When it comes to profit per employee, Tether is the most profitable company in the world. It may even be the most profitable business in the history of business. With $13.7 billion in profit last year and only around 165 employees, that’s over $83 million in profit per employee. It’s a staggering figure—blowing NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) and every other company out of the water. It’s literally off the charts. Has any business in history ever generated this much profit per employee? If there is, I’ve never heard of it.
Tether gives anyone with a smartphone instant, global access to digital US dollars. With a market cap exceeding $162 billion and climbing, USDt (Tether) is the world’s largest stablecoin—and the fourth-largest cryptocurrency overall. Though calling it a "stablecoin"is something of a misnomer—government paper currencies, with their steadily eroding purchasing power, are anything but stable. In that sense, they’re less “stable” and more like “guaranteed-loss coins.”
Tether claims to have over 400 million users globally—and is adding 30 million more every quarter. That’s explosive growth—reminiscent of Facebook (NASDAQ:META) at the height of its expansion. It’s no surprise that USDt is hugely popular in emerging markets and developing countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Turkey—places where local currencies are rapidly losing value, and people turn to the US dollar as a relatively more stable store of value. USDt gives them access to US dollars they might not otherwise be able to get. Tether is like having a US dollar-based checking account—without needing a US bank. For billions of people, it’s simply a better way to hold and send dollars than the sluggish, outdated banking system—which often isn’t even accessible to them in the first place. The average person in Venezuela can’t open a US bank account—but they can access USDt. Today, stablecoins already settle more value than Visa (NYSE:V). Whether people realize it or not, this is the future of dollar payments for billions of people. That’s why stablecoins like USDt aren’t just here to stay—they’re poised to keep exploding in popularity.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e80ddcf1-9ad0-45cf-acc5-f9154c817250
Stablecoins are pretty cool in theory. They promise near-to-instant transfers of any value across any border, at transaction costs that could be far below what’s currently charged. Smart contracts might take the counterparty risk out of escrow and look useful for stuff like subscriptions, insurance and sports betting. And since everything happens in realtime on a public blockchain, there’s full transparency.
In practice, in the more than 10 years since their invention, stablecoins have carved out a few real-world niches but have not been widely adopted for anything other than crypto trading.
That hasn’t stopped people throwing around some very big numbers. For a blast of optimism, try the three brokers that led Circle’s recent IPO.
Goldman Sachs says in its Circle initiation note that most investors expect the value of stablecoins in circulation to grow from $240bn to more than $1tn within three to five years. Citigroup includes in its total addressable market estimates $195tn of cross-border transfers and $1 quadrillion of flows sent via SWIFT. JPMorgan says it’s “in the realm of possibility” for stablecoins to take 10 per cent of the $22tn US M2 money supply.
A $2 trillion move into stablecoin issuers’ reserve accounts, based on current stablecoin asset allocations, would mean that only $68 billion returns to banks as stablecoin issuers’ deposits, with a net loss of $1.932 trillion of deposits. As of the end of March 2025, U.S. banks had $19.21 trillion in deposits. So roughly 10% of bank deposits could be expected to flow into payment stablecoins.
While extreme, such a scenario underscores the risk that banks face. Under this assumption, banks’ average cost of funds is estimated to increase by 20 to 30 basis points (see the sidebar above for details on the calculation). A 10% loss of bank deposits would directly reduce credit extension by the banking industry. As banks would be forced to source funding from more expensive sources, this in turn would raise their lending rate, which in turn would hurt all their borrowers, households and businesses around the country.
As widely recognized in policy discussion, stablecoin-driven demand for Treasuries may lower the federal government’s borrowing costs. But this comes with a critical trade-off: reduced access to credit for households and businesses as banks lose low-cost deposits and therefore face rising funding costs. Over time, this could slow economic activity and weaken smaller banks that anchor local communities. As stablecoin regulation advances, policymakers must weigh short-term fiscal gains against the long-term health of the real economy.
© Copyright