Based on reporting by Jae at PANews, published October 20, 2026, at 19:25 UTC+8. Figures below reflect that historical reporting period.
OUSD’s early growth was driven by a straightforward mechanism: founding partners committed capital to establish a large initial supply. Whether that supply would translate into sustained payments, trading and lending demand was less clear.
According to PANews, the Stripe-led Open Standard initiative reached $825 million in OUSD circulation within three weeks. But roughly 2,200 holder addresses and substantial wallet concentration suggested that institutional allocations, rather than broad retail adoption, dominated its early footprint.
A second question concerned the economics: if most reserve income goes to partners after a small management fee, how much remains to fund compliance, settlement and liquidity?
A large supply, concentrated among a few holders
Open Standard announced OUSD’s launch on September 30, 2026, with issuance handled by Stripe-owned Bridge. Five founding partners, including Stripe, Coinbase and Visa, committed to mint approximately $1 billion collectively.
By October 20, PANews reported:
- Circulating market value: $825 million.
- Minting: $898 million, described in the source as “net minting.”
- Redemptions: $73 million.
- Holder addresses: approximately 2,200.
- Top 10 wallets: approximately 82% of circulating supply.
- Largest wallet: nearly 38% of supply.
The minting terminology warrants care: $898 million minus $73 million equals the reported $825 million circulation, despite the source labeling the larger figure as net minting.
Supply was also concentrated by network. Stripe-led Tempo accounted for 64.1% of circulating market value, Ethereum for 15.1%, and Solana and Base together for approximately 20%, or about $170 million.
PANews interpreted this distribution as evidence that targeted liquidity from the founding organizations was a stronger early growth driver than native onchain demand. That is an interpretation of the reported activity, not a direct identification of every holder’s purpose.
Transfer volume is not the same as payment adoption
Over its first three weeks, OUSD recorded $3.7 billion in onchain transfers across 271,200 transactions, averaging approximately $14,000 per transfer. Average holdings per address were about $375,000.
Taken together, large transfers, relatively few holders and concentrated balances were consistent with infrastructure-related movements and bulk allocations, PANews argued. They did not establish widespread consumer use.
The report also cited approximately $7.7 million in decentralized-exchange trading volume and $57 million in DeFi total value locked, producing a volume-to-TVL ratio of 13.51%.
That ratio does not, by itself, establish what percentage of all OUSD was inactive. It compares trading volume with DeFi deposits; it is not a direct measure of how much circulating supply remained idle in wallets.
Reported DeFi liquidity was concentrated as well:
- Morpho: 71.14%, with TVL rising from zero to more than $35 million in three weeks.
- Orca: 18.65%.
- Uniswap: 10.21%.
PANews viewed the concentration in lending as evidence of capital being allocated to earn interest, rather than proof of broad payment adoption.
Distribution partnerships gave OUSD a head start
OUSD’s first-three-week supply was approximately 33 times USDG’s, 6.5 times PYUSD’s and 2.5 times U’s at comparable stages after launch, according to the report.
PANews contrasted their distribution models:
- USDG relied on exchange integration. The report highlighted OKX, Robinhood and Kraken, and said X Layer and Robinhood Chain together held about $2 billion in USDG—more than 65% of its network-wide supply.
- PYUSD expanded through applications and networks. Its market value had previously stalled below $200 million. PANews linked subsequent growth to its May 2024 Solana expansion and payment uses introduced in late 2025, including YouTube creator payouts and Visa cross-border remittances.
- U relied on trading ecosystems. Early integrations included Aster and PancakeSwap, followed by Binance trading pairs and zero-fee promotions. The report described daily trading volume reaching hundreds of millions of dollars and market value reaching $1.6 billion, while warning of dependence on incentives.
- OUSD relied on founding-partner capital. Its advantages were a large starting supply and institutional relationships. PANews identified limited consumer-facing DeFi incentives and a lack of spot pairs on leading centralized exchanges as gaps in its early distribution.
The distinction is important: financing an initial supply is not the same as creating recurring demand for it.
Reserve income must also cover operating costs
OUSD’s model, as described by PANews, distributes reserve income to partners after deducting a small management fee. The report questioned whether the retained amount could cover compliance, clearing, liquidity and cross-chain operations.
For comparison, it cited Circle’s first-half 2026 results: approximately $1.4 billion in revenue, $819 million in distribution and transaction costs, $473 million associated with compliance, infrastructure, liquidity support and network development, and roughly $103 million in net profit.
PANews summarized those figures as about 59 cents for distribution and transaction costs, 34 cents for operating investment and seven cents in profit per dollar of revenue—not per dollar of stablecoin issued.
The report also emphasized the cost of maintaining redemption liquidity and moving funds between institutions. For OUSD, it identified Bridge as the issuer and BlackRock and BNY Mellon among the custodians, while arguing that compliance and settlement requirements would likewise carry meaningful costs.
Its illustrative calculation assumed $800 million in supply and a 5% annual reserve yield, generating $40 million in annual gross reserve income. Retaining 7% of that income would leave $2.8 million. Those are scenario assumptions, not disclosed OUSD financial results; Circle’s net profit margin does not establish OUSD’s actual fee retention or operating budget.
At the same assumed supply, a one-percentage-point decline in reserve yield would reduce annual gross income by $8 million.
Partners have alternatives
PANews also questioned the durability of distribution commitments. It described Coinbase as both an OUSD founding participant and a major beneficiary of USDC economics, and Visa as participating in OUSD governance while also using USDC for Visa Direct settlement.
The report’s concern was that partners could direct activity toward whichever stablecoin offered better economics, liquidity or usability. Their participation did not necessarily mean exclusive support for OUSD.
At the October 20 reporting date, OUSD had demonstrated an ability to attract substantial initial capital. The unresolved questions were whether that capital would support repeat usage, whether distribution relationships would endure, and whether retained reserve income could sustain the operating model.