The stablecoin issuer Circle has recently successfully gone public through an IPO, which undoubtedly marks a significant milestone for the overall crypto market, but it has also ignited a heated debate within the crypto community about "value distribution." DeFi players who have long supported USDC but have received no returns are questioning: "Do they really have a share in this victory?"
Who created USDC, but is now forgotten?
DeFi analyst Ignas candidly stated on X that he feels "a bit uncomfortable" about Circle's successful listing. He pointed out that the early adopters of USDC were precisely the crypto native community and DeFi users, who were among the first to support the stablecoin infrastructure, yet they have failed to share in any of the outcomes:
NGL, I feel a bit salty about $CRCL‘s success.
Crypto natives, and especially DeFi users, were early USDC adopters. We form the core user base.
Crypto is amazing because it rewards early adopters: from BTC, ETH, to multiple airdrops.
Yet, the upside from Circle’s success…
— Ignas | Decentralized Finance (@DefiIgnas) June 9, 2025
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and various airdrops have always rewarded early users, which is the core value of the crypto market. But USDC has no holding interest (base yield), no $CRCL stock distribution, no airdrops, nothing at all.
Ignas believes that while Circle's success brings a halo to the crypto world, for the DeFi community, it is like "standing on the sidelines watching others share the profits."
Why Ripple's acquisition of Circle could become the "doomsday for Ethereum and Decentralized Finance"?
Does moving from on-chain to traditional finance betray the crypto community?
Circle enters traditional markets with shares for $($CRCL) (TradFi), where ordinary investors can only buy through securities accounts, which makes Ignas believe that the entire crypto value is being "sucked up." He worries that the prosperity of USDC has instead allowed funds to flow from the chain to the traditional financial system, forming an outflow of value.
( Traditional finance integrating blockchain leaves encryption in the shadows: What has Cypherpunk left behind after moving to the margins? )
Even so, he admitted that Circle's success is not a bad thing for the overall industry:
Payment applications will thus become widespread, the supply of stablecoins will also expand, which will in turn boost on-chain transaction activities and the valuation of underlying public chains.
He helplessly said, "In the future, I will tend to support those stablecoin projects that are willing to leave rewards for early users, such as Ethena, MakerDAO, Frax, etc., rather than Tether or Circle."
DeFi protocol listing craze? ETFs and SPACs become the channels
Daily Degen news writer @rektdiomedes responded, stating that this "value distribution imbalance" issue will eventually find a solution:
Future DeFi protocols will transfer value to native users and token holders in various ways, possibly through token valuation repricing, the protocol going public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), or by launching ETFs.
He cited examples, including Frax considering going public through a SPAC, and Aave possibly entering the traditional financial market via an ETF within one or two years.
In other words, even though current native users are marginalized in the Circle listing, in the long run, this wave of regulation will drive the entire Decentralized Finance protocols into broader capital channels.
(SEC's legal amendment supports DeFi! Chairman Atkins: Miners and block validators do not violate securities laws, supporting encryption innovation)
Interestingly, some have mentioned Tether's alternative "reward method." @happysubstack pointed out that although Tether has always been opaque and has not provided users with direct profit sharing, at least they have funneled some of their profits back into the crypto market, such as by making large purchases of Bitcoin, which indirectly stabilizes market prices.
(Tether announces the open-source Bitcoin mining system MOS: creating a winning ground for small and medium miners, bidding farewell to the monopoly ecosystem)
This point was also endorsed by Ignas, who even raised the question: "So, could it be that Tether is actually better than USDC for the crypto field?"
In the absence of a direct feedback mechanism, Tether's strategy has instead sparked positive reactions from the community, highlighting the gap in Circle's value return to users.
Next stage: The battle of stablecoins returns to "user-centric"
This debate is not just an emotional reaction, but reveals that the crypto industry is heading towards a critical crossroads: "Should stablecoin issuers serve the traditional market, or focus on the crypto-native community?"
The DeFi community has always emphasized the issue of "how value is distributed," highlighting that their support is not just for the stablecoin itself, but for the values it represents behind it—whether it is a shared fortune and misfortune, whether it is transparent, and whether it still belongs to this on-chain world.
As Circle steps onto the stage of traditional capital markets, the struggle for discourse power over stablecoins is just beginning.
This article covers the DeFi transition to traditional finance. Is the stablecoin issuer Circle going public a kind of crypto jerk? It first appeared on Chain News ABMedia.
The content is for reference only, not a solicitation or offer. No investment, tax, or legal advice provided. See Disclaimer for more risks disclosure.
Is the listing of stablecoin issuer Circle considered a kind of encryption scumbag as DeFi spreads towards TradFi?
The stablecoin issuer Circle has recently successfully gone public through an IPO, which undoubtedly marks a significant milestone for the overall crypto market, but it has also ignited a heated debate within the crypto community about "value distribution." DeFi players who have long supported USDC but have received no returns are questioning: "Do they really have a share in this victory?"
Who created USDC, but is now forgotten?
DeFi analyst Ignas candidly stated on X that he feels "a bit uncomfortable" about Circle's successful listing. He pointed out that the early adopters of USDC were precisely the crypto native community and DeFi users, who were among the first to support the stablecoin infrastructure, yet they have failed to share in any of the outcomes:
NGL, I feel a bit salty about $CRCL‘s success.
Crypto natives, and especially DeFi users, were early USDC adopters. We form the core user base.
Crypto is amazing because it rewards early adopters: from BTC, ETH, to multiple airdrops.
Yet, the upside from Circle’s success…
— Ignas | Decentralized Finance (@DefiIgnas) June 9, 2025
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and various airdrops have always rewarded early users, which is the core value of the crypto market. But USDC has no holding interest (base yield), no $CRCL stock distribution, no airdrops, nothing at all.
Ignas believes that while Circle's success brings a halo to the crypto world, for the DeFi community, it is like "standing on the sidelines watching others share the profits."
Why Ripple's acquisition of Circle could become the "doomsday for Ethereum and Decentralized Finance"?
Does moving from on-chain to traditional finance betray the crypto community?
Circle enters traditional markets with shares for $($CRCL) (TradFi), where ordinary investors can only buy through securities accounts, which makes Ignas believe that the entire crypto value is being "sucked up." He worries that the prosperity of USDC has instead allowed funds to flow from the chain to the traditional financial system, forming an outflow of value.
( Traditional finance integrating blockchain leaves encryption in the shadows: What has Cypherpunk left behind after moving to the margins? )
Even so, he admitted that Circle's success is not a bad thing for the overall industry:
Payment applications will thus become widespread, the supply of stablecoins will also expand, which will in turn boost on-chain transaction activities and the valuation of underlying public chains.
He helplessly said, "In the future, I will tend to support those stablecoin projects that are willing to leave rewards for early users, such as Ethena, MakerDAO, Frax, etc., rather than Tether or Circle."
DeFi protocol listing craze? ETFs and SPACs become the channels
Daily Degen news writer @rektdiomedes responded, stating that this "value distribution imbalance" issue will eventually find a solution:
Future DeFi protocols will transfer value to native users and token holders in various ways, possibly through token valuation repricing, the protocol going public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), or by launching ETFs.
He cited examples, including Frax considering going public through a SPAC, and Aave possibly entering the traditional financial market via an ETF within one or two years.
In other words, even though current native users are marginalized in the Circle listing, in the long run, this wave of regulation will drive the entire Decentralized Finance protocols into broader capital channels.
(SEC's legal amendment supports DeFi! Chairman Atkins: Miners and block validators do not violate securities laws, supporting encryption innovation)
Tether Regular Coin Purchase: Reward Method Unexpectedly Praised
Interestingly, some have mentioned Tether's alternative "reward method." @happysubstack pointed out that although Tether has always been opaque and has not provided users with direct profit sharing, at least they have funneled some of their profits back into the crypto market, such as by making large purchases of Bitcoin, which indirectly stabilizes market prices.
(Tether announces the open-source Bitcoin mining system MOS: creating a winning ground for small and medium miners, bidding farewell to the monopoly ecosystem)
This point was also endorsed by Ignas, who even raised the question: "So, could it be that Tether is actually better than USDC for the crypto field?"
In the absence of a direct feedback mechanism, Tether's strategy has instead sparked positive reactions from the community, highlighting the gap in Circle's value return to users.
Next stage: The battle of stablecoins returns to "user-centric"
This debate is not just an emotional reaction, but reveals that the crypto industry is heading towards a critical crossroads: "Should stablecoin issuers serve the traditional market, or focus on the crypto-native community?"
The DeFi community has always emphasized the issue of "how value is distributed," highlighting that their support is not just for the stablecoin itself, but for the values it represents behind it—whether it is a shared fortune and misfortune, whether it is transparent, and whether it still belongs to this on-chain world.
As Circle steps onto the stage of traditional capital markets, the struggle for discourse power over stablecoins is just beginning.
This article covers the DeFi transition to traditional finance. Is the stablecoin issuer Circle going public a kind of crypto jerk? It first appeared on Chain News ABMedia.