80% is Hype? Six Major Red Flags to See Stable's True Intent

Editor's Note: Recently, Stable completed two significant rounds of presale events in a short period of time. The initial allocation of 8.25 billion USD was quickly sold out, and the second round saw qualified subscriptions surpassing 11 billion USD, attracting high industry attention.

However, behind the impressive data, there are also backgrounds that need to be clarified. The project is driven by key figures from Tether, with USDT as the native asset forming a strong peg. The presale allocation is highly concentrated among early institutions and insiders. Moreover, from the enactment of the "GENIUS Act" to the accelerated project development, the timing between the two is overly tight.

This article attempts to present a more complete picture beyond the hype, addressing what infrastructure problems it is solving, who benefited in the early stages, where the risks lie, and why this issuance is worth careful scrutiny beyond the surface.

The following is the translation of the original text.

TL;DR: Overview

Stable project swept the field with a TVL of 8.25 billion USD in the first phase, completing the raise in just 20 minutes, and has recently launched the public testnet. However, behind this frenzy, there are some uncomfortable issues: risks brought by the high concentration of stablecoins, insider positioning in advance, and whether this project is actually solving payment issues or just creating a new batch of "bagholders." Below is an attempt at an honest interpretation:

What is the project?

A Layer 1 based on USDT as the native asset, backed by Tether insiders—but who is really benefiting?

Key Data:

Raised 28 million USD in seed funding, presale size of 8.25 billion USD (snatched up in 20 minutes—was it too fast?); the public testnet is live, but the mainnet is still weeks away from launch, and early insiders are already preparing to exit.

Core Narrative:

Stablecoins need a new payment rail, but the current design of Stable is more favorable to those who got in early, putting retail investors at a clear "disadvantageous" position.

Value Proposition: 7/10

What problem is it actually solving:

Using USDT as gas does eliminate the hassle of dealing with two different tokens, which is a valid point. But there is a blunt question: Do users really care about this, or are they mainly chasing after the high yields of yield farming?

Honest Assessment:

It does indeed address a real issue (gas fees for stablecoin transfers), but on Solana / Polygon, a single $100,000 transfer has long been achievable for less than $1 in fees. Tether's USDT0 cross-chain mechanism can achieve a similar effect without needing to create a new L1 chain. The so-called "pain point" may not be as significant as marketing makes it out to be

Truly Valuable Aspect:

It seems more like a payment infrastructure for institutions rather than a retail-side payment innovation.

But the current structure is: Retail investors handle speculation, while institutions take away the value at the protocol layer.

Six Key Red Flags

Red Flag 1: Solving for the Sake of Solving; the Problem Isn't That Painful

USDT transfers are already very cheap, with fees generally less than $1 on @Solana. So why specifically launch a brand-new L1 chain just to further reduce fees by 10–20%?

Competitive Landscape: 6/10

Real Competitive Environment:

@Plasma ($XPL): Similar narrative, smaller funding scale, but with a different tokenomics design

@Solana + $USDT: USDT daily trading volume has already reached the $5 billion level, with low friction usage

@LayerZero_Core / $USDT0: Transferring USDT can be accomplished through existing cross-chain infrastructure, avoiding the need for a new chain

Why Stable isn't Indestructible:

First-mover advantage does exist, but can be replicated within 6 months

If alternative solutions are equally usable, sustained network effects are challenging to accumulate

Validator high centralization (only about thirty major validators) implies significant centralization risk

Red Flag 2: Suspicious Timing

《GENIUS Act》 passed (June 2025)

→ @Tether_to suddenly accelerates new L1 in August 2025

→ Pre-sale oversubscribed by 39x in October 2025

This series of timing events looks like a pre-planned coordinated move.

Growth and Hype: 7/10

$8.25 Billion Pre-sale: Taking a Reality Check

Sold out in 20 minutes (more like FOMO than organic demand), with a high probability of 95% of funds coming from whales and insiders with advance knowledge, leaving almost no FOMO stage for retail investors due to the rapid fill-up. Funds are locked until mainnet launch, preventing early exits.

What these phenomena actually indicate:

Institutional interest is indeed present, but funds and chips are highly concentrated. Early insiders are likely to sell at mainnet launch, with retail investors likely entering at the peak of excitement.

Public Testnet Activity (Average):

Discord subscribers 600+ (not impressive for a project focusing on a new L1), developer activity remains to be observed (only two weeks since testnet launch). Real applications will not be rolled out until after mainnet launch, with no actual on-chain transaction volume data to refer to.

Red Flag 3: Pre-sale Structure Design

Funds are locked in a vault until mainnet launch, only unlocking upon open claim.

This is a classic 'Unlock-Dump' structure:

Early depositors naturally become the most motivated sellers when they can claim.

Narrative and Story: 7/10

Why the Story Sounds Compelling:

A clear regulatory framework (《GENIUS Act》) creates a sense of urgency that "if you don't get in now, you'll miss out"

Endorsed by @Tether_to, it looks like receiving official institutional approval at a higher level

There is indeed a gap in payment infrastructure objectively

From a chronological perspective, everything seems to have naturally fallen into place

The loophole in this narrative:

"USDT as gas" is not a disruptive innovation but rather an incremental improvement. The adoption of stablecoins itself does not rely on creating a new L1 chain; the real beneficiaries are insiders of the protocol rather than regular users.

The story told to retail investors remains the same: "Hold stablecoins and earn additional yield," which has already been a proven classic trap in the previous cycle

Red Flag 4: The regulatory story seems a bit too "over-the-top"

The "GENIUS Act" has just been passed, and immediately, a perfectly timed and unbeatable narrative USDT L1 emerges? Overall, it feels more like a transaction that was already structured waiting for regulatory approval, conveniently wrapped in a layer of compliance.

Supporter Score: 5/10

The Real Beneficiaries:

@paoloardoino (Tether CEO): If Stable becomes the mainstream payment rail, he is the most direct beneficiary

@bitfinex: As a liquidity provider, they can continue to earn money through transaction fees

Franklin Templeton: Strategic investors laying out on the emerging infrastructure

Early seed round investors: Stuck in a position before the mainnet launch, waiting to offload at the peak of mainnet hype

Potential Casualties:

Buyers of pre-deposit reserves, latecomers to the mainnet, and regular users who think this is a "free payment" solution (they will pay the price elsewhere)

Red Flag 5: Conflict of Interest

Tether's CEO is advocating for a infrastructure with $USDT as the native token—The more USDT is used, the more he earns.

Such a clear conflict of interest, yet it has not been emphasized as a "major conflict" publicly.

Red Flag 6: Insider Pre-positioning

A $28 million seed round, most likely receiving a substantial allocation. The presale itself is filled with insider funds

Moment of mainnet launch → Insiders almost guaranteed to be able to offload chips to retail FOMO

Market Timing: 6/10

Why launch now?

The "GENIUS Act" provides a compliance umbrella, with the market sentiment towards stablecoins overall being positive. But all of this, timing-wise, seems a bit too "perfect"

Potential Red Flags:

Regulatory backlash (opposition to the "GENIUS Act" itself); Competing L1 stablecoins launching faster, stealing the narrative; Post mainnet launch, real trading volume falls short of expectations; Insider dumping causing a token price crash

A more candid explanation:

The pace of this issuance is: "We wait for regulatory clarity, then immediately rush into the market." This is either textbook-level execution, or a highly coordinated "carefully orchestrated" plan.

Conclusion

Final Score: 38/60 (63%)

Bull Case (Still Holding):

Global payment infrastructure is indeed very important; A network based on USDT as the native asset may well become an industry standard in the future; Pre-positioning in infrastructure can indeed capture long-term value; From the information disclosed so far, the mainnet's technical execution seems reasonably sound

Bear Case (Equally Valid):

Insiders have already heavily positioned themselves well before retail entry; The problem being solved has already been "mostly solved" by existing solutions; The tokenomics heavily favor early depositors but disadvantage latecomers buying on mainnet; If the "GENIUS Act" faces challenges, the project faces regulatory uncertainty

The Uncomfortable Truth:

This may indeed be a project that is "not bad" on the infrastructure front, but its distribution and issuance mechanism clearly heavily favor insiders: Early depositors are most incentivized to sell at the top of mainnet FOMO, while retail investors are usually left holding the bag when emotions are highest.

This is as classic a structure as it gets.

Conclusion:

Stable has a solid technical standpoint and indeed targets a real problem.

However, its choice of timing, pre-deposit mechanism, and internal positioning are all highly in line with that kind of—

“It looks like infrastructure upgrade but is essentially an early insider-friendly issuance” standard paradigm.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the project is bad,

it just means: the risk is extremely asymmetric.

Be sure to think about: which side of the timeline you are currently on.

This is not investment advice, but you can note one detail:

Institutional pre-deposits were filled in 20 minutes,

while on the retail side, people were still asking, “What is Stable?”.

The time difference between insiders and retail entry

is often where most losses occur.

“Original Article Link”