When people look at stablecoins, they often point to Tether’s ~$200B market cap as proof that the sector has already “won.” But that’s a shallow reading. If USDT truly had product-market fit, we wouldn’t be talking about hundreds of billions; we’d be talking about trillions.

Relative to the global money supply (M2), stablecoins account for a negligible amount, less than 1%. That’s not because demand is missing. On the contrary, the use cases are obvious, from global payments to DeFi collateral to a safe dollar-denominated unit on the internet. The real bottleneck is on the supply side.

Why? Because the prevailing design of fully collateralized stablecoins, 1:1 with dollars in a bank account, doesn’t scale well. In a high-interest-rate environment, the cost of keeping all collateral locked up is enormous, which naturally caps the amount that can be issued. Traditional banking solved this problem centuries ago: they don’t operate at a 1:1 ratio. They operate with fractional reserves, expanding the supply while managing liquidity risk.

Stablecoins today have not yet reached product-market fit because their supply models are fundamentally constrained. Until that changes, demand will stay underserved.

Most new stablecoin projects start with the same question: Who’s going to use our coin?

And so they chase remittances corridors, DeFi adoption, payment rails, merchant integrations, or institutional corridors (divided mainly by governments, territories, and regulations). But in doing so, they inherit a limitation: the supply side is already congested and structurally constrained.

Let’s look at some recent stablecoin launches to see how this plays out in practice:

• pUSD (Polkadot) — The Polkadot community is pushing for a native stablecoin backed by DOT, aiming to deepen DeFi liquidity on its own chain. BeInCrypto

• FDUSD (First Digital USD) — A newer USD-backed entrant, with an emphasis on transparency and compliance. MoonPay

• USAT (Tether U.S.) — Tether is launching a U.S.-specific stablecoin to comply with U.S. regulatory frameworks (e.g., via Anchorage Digital Bank). Reuters

• Euro-stablecoin by European banks — A consortium of major European banks (ING, UniCredit, etc.) is forming a euro-denominated stablecoin, aiming at Europe’s payments infrastructure. ing.co

• cNGN (Nigerian Naira Stablecoin) — A 1:1 pegged stablecoin backed by Naira, regulated by Nigeria’s SEC, reflecting adoption in emerging markets. Wikipedia

These launches reveal two things:

1. Everyone wants a slice of the new market: The variety of these launches underscores the crowded nature of the demand-side battlefield. Each new stablecoin attempts to differentiate itself through compliance, backing, chain-specific integration, or a regulatory posture.

2. Supply remains the tougher challenge: Despite all those launches, none are yet big enough to meaningfully shift the supply/demand ratio in the stablecoin space because issuing stablecoins at scale isn’t simply about code or capital but about navigating the economics of collateral, interest rates, and liquidity risk.

Why does demand-side GTM stall? Here’s what typically happens in this model:

• You acquire users or integrations, but you can’t mint your stablecoin fast enough.

• You become dependent on banking relationships, reserve yield, and regulatory constraints (which are very tight in stablecoins).

• High-interest-rate environments drastically raise the cost of holding reserves in cash or low-yield assets, squeezing margins or forcing conservatism in issuance.

In short, the demand is there, and it may even be underserved. But most existing supply-constrained models are too conservative, too collateral-heavy, too risk-averse, and so they can’t unlock the latent demand they target.

At The Fedz, we start from a simple premise: the demand for stablecoins is already proven. Users want digital on-chain dollars. Traders want liquidity. Communities want their own currency rails. The missing piece is not demand, but the ability to unlock supply at scale.

That’s why our go-to-market is supply-first. Instead of chasing end-users or specific remittance corridors, we build infrastructure that enables and sustains printing.

Here’s how our model differs from the 1:1 collateral approach:

• Fractional Reserve, Not Full Reserve

  • Traditional banks don’t keep 100% of cash deposits; they operate with fractional reserves, expanding supply while managing risk.

  • We apply the same principle on-chain, with improvements: liquidity buffers, sequential access, and controlled minting enable FUSD to grow its supply beyond the rigid limits of full collateral.

• Private Liquidity Pools (PLPs)

  • Liquidity isn’t just linear and naive anymore, but it’s structured. PLPs are pre-committed pools, locked by NFT-holders, that absorb stress and release liquidity at predefined price points.

  • This ensures resilience during periods of volatility and supports the peg without requiring constant one-to-one backing.

• NFTs as Banking Charters

  • Every NFT holder in The Fedz is a potential “printer.”

  • NFTs control access to liquidity, sequential turns, and minting rights, ensuring that issuance is both decentralized and coordinated.

• Sequential Access Mechanism

  • Instead of free-for-all withdrawals (the classic trigger for bank runs), The Fedz uses a turn-based system.

  • This prevents coordination failure and ensures liquidity is released gradually, keeping FUSD stable even under stress.

By prioritizing supply-side mechanics, we flip the script: the question isn’t “Who will use FUSD?” but “How can we expand the supply of FUSD to meet the demand already waiting?”

The beauty of money is that once it exists in sufficient supply, use cases emerge naturally. We don’t need to convince people to use dollars. We need to make them available, reliable, and liquid. The same applies to the on-chain derivative version.

A supply-first strategy unlocks three powerful dynamics:

• Liquidity Creates Its Own Demand

  • The more FUSD exists, the more natural it becomes for traders, communities, and protocols to adopt it.

  • Network effects in money aren’t about marketing but about availability. If FUSD is liquid, it will be used.

  • DeFi and AMMs are the best examples. If we have liquidity available on-chain, protocols like AMMs and aggregators can utilize it, even without the end user being aware of it.

• Financial stability is the Real Constraint

  • Right now, the stablecoin market is not demand-capped; it’s supply-capped.

  • Fully collateralized models limit issuance to the size of reserves. Fractional models, by contrast, scale supply with trust and smart liquidity design, and we do it exactly how banking systems grew in the first place.

• History Shows Supply Comes First

  • When central banks built modern money systems, they didn’t wait for “product-market fit” in payments. They expanded M2 and built mechanisms to manage risk.

  • Today, stablecoins are at the same inflection point. The demand is universal, but only those who solve the supply bottleneck will reach true scale.

The lesson is simple: stablecoins that focus on end-user adoption without unlocking supply are running uphill. Stablecoins that prioritize supply are laying the groundwork for inevitable demand to follow.

The Fedz is still small. We’re in the early stages, an experiment in fractional-reserve stablecoins, running at limited scale with controlled liquidity and NFT-gated access. We don’t pretend otherwise.

But here’s the difference: while other stablecoin projects measure success in today’s market share, we’re focused on the path to proper product-market fit. For stablecoins, that means not just hundreds of billions in circulation, but trillions.

The global money supply (M2) is measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. Stablecoins barely scrape 1% of that. The gap is enormous, and it won’t be filled by models limited to 1:1 reserves. It will be filled by systems that, like traditional banking, learn to expand supply while managing risk.

That’s what The Fedz is building. We are:

• Proving that fractional-reserve mechanics can work safely in DeFi.

• Demonstrating that sequential access and private liquidity pools can prevent the classic bank-run dynamics.

• Building a decentralized infrastructure that enables the community to become a printer of its own stablecoin.

Yes, we’re starting small. But the blueprint we’re testing is designed for scale. And our conviction is simple: if you can expand supply responsibly, demand will be there waiting.

We plan big because the opportunity is significant. True product-market fit in stablecoins hasn’t been reached yet, and The Fedz is here to take that shot.

Stablecoins are becoming the backbone of the crypto industry, but so far, they’ve been supply-capped, reserve-heavy, and mostly centralized. The Fedz is taking a different path: building a system where supply can finally expand to meet demand, and where stability doesn’t come at the cost of decentralization.

Our model is more than just efficient; it’s also decentralized. NFTs as banking licenses, sequential turns, and private liquidity pools create a system where no single entity controls the money printer. That matters. In the rush for scale, decentralization is often forgotten. At The Fedz, it’s non-negotiable.

We’re still early, but we’re building for the long game: a fractional-reserve stablecoin that scales like money should, and stays true to the ethos of crypto.

Don’t Miss Your Turn. The real breakthrough in stablecoins isn’t demand — it’s unlocking supply. That’s precisely what The Fedz is here to do.

– The Fedz

When people look at stablecoins, they often point to Tether’s ~$200B market cap as proof that the sector has already “won.” But that’s a shallow reading. If USDT truly had product-market fit, we wouldn’t be talking about hundreds of billions; we’d be talking about trillions.

Relative to the global money supply (M2), stablecoins account for a negligible amount, less than 1%. That’s not because demand is missing. On the contrary, the use cases are obvious, from global payments to DeFi collateral to a safe dollar-denominated unit on the internet. The real bottleneck is on the supply side.

Why? Because the prevailing design of fully collateralized stablecoins, 1:1 with dollars in a bank account, doesn’t scale well. In a high-interest-rate environment, the cost of keeping all collateral locked up is enormous, which naturally caps the amount that can be issued. Traditional banking solved this problem centuries ago: they don’t operate at a 1:1 ratio. They operate with fractional reserves, expanding the supply while managing liquidity risk.

Stablecoins today have not yet reached product-market fit because their supply models are fundamentally constrained. Until that changes, demand will stay underserved.

Most new stablecoin projects start with the same question: Who’s going to use our coin?

And so they chase remittances corridors, DeFi adoption, payment rails, merchant integrations, or institutional corridors (divided mainly by governments, territories, and regulations). But in doing so, they inherit a limitation: the supply side is already congested and structurally constrained.

Let’s look at some recent stablecoin launches to see how this plays out in practice:

• pUSD (Polkadot) — The Polkadot community is pushing for a native stablecoin backed by DOT, aiming to deepen DeFi liquidity on its own chain. BeInCrypto

• FDUSD (First Digital USD) — A newer USD-backed entrant, with an emphasis on transparency and compliance. MoonPay

• USAT (Tether U.S.) — Tether is launching a U.S.-specific stablecoin to comply with U.S. regulatory frameworks (e.g., via Anchorage Digital Bank). Reuters

• Euro-stablecoin by European banks — A consortium of major European banks (ING, UniCredit, etc.) is forming a euro-denominated stablecoin, aiming at Europe’s payments infrastructure. ing.co

• cNGN (Nigerian Naira Stablecoin) — A 1:1 pegged stablecoin backed by Naira, regulated by Nigeria’s SEC, reflecting adoption in emerging markets. Wikipedia

These launches reveal two things:

1. Everyone wants a slice of the new market: The variety of these launches underscores the crowded nature of the demand-side battlefield. Each new stablecoin attempts to differentiate itself through compliance, backing, chain-specific integration, or a regulatory posture.

2. Supply remains the tougher challenge: Despite all those launches, none are yet big enough to meaningfully shift the supply/demand ratio in the stablecoin space because issuing stablecoins at scale isn’t simply about code or capital but about navigating the economics of collateral, interest rates, and liquidity risk.

Why does demand-side GTM stall? Here’s what typically happens in this model:

• You acquire users or integrations, but you can’t mint your stablecoin fast enough.

• You become dependent on banking relationships, reserve yield, and regulatory constraints (which are very tight in stablecoins).

• High-interest-rate environments drastically raise the cost of holding reserves in cash or low-yield assets, squeezing margins or forcing conservatism in issuance.

In short, the demand is there, and it may even be underserved. But most existing supply-constrained models are too conservative, too collateral-heavy, too risk-averse, and so they can’t unlock the latent demand they target.

At The Fedz, we start from a simple premise: the demand for stablecoins is already proven. Users want digital on-chain dollars. Traders want liquidity. Communities want their own currency rails. The missing piece is not demand, but the ability to unlock supply at scale.

That’s why our go-to-market is supply-first. Instead of chasing end-users or specific remittance corridors, we build infrastructure that enables and sustains printing.

Here’s how our model differs from the 1:1 collateral approach:

• Fractional Reserve, Not Full Reserve

  • Traditional banks don’t keep 100% of cash deposits; they operate with fractional reserves, expanding supply while managing risk.

  • We apply the same principle on-chain, with improvements: liquidity buffers, sequential access, and controlled minting enable FUSD to grow its supply beyond the rigid limits of full collateral.

• Private Liquidity Pools (PLPs)

  • Liquidity isn’t just linear and naive anymore, but it’s structured. PLPs are pre-committed pools, locked by NFT-holders, that absorb stress and release liquidity at predefined price points.

  • This ensures resilience during periods of volatility and supports the peg without requiring constant one-to-one backing.

• NFTs as Banking Charters

  • Every NFT holder in The Fedz is a potential “printer.”

  • NFTs control access to liquidity, sequential turns, and minting rights, ensuring that issuance is both decentralized and coordinated.

• Sequential Access Mechanism

  • Instead of free-for-all withdrawals (the classic trigger for bank runs), The Fedz uses a turn-based system.

  • This prevents coordination failure and ensures liquidity is released gradually, keeping FUSD stable even under stress.

By prioritizing supply-side mechanics, we flip the script: the question isn’t “Who will use FUSD?” but “How can we expand the supply of FUSD to meet the demand already waiting?”

The beauty of money is that once it exists in sufficient supply, use cases emerge naturally. We don’t need to convince people to use dollars. We need to make them available, reliable, and liquid. The same applies to the on-chain derivative version.

A supply-first strategy unlocks three powerful dynamics:

• Liquidity Creates Its Own Demand

  • The more FUSD exists, the more natural it becomes for traders, communities, and protocols to adopt it.

  • Network effects in money aren’t about marketing but about availability. If FUSD is liquid, it will be used.

  • DeFi and AMMs are the best examples. If we have liquidity available on-chain, protocols like AMMs and aggregators can utilize it, even without the end user being aware of it.

• Financial stability is the Real Constraint

  • Right now, the stablecoin market is not demand-capped; it’s supply-capped.

  • Fully collateralized models limit issuance to the size of reserves. Fractional models, by contrast, scale supply with trust and smart liquidity design, and we do it exactly how banking systems grew in the first place.

• History Shows Supply Comes First

  • When central banks built modern money systems, they didn’t wait for “product-market fit” in payments. They expanded M2 and built mechanisms to manage risk.

  • Today, stablecoins are at the same inflection point. The demand is universal, but only those who solve the supply bottleneck will reach true scale.

The lesson is simple: stablecoins that focus on end-user adoption without unlocking supply are running uphill. Stablecoins that prioritize supply are laying the groundwork for inevitable demand to follow.

The Fedz is still small. We’re in the early stages, an experiment in fractional-reserve stablecoins, running at limited scale with controlled liquidity and NFT-gated access. We don’t pretend otherwise.

But here’s the difference: while other stablecoin projects measure success in today’s market share, we’re focused on the path to proper product-market fit. For stablecoins, that means not just hundreds of billions in circulation, but trillions.

The global money supply (M2) is measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. Stablecoins barely scrape 1% of that. The gap is enormous, and it won’t be filled by models limited to 1:1 reserves. It will be filled by systems that, like traditional banking, learn to expand supply while managing risk.

That’s what The Fedz is building. We are:

• Proving that fractional-reserve mechanics can work safely in DeFi.

• Demonstrating that sequential access and private liquidity pools can prevent the classic bank-run dynamics.

• Building a decentralized infrastructure that enables the community to become a printer of its own stablecoin.

Yes, we’re starting small. But the blueprint we’re testing is designed for scale. And our conviction is simple: if you can expand supply responsibly, demand will be there waiting.

We plan big because the opportunity is significant. True product-market fit in stablecoins hasn’t been reached yet, and The Fedz is here to take that shot.

Stablecoins are becoming the backbone of the crypto industry, but so far, they’ve been supply-capped, reserve-heavy, and mostly centralized. The Fedz is taking a different path: building a system where supply can finally expand to meet demand, and where stability doesn’t come at the cost of decentralization.

Our model is more than just efficient; it’s also decentralized. NFTs as banking licenses, sequential turns, and private liquidity pools create a system where no single entity controls the money printer. That matters. In the rush for scale, decentralization is often forgotten. At The Fedz, it’s non-negotiable.

We’re still early, but we’re building for the long game: a fractional-reserve stablecoin that scales like money should, and stays true to the ethos of crypto.

Don’t Miss Your Turn. The real breakthrough in stablecoins isn’t demand — it’s unlocking supply. That’s precisely what The Fedz is here to do.

– The Fedz