that gets it up there and back down.
Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!
Please share this edition or share it with your colleagues if you enjoyed it!
Disclaimers
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and is not financial, business or legal advice. These thoughts & opinions and do not represent the opinions of any other person, business, entity or sponsor. Any companies or projects mentioned are for illustrative purposes unless specified.
The contents of this newsletter should not be used in any public or private domain without the express permission of the author.
The contents of this newsletter should not be used for any commercial activity, for example - research report, consultancy activity, or paywalled article without the express permission of the author.
Please note, the services and products advertised by our sponsors (by use of terminology such as but not limited to; supported by, sponsored by, Made Possible by or brought to you by) in this newsletter could carry inherent risks and should not be regarded as completely safe or risk-free. Third-party entities provide these services and products, and we do not control, endorse, or guarantee the accuracy, efficacy, or safety of their offerings.
It's crucial to provide our readers with clear information regarding the inherent nature of services and products that might be covered in this newsletter, including those advertised by our sponsors from time to time. When you buy cryptoassets (including NFTs) your capital is at risk. Risks associated with cryptoassets include price volatility, loss of capital (the value of your cryptoassets could drop to zero), complexity, lack of regulation and lack of protection. Most service providers operating in the cryptoasset industry do not currently operate in a regulated industry. Therefore, please be aware that when you buy cryptoassets, you are not protected under financial compensation schemes and protections typically afforded to investors when dealing with regulated and authorised entities to operate as financial services firm.
