MULTI-SPACED ARGUMENTS: IS THE STABILITY COIN CRCL WORTH BUYING? WHY DON'T YOU BRING IN THE STOCK PRICE

Original / Odaily Daily@OdailyChinaI'm not sure

Author / Tink@XiaMiPPI'm not sure

In the recent period, the Chinese-speaking community has been engaged in intense discussions around “Circle (NYSE:  CRCL) is not worth buying”, and the public sphere is clearly divided into two main camps. One side views it as the value of a very systemic dividend in the stabilization track, while the other frequently questions the vulnerability and potential cyclical risks of its profit model. Between points of view, the current market reflects a very different level of judgement logic and expectation for innovation projects。

On the basis of extensive public discussion and rational analysis within the community, Odaily Daily attempts to comb through the core arguments and reasoning paths of both sides and to present to the reader, beyond emotions and positions, the deeper structural differences behind the controversy。

Brief background description

Circle (NYSE: & nbsp; CRCL) has undergone a typical “discretion-driven asset” price curve since landing at New York House on 5 June 2025: from the issue price of $64 to the phase height of $298.9 in a short period of time, and then gradually backsliding, and re-entering the distribution price near 20 November 2025, touching a minimum of $64.9 and recently rebounding to approximately $839。

ON 12 NOVEMBER 2025, CRCL PUBLISHED ITS FIRST FULL QUARTERLY (Q3) FINANCIAL STATEMENT AFTER IPO: TOTAL INCOME OF $740 MILLION, AN INCREASE OF 66 PER CENT OVER THE SAME PERIOD; NET PROFIT OF $214 MILLION, EPAS $ 0.64, SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDING MARKET EXPECTATIONS. THE MOST CRITICAL DRIVER WAS THE JUMP IN FLOWS FROM USDC FROM $35.5 BILLION IN THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR TO $73.7 BILLION (+108 PER CENT) AND THE RISE IN THE RETURN ON RESERVE ASSETS IN A HIGH INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT。

HOWEVER, STOCK PRICES FELL 11.4 PER CENT IN THE FIRST DAY OF THE DAY AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE NEWSPAPER, WITH A CUMULATIVE DECLINE OF 20 PER CENT A WEEK. KEY POINTS OF DISTRESS INCLUDE HIGH DISTRIBUTION COSTS ($448 MILLION, OR 60 PER CENT OF REVENUES), OPERATING COSTS THAT ERODE PROFITS, EXCESSIVE NON-RECURRING INCOME (71 PER CENT FROM CHANGES IN FAIR VALUE OF INVESTMENTS) AND THE PUSH FROM THE SALE-RELEASE BAN. ACCORDING TO THE SEC DOCUMENT, THE IPO LOCK ENDS PERIODICALLY AFTER THE Q3 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND THE NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY RELEASED SHARES IS HUGE AS OF NOVEMBER 14。

With these facts, the differences between the different points of view, Odaily Daily Planet@0xNing0xI don't knowDjandraI don't know@Phylex_NiI don't know@BTCdayuI don't know@qimbafrakPeople's perspectives, allowing readers to compare them。

IS THE PROFITABILITY MODEL SUSTAINABLE: IS CRCL A BANK OR A FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

According to Jiang Zhor, the origin of the CRCL's profits is essentially a “food spread”: the user swapped the money for USDC, and the Circle allocated the funds to low-risk assets such as the United States debt, earning interest income and deducting operating costs and channeling。

The problem, however, is that CRCL ' s profit distribution structure is extremely unfavourable to itself. According to the agreement, approximately 61 per cent of the profits were to be allocated to Coinbase, which also held 22 per cent of the USDC share, which was 100 per cent its share. In other words, the actual retention rate of CRCL is very low。

More crucially, the vulnerability of this “food spread” model is amplified indefinitely during the interest rate reduction cycle。WHEN THE INTEREST RATE ON THE UNITED STATES DEBT HAS BEEN SET AT AROUND 2 PER CENT FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE OPERATING COST IS CLOSE TO 1 PER CENT, THE CRCL MAY EVEN BE IN A DEFICIT AFTER CUTTING CHANNELS。

In his view, the current profitability structure of CRCL was not based on commercial efficiency, but rather on a regulatory arrangement whereby the policy “prohibits the issuer from paying interest directly to the user on the national debt”. The model is essentially a parasitic structure, and once policies are relaxed or competitors are indirectly bypassed by restrictions such as incentives, rewards, staking, etc., the profit space of the CRCL will be drained directly。

@0xNing0x is a more sophisticated dismantling of the profit structure of CRCL. CRCL net profit is highly related to the three core variables - USDC distribution scale, Fed base rate, and distribution channel costs。

BASED ON HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA, THE ELASTICITY FACTOR FOR PROFITS IS NOT THE SAME: THE ELASTICITY OF THE SIZE FACTOR IS ABOUT 2.1, THE INTEREST RATE FACTOR IS ABOUT 1.9 AND THE CHANNEL COST IS ABOUT 1.3. THIS MEANS THAT CHANGES IN USDC SIZE HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON PROFITS. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT EACH $10 BILLION INCREASE IN USDC SIZE COULD THEORETICALLY LEAD TO A PROFIT GAIN OF ABOUT $114 MILLION, CORRESPONDING TO A PROFIT ELASTIC MAGNIFICATION EFFECT OF ABOUT 21 PER CENT。

AND BOTH OF THEM THINK THAT THE CRCL IS LIKE A BANK DRESSED IN TECH, BUT..The market priced it with the hybrid valuation logic of technology units and even "technology + banks," which is a clear mismatchSooner or later, stock prices are going back to reality。

In contrast, BTCdayu and qimbafrank understand. They do not agree with the analogy that “CRCL is a bank”. In their view, the simple interpretation of CRCL as a spread-eating bank is a very superficial observation。

IN THEIR VIEW, THE CRCL WAS ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS THAT WAS TYPICAL OF A “LOSS OF MONEY BEFORE MONOPOLY”. THE PROFIT SPLIT IS NOT FORCED, BUT A STRATEGIC CHOICE。The essence is not to make money in the short term, but in exchange for the irreversible accumulation of scale, network effects and the mind of the user。

They are similar to Amazon, many, and Kyoto companies: these companies have suffered losses for many years and are considered to have had problems with business models, but have since proved to be “buy-the-market” costs rather than structural deficiencies. If you measure these companies with current profits, you can only conclude that they “should have collapsed”。

In their view, stabilizing the currency market is a highly likely "winner-take-all" trackONCE THE USDC HAS DEVELOPED AN IRREVERSIBLE ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE AND SCALE, TODAY APPEARS TO BE A HEAVY COST-SHARING EXERCISE, WHICH WILL TRANSLATE INTO PRICING RIGHTS IN THE FUTURE。At that time, the state of “sought for others” became “others for access”。

ii. Will the interest-rate cycle pierce the profit model

JIANG ZHOR AND PART OF THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH ARE CLEAR: INTEREST RATES ARE THE LIFELINE OF CRCL。

Because of the high dependency of Circe ' s income on the United States debt rate, as long as interest rate trends are downward, the cap on CRCL ' s income is systematically reduced. Even with the increase in the size of the USDC, it is, in their view, difficult to fully offset the negative effects of the interest rate cycle。

THEY PREFER TO SEE CRCL AS A “FINANCIAL MARGIN” THAT IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO MACRO-INTEREST RATES, RATHER THAN AS A ENDOGENOUS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY。

BTCdayu and qimbafrank judge:Interest rates are not key variables, but size。

THEY CONSIDERED THE INTEREST RATE REDUCTION TO BE GRADUAL RATHER THAN ONE-OFF COLLAPSE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE REAL OUTBREAK OF THE CURRENCY OF STABILITY HAS NOT YET ARRIVED. ONCE THE CURRENCY STABILIZATION BILL HAS LANDED, MORE TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESS USERS WILL BE COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENCY, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF USDC MAY RISE FROM THE CURRENT LEVEL OF LESS THAN $100 BILLION TO 2000-300 BILLION, OR EVEN HIGHER, IN A FEW YEARS。

They don't worry about the fine question of " next year's interest rate is 3% or 2.5%." In their view, as long as the scale of issuance is growing much faster than the downward trend in interest rates, the overall scale of returns continues to expand。

They tend to argue that the current market over-targets the explicit variable of “interest rates”, while underestimating the more subtle but powerful force of “compliance-driven scale migration”。

More importantly, Coinbase's split agreement is the “outcome of commercial negotiations” and not eternal. When the market position of the CRCL shifts from “for distribution” to “dependency”, the voice is naturally skewed。

III. STABLE CURRENCY WAR: WILL CRCL BE CRUSHED BY GIANTS

Jiang Zhor's judgement on the pattern of competition is pessimistic。

IN HIS VIEW, ONCE TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL GIANTS, SUCH AS THE MORGAN CHASE, WERE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR A COMPANY OF THIS SIZE TO COPE WITH CREDIT ENDORSEMENTS, CHANNEL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY INFLUENCE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, GIANTS ARE WELL PLACED TO TAKE MARKET SHARES BY SUBSIDIES, CONCESSIONS AND EVEN DISCOUNTS。

IN HIS VIEW, CRCL DID NOT HAVE THE SAME ANTI-CENSORSHIP ATTRIBUTES AS THE USDT, NOR WAS IT NON-ALTERNATIVE. THE CRCL MAY BE MARGINALIZED ONCE THE STABILITY OF TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS HAS BEGUN TO SPREAD。

@BTCdayu says:THE COMPETITION FOR A STABLE CURRENCY IS ESSENTIALLY A WAR OF MIND AMONG USERS. THE USDC HAS DEVELOPED INVISIBLE MOATS THROUGH COMPLIANCE, LICENSING, PARTNERSHIPS AND LONG-TERM ACCUMULATION。In the future, most of the funds may still go to the safest and most recognized USDC. The strategic alliance of CRCL with Coinbase, Beled, JP Morgan and others, as well as the upcoming first United States currency stabilization bank licence, further consolidated its market position。

BTCdayu and qimbafrank, on the other hand, emphasize that this is a miscalculation of the logic of the competition for a stable currency。

In their view, the stabilization currency is not a mere financial product, but a typical “networked product”. The true moat is not capital strength, but user intelligence, security consensus and migration costs。

THEY POINT OUT THAT MORGAN CHASE IS NOW WORKING ON A STABLE CURRENCY PRODUCT, BUT THAT MORE IS A “DEPOSIT TOKEN” OF INTRA-INSTITUTIONAL CIRCULATION, A CLOSED SYSTEM, MORE LIKE AN ENTERPRISE VERSION OF A Q CURRENCY THAN AN OPEN NETWORK USDC。

In their viewLargest stabilization coins serve their own business systems more than build a globally open clearing-house network。THE TRUE COMPETITION WITH THE USDC IS THE SAME OPEN, COMPLIANT, PORTFOLIOD AND STABLE CURRENCY SYSTEM, NOT THE BANK ' S OWN CLOSED ASSETS。

IV. Is compliance a moat or an invisible risk

The blogger says:THE CRCL PROFIT MODEL IS BASED ON THE INSTITUTIONAL ADVANTAGES OF A REGULATORY VACUUM. ONCE RULES CHANGE, THE ADVANTAGE MAY BECOME A SHACKLE。

BTCdayu and qinbafrank judge the opposite。

In their view, the road to the stabilization of the currency would sooner or later lead to a phase of “enrolled”. Those who take the lead in completing compliance can become part of the national infrastructure。

In their logicCompliance is a clearing-house mechanism, not a restraint mechanism。THE GREY SPACE IS GRADUALLY SQUEEZED, AND IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF USDC, A PLAYER THAT'S ALREADY IN DEEP COMPLIANCE。

V. Short-term transactional dimensions: release, depression and rhythm

Phyrex_Ni has a more trade-oriented perspective。

HIS CORE CONCERN WAS NOT LONG-TERM LOGIC, BUT SHORT-TERM SUPPLY AND DEMAND STRUCTURES. HE FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT CRCL HAD ENTERED THE LARGE-SCALE DEBARMENT WINDOW AND THAT THE LOCKS OF EXECUTIVES, FOUNDERS, EMPLOYEES AND EARLY INVESTORS HAD REGULARLY ENDED。

He did not believe that the shares would be sold centrally, but he believed that it was a typical “sudden increase in supply” phase, with an additional downward pressure on stock prices。

His attitude was very clear: the price was no longer expensive, but he was not willing to bear the "time cost + opportunity cost" and preferredWe'll decide when the uncertainty is releasedI don't know。

VI. REAL OBSTACLES TO PAYMENT: THE STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS OF USDC IN THE UNITED STATES

Phyrex_Ni raised an issue that was rarely discussed, but he thought was critical: tax attributes。

HE NOTED THAT, UNDER THE UNITED STATES TAX SYSTEM, USDC WAS NOT TREATED AS “CASH”, BUT AS “ASSETS”. THIS MEANS THAT EACH USDC PAYMENT MAY TRIGGER AN OBLIGATION TO CALCULATE CAPITAL GAINS。

THIS MAKES IT HARD FOR USDC TO ENTER THE US RETAIL PAYMENT SCENE. EVEN IF THE REGULATORY PATH IS CLEAR, AS LONG AS TAX LAWS ARE NOT CHANGED, LARGE-SCALE C-END PAYMENTS ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE。

IN HIS VIEW, IT WOULD LIMIT USDC'S PAYMENT CEILING ON THE MAINLAND OF THE UNITED STATES, MAKING IT MORE LIKELY TO REMAIN IN B2B, CROSS-BORDER LIQUIDATION AND THE FINANCIAL BACK END, RATHER THAN BECOME A TRUE “DIGITAL CASH”。

Long-term space: cyclical or structural opportunities

qimbafrank is typical of a long and multi-cycle。

His logic is not complicated: a stable currency is a huge track and far from the ceiling. From the hundreds of billions of dollars that are now, to the trillions that lie ahead, it is not a matter of day。

IN HIS VIEW, IN A 10-FOLD MARKET, THE LEAD AND PROXIES HAD A NATURAL PREMIUM. CRCL, THOUGH NOT THE ABSOLUTE FIRST, IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST COMPLIANT AND MOST EASILY ADMITTED TO THE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM。

In his view, what the market really needed to do was not to struggle with short-term fluctuations, but to identify, in such a structural track, which companies were eligible to participate in the “last round of concentration dividends”。

Summary

The cheaper the price, the more careful it should be, not the easier to deny it. Short-term structural risks are currently visible: excessive distribution costs, dependence on interest rates, supply pressures from deregulation, and the potential impact of marginal changes in tax systems and regulation; multiple bets are on structural dividends over longer periods of time: the migration of global settlement needs, the process of institutionalization of compliant stabilization currencies, and “quasi-infrastructure attributes” once network-based products have developed。

It is undeniable that, for a long time to come, Circe may be difficult to defeat Tether, but, similarly, new competitors will be extremely difficult to replicate in a short time the compliance paths, channel networks, and institutional trust that Circe has completed。