​​Stable

What is Stable?

Stable is an EVM-compatible Layer 1 (“Stablechain”) designed to make USDT-denominated payments and settlement behave more like a predictable financial rail than a speculative crypto network, by using an omnichain USDT representation (“USDT0”) as the native gas and settlement asset rather than a volatile token.

This architecture targets a specific and recurring failure mode in general-purpose chains—users and businesses must acquire, custody, and account for a separate volatile asset to pay fees, while fee markets themselves can become unstable during congestion—by aligning transaction costs with the unit of account most payment flows already use, namely dollars via USDT.

The project’s defensibility, to the extent it exists, is less about novel cryptography and more about being a purpose-built execution environment that attempts to standardize developer and enterprise integration around USDT-native flows such as “USDT-as-gas,” USDT-focused bridging, and features like guaranteed blockspace that are explicitly framed around predictable throughput for institutional users in congested conditions, rather than maximizing generalized composability.

The core positioning is described in the project’s own documentation and product framing on Stable’s website and in the “Why Stable” documentation, which explicitly argues that stablecoin usage has outgrown infrastructure optimized for volatile gas tokens.

In terms of market position, Stable should be understood as a niche, payments-first L1 attempting to carve out mindshare from both general-purpose EVM chains and stablecoin-centric rails (including L2s and application-specific chains) by optimizing for USDT settlement UX and enterprise operations rather than for maximal DeFi density. As of early 2026, publicly visible on-chain DeFi penetration appears limited relative to the token’s liquid market footprint: DeFiLlama’s chain page for Stable shows negligible DeFi TVL (tens of thousands of dollars) and minimal DEX volume, which implies that most observed activity and valuation is not yet anchored by a mature on-chain DeFi economy in the way it is for incumbent L1s. Meanwhile, market data aggregators place the asset in the low hundreds by market-cap rank, with CoinMarketCap showing a rank around the #100 range at the time of capture (ranks move frequently), suggesting that the token can achieve meaningful liquidity before the chain demonstrates deep, persistent application lock-in.

Who Founded Stable and When?

Stable’s public narrative emerges in 2025, against a backdrop where stablecoins—especially USDT—had become the dominant settlement asset for centralized exchange flows and a major component of on-chain activity, while regulators and large financial institutions were simultaneously pushing for clearer rules and more “bank-like” operating characteristics in crypto payments.

Reporting around the project’s emergence and financing identifies a corporate-backed formation story rather than a purely grassroots DAO origin: The Block’s coverage describes Stable as “Bitfinex-backed,” notes a reported seed round led by Bitfinex and Hack VC, and references advisors including Tether/Bitfinex leadership.

The same reporting ties the mainnet launch to the introduction of an entity called the Stable Foundation, which is presented as an “independent organization” intended to oversee ecosystem and governance functions—an arrangement that often signals a hybrid structure where early strategic backers retain material influence even if day-to-day governance is meant to evolve.

Over time, the project’s narrative has stayed relatively consistent—payments, settlement, and predictable USDT-native UX—but the concrete implementation details have evolved, particularly around the gas token mechanics and developer ergonomics. Stable’s documentation emphasizes USDT-specific primitives such as “USDT as gas” and future features like transfer aggregation and guaranteed blockspace, indicating a roadmap that is less about expanding the execution environment’s expressiveness and more about minimizing operational friction for high-volume stablecoin flows.

This trajectory suggests an attempt to become an opinionated “default environment” for USDT settlement (and adjacent enterprise integrations), rather than competing head-on with Ethereum or Solana on generalized application breadth.

How Does the Stable Network Work?

Stable is documented as an EVM-compatible chain using a delegated proof-of-stake model, with fast block times and a BFT-style validator layer intended to provide rapid finality; the project describes the network as built on dPoS and emphasizes sub-second finality in its own architecture materials, including the “Key Features” page.

The economic and operational heart of the design is the fee market: unlike typical EVM chains where a volatile native asset is required for gas, Stable denominates fees in USDT0 and adopts an EIP-1559-style base-fee mechanism (with notable differences), as specified in the “USDT as Gas” documentation.

Conceptually, this replaces “gas token reflexivity” (where rising chain usage can mechanically increase demand for the volatile gas token) with a model where the user-facing fee unit is stable, while value accrual is pushed into validator economics and the governance/security token (STABLE).

Technically, Stable’s differentiation is not a new virtual machine or exotic proof system, but a set of protocol-level assumptions built around USDT0 semantics and cross-chain mobility.

The project frames USDT0 as an omnichain representation implemented via LayerZero’s OFT standard, which introduces security and dependency considerations that differ from canonical-asset designs: cross-chain messaging assumptions, lock/burn-and-mint flows, and the operational risk of bridging infrastructure become part of the chain’s “base layer” for fees and onboarding liquidity.

On the roadmap side, Stable is explicit about planned features such as “Guaranteed Blockspace,” “USDT Transfer Aggregator,” and a “Confidential Transfer” concept using ZK cryptography with a compliance-oriented disclosure model, as described in the USDT-specific features overview.

Security, in practice, will hinge on validator quality and decentralization (dPoS systems can converge toward concentration), as well as on whether the chain’s USDT0 bridging dependencies remain resilient under adversarial conditions and high load.

What Are the Tokenomics of stable-2?

STABLE is positioned as a fixed-supply governance and staking asset rather than the medium of exchange for transaction fees. Third-party reporting on the project’s tokenomics describes a capped supply of 100 billion STABLE with no ongoing inflationary emissions, with allocations spanning genesis distribution, ecosystem grants/partnerships, and team/investor tranches with multi-year vesting; see

The Block’s tokenomics summary and similar secondary breakdowns such as Datawallet’s overview.

On major data aggregators, supply statistics are presented as a large max/total supply with a materially smaller circulating float as of early 2026, which mechanically creates valuation sensitivity to unlock schedules and distribution transparency; for example, CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko both present circulating versus total supply splits (noting that aggregator methodologies differ and can be revised). In this framing, STABLE is structurally closer to a governance/security token for a settlement chain than to a “money” token, and its long-run dilution profile depends more on unlocks than on emissions.

Utility and value accrual are intended to route through staking and governance rather than gas demand. Stable’s design uses USDT0 for fees, with documentation and reporting suggesting that network fees can be collected into a protocol-controlled vault or treasury and then distributed (at least in part) via validator/staking mechanisms, creating a “fee share” dynamic without introducing token inflation; see the description of USDT0 gas mechanics in the official docs and token role summaries in third-party explainers like XT’s overview (noting that exchange blogs can be directionally useful but should not be treated as primary documentation).

The key analytical point is that the chain’s success must translate into fee volume in USDT terms and into credible, transparent distribution rules for validators and delegators; otherwise, STABLE risks becoming a governance token with weak linkage to real usage, especially if most economic activity remains off-chain (custodial payments) or migrates to competing rails that also provide low-friction stablecoin settlement.

Who Is Using Stable?

As of early 2026, the public data paints a bifurcated picture between market activity in the token and measurable on-chain “productive” usage. Liquid trading is clearly present on centralized venues (as reflected by aggregator market pages such as CoinGecko’s listings and volume data), but DeFi-native adoption appears minimal: DeFiLlama’s chain metrics for Stable show extremely low DeFi TVL and near-zero DEX volumes at the time of capture, which is inconsistent with a mature on-chain financial stack. This divergence does not prove the chain has no real usage—payments and enterprise settlement can occur without DeFi TVL—but it does mean analysts should be cautious about equating token liquidity with demonstrated on-chain network effects.

If Stable’s primary thesis is payments, more relevant KPIs would include active addresses, transaction counts, and USDT0 transfer volume, but those require either a reliable block explorer analytics layer or internally reported metrics that can be audited—neither of which is as standardized as TVL reporting across DeFi protocols.

On partnerships, claims should be treated conservatively because “partner” can range from a signed integration to a marketing MOU.

The most concrete, attributable partnership assertions appear in reputable reporting: The Block states that Stable “recently announced partnerships” with firms including Anchorage Digital and names other large financial/payment institutions in that context. Without independently verifiable deployment evidence—such as transaction tagging, live product links, or joint statements hosted on counterparties’ own domains—these should be interpreted as early-stage business development signals rather than as proof of scaled production traffic. In a payments-focused chain, the credibility threshold is operational: sustained throughput, predictable fees under stress, clear compliance tooling, and reliable incident response, all of which take time and real transaction volume to validate.

What Are the Risks and Challenges for Stable?

Regulatory exposure is two-layered: Stable is structurally entangled with USDT (and the regulatory posture toward stablecoins and reserve-backed instruments) while simultaneously operating a separate token (STABLE) that can attract “investment contract” scrutiny depending on distribution, marketing, and the economic realities of staking returns.

While there has been movement toward clarifying treatment of certain dollar-backed stablecoins at the SEC staff level, those statements are about stablecoins meeting specific conditions, not about L1 governance tokens; legal analysis summaries such as Covington’s memo and Latham’s discussion highlight that the staff view focused on “covered” stablecoins and reserve/marketing constraints, which does not automatically de-risk STABLE.

Centralization is the other core risk: dPoS systems can concentrate validator power, governance can be captured by large holders, and enterprise-oriented “guaranteed blockspace” can create a two-tier system that is economically rational for institutions but politically and competitively contentious within crypto-native communities.

Additionally, the chain’s dependence on USDT0’s omnichain mechanics introduces correlated risk to LayerZero-style messaging assumptions and cross-chain liquidity movement, which historically has been one of the most attacked surfaces in crypto.

Competitive threats are significant because the value proposition—cheap, predictable stablecoin transfers—is being pursued from multiple directions.

General-purpose L2s can already provide low fees with strong Ethereum security anchoring; high-throughput L1s can offer sub-second finality without introducing a novel “USDT-as-gas” semantic layer; and stablecoin issuers/payment firms can push custodial or semi-custodial settlement networks that abstract chains away entirely. Stable’s bet is that “USDT-native at the protocol layer” creates enough UX and operational simplicity to justify a new base layer, but that advantage can erode if incumbents improve fee abstraction, if account abstraction and paymasters become mainstream across EVM ecosystems, or if stablecoin regulation pushes activity toward permissioned venues. Finally, there is an economic challenge: because users pay gas in USDT0, the chain must persuade validators and delegators that USDT fee capture and governance rights are sufficient compensation for security provision, especially in a world where other chains offer liquid staking ecosystems and diversified fee markets.

What Is the Future Outlook for Stable?

The most clearly verifiable near-term milestone in the last 12 months has been the mainnet upgrade to v1.2.0, which multiple sources describe as transitioning native gas to USDT0 and improving staking observability and developer compatibility; see Stable’s own documentation of the USDT0 gas model (including its v1.2.0 note) and event reporting/aggregation such as CoinMarketCal’s entry and coverage referenced by TradingView’s news feed. Looking further out, Stable’s documentation frames a roadmap around USDT-specific throughput and enterprise predictability features—including guaranteed blockspace, transfer aggregation, and a ZK-enabled “confidential transfer” concept with compliance framing—outlined in the USDT-specific features overview and the broader architecture pages.

The structural hurdle is less about shipping features and more about proving that these features produce durable demand from payment processors and fintechs, not just transient trader attention: that means sustained transaction volume, clear validator economics, reliable cross-chain onboarding for USDT0 liquidity, and governance legitimacy that can withstand scrutiny from both regulators and sophisticated counterparties.

Under an institutional lens, Stable’s viability will ultimately be judged by whether it can behave like infrastructure—boring, predictable, auditable—while still retaining enough decentralization and composability to avoid becoming a brittle, single-issuer-dependent rail.