A label inherited from the volatile years of crypto, which has become too narrow for what it designates. This is in essence the diagnosis made by a16z, one of the most influential venture capital funds applied to cryptocurrencies, which calls for burying a word that has become cumbersome: stablecoin. Behind the semantic debate, a battle of perception is playing out, at a time when crypto-assets are entering global payment channels.
The key points of this article:
The term “stablecoin” has been deemed too restrictive by the a16z fund, which is calling for it to be replaced with names more representative of their role in the global financial system. A16z proposed new names like “digital dollars” or “on-chain assets,” emphasizing the importance of language that reflects their impact beyond speculation, toward mass adoption in global payments.
Why the word “stablecoin” sticks
The term stablecoin is historically the name given to cryptocurrencies indexed to the price of a stable asset such as the US dollar or gold. However, according to Robert Hackett, projects director for a16z, the stablecoins have outgrown their label as they have become an integral part of the global financial system. His reasoning is based on a simple intuition: the word stablecoin was coined in reaction to the volatility of Bitcoin and Ethereum. It defines these assets by what they are not, unstable, rather than by what they do. But stability, today, is no longer a differentiating argument. “Stability is now a prerequisite”summarizes Hackett. Continuing to emphasize it would be like selling a car by insisting that it has four wheels. The argument is echoed by John Palmer, a developer and branding consultant working with a16z. Palmer says it «seems to be a bug» to call these assets stablecoins, and believes they will have «probably ten times the impact of crypto so far» and deserve a name that defines them for themselves, not in contrast to anything else.
What are the names for stablecoins?
Several candidates are circulating. A16z suggests a rebranding towards clearer and more practical formulations such as “digital dollars”, “digital euros” or “on-chain assets”, as the sector progresses towards a market valuation estimated at $3 trillion by 2030. Other, more conceptual avenues were mentioned: digital cash, programmable money. Hackett himself, however, considers them too technical, too far from the language of the general public to break through. In fact, a16z’s bet is clear: a name that speaks of payment rather than speculation. PayPal got the ball rolling by talking about digital currency around its PYUSD, and Stripe, which bought Bridge at the end of 2024, carefully avoids the word stablecoin in its commercial communications. THE lexical shift is already underway on the industry sidein short. Note a difficulty in the field: the European Central Bank has already claimed the name “digital euro” for its central bank digital currency project, which complicates the adoption of the label by private issuers in the euro zone. A question that remains open on both sides of the Atlantic.
Stablecoins, a very real issue
The issue is not just cosmetic. THE word conditions perception, therefore adoptionand recent figures show that this adoption has shifted in scale. Stablecoins reached $316 billion in capitalization and 1.25 trillion in monthly volume. A16z estimates that they power 46,000 billion dollars in annual transactions (9,000 billion in adjusted value), rivaling Visa and PayPal. Orders of magnitude which no longer have anything to do with a niche product for traders seeking shelter. The trajectory of PYUSD clearly illustrates this acceleration. Launched with a capitalization of less than $500 million in early 2025, PayPal’s stablecoin has since climbed beyond 2.5 billion. Over the last two weeks, it has added more than a billion dollars to its capitalization. The industry is at a turning point: if the term “stablecoin” actually disappears in favor of “digital dollar” or “on-chain asset”, it will not be a simple facelift of marketing. This will be the admission, by the players in the sector themselves, that these assets have left the territory of crypto and entered the much larger territory of the global financial infrastructure.