What is a stablecoin, anyway? Circle's $6.7 billion IPO filing puts spotlight on crypto tokens pegged to the U.S. dollar
The issuer of USDC, a popular stablecoin that's pegged to the U.S. dollar, is officially launching an initial public offering. Circle Internet Group filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday to raise up to $624 million by offering 24 million shares to investors.
Spicy AI-generated TACO memes are taking over social media because 'Trump always chickens out'
Lego's first book nook is an addictively interactive diorama
Forget quiet quitting: I'm using 'loud living' to redefine workplace boundaries
With its IPO plans, New York-based Circle is hoping to put a lot of circles—well, zeros—behind its valuation, targeting up to $6.71 billion. Tuesday's filing has been long-awaited, as the company confidentially filed for an IPO in January 2024 after scrapping 2022 plans to go public via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC).
While more players in the crypto space have been diving into public markets in recent years, Circle's filing comes at pivotal timing amid a lot of interest in stablecoins. The company's biggest coin, USDC, is the seventh-largest cryptocurrency by market cap, according to CoinMarketCap, and second-largest stablecoin behind Tether.
You may have been hearing more talk of stablecoins among investors and even the U.S. government. But what even is a stablecoin, anyway? If you're confused, read on for a complete breakdown of what you need to know.
Stablecoins serve a much different role in the crypto space than the likes of Bitcoin or Ethereum, which can experience wild spikes in their prices. As the name suggests, stablecoins are intentionally stable in price because their value is pegged to an asset like the U.S. dollar.
Both the Tether and USDC coins are pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, meaning that for every unit of these cryptocurrencies in circulation, they're backed by $1 of cash or U.S. Treasury bonds. Their prices typically fluctuate only tiny fractions of a cent higher or lower than $1. Even amid Tuesday's IPO news, the price of USDC was essentially flat.
Circle is also the issuer of EURC, which is pegged to the value of the euro.
Given their price stability, stablecoins offer a valuable ballast to investors amid the volatility of crypto markets for investors. Once popular as a bridge between traditional and decentralized finance markets, there's been more interest in stablecoins as various countries around the world embrace cryptocurrencies.
If you feel like you're hearing more about stablecoins lately, it's because they've been the topic of recent debate in the U.S. Senate. In February, Senator Bill Hagerty, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced the GENIUS Act, which would have classified stablecoins as securities under the jurisdiction of the SEC to establish regulatory guardrails for these coins.
That Act would have brought a new layer of legitimacy to the crypto industry by bringing stablecoins into the regulated financial system. But the U.S. Senate voted earlier this month to block further advancement of the GENIUS Act, which was widely viewed as a significant setback for the industry.
Once a skeptic, President Donald Trump has become a vocal proponent of cryptocurrencies, though some investors worry his support isn't helping. The $TRUMP meme coin launched just days before he returned to the office for his second term. In March, he voiced his support for legislation that provides regulatory certainty for stablecoins and has said he wants the U.S. to be the 'crypto capital' of the world.
Even though stablecoins have been the topic of much debate in Washington, D.C. that's not likely to affect Circle's IPO. There's been a relative dearth of initial public offerings since an all-time record in 2021 and investors may be eager to hop aboard a new offering, particularly amid a broader market recovery.
Circle has applied to list its stock on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol 'CRCL' and indicated that shares could be priced between $24 and $26. But there's no definitive timeline yet for when the stock could begin trading.
This post originally appeared at fastcompany.comSubscribe to get the Fast Company newsletter: http://fastcompany.com/newsletters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Bitcoin Is Quietly Entering The Healthcare Sector
Bitcoin has made inroads into finance, energy, and even politics. Now, a growing number of healthcare companies are embracing it. Not only as a hedge or a balance sheet asset, but also as a guiding philosophy and potential infrastructure layer. The move may seem unlikely, given healthcare's deeply regulated and bureaucratic nature. But that's precisely the point. For companies like CrowdHealth and Semler Scientific, Bitcoin's appeal isn't speculative. It's structural. In a sector inundated with reverse incentives, opaque pricing, and costly middlemen, Bitcoin offers transparency. The U.S. healthcare system is worth roughly $5 trillion, averaging over $17,000 per person. Even with the high costs associated with health insurance, claims are often denied. Andy Schoonover, founder and CEO of CrowdHealth, experienced this firsthand. His insurer refused to pay an $8,000 bill for his daughter's ear tube surgery, despite doctors deeming it medically necessary. Soon after, he dropped his insurance and began building a cash-pay model that eventually became CrowdHealth. A peer-to-peer platform where members fund one another's healthcare needs. In this process, he found a natural audience among bitcoiners. Schoonover, who told Forbes in an interview he holds roughly 80% of his liquid assets in Bitcoin, says the overlap wasn't accidental. 'Bitcoiners understand incentives,' he said. Schoonover believes that as patients dig deeper into the healthcare system, it becomes clear that hospitals, health networks, and government policies often work against patients' best interests. A pattern quickly recognized by bitcoiners. CrowdHealth allows members to pay a monthly fee, directly contributing to each other's care. In return, they avoid premiums and networks. Schoonover said their model has grown to over 10,000 members. CrowdHealth is leaning further into Bitcoin by letting users invest unused healthcare funds into bitcoin. The long-term vision, according to Schoonover, is Bitcoin circularity in healthcare. 'If we can build bitcoin circularity within healthcare we believe that will go a long way in normalizing bitcoin as a medium of exchange,' Schoonover said. Unlike insurance, CrowdHealth doesn't guarantee payment. However, Schoonover claims that the community fully funds over 99% of eligible bills. While CrowdHealth integrates Bitcoin at the user level, Semler Scientific takes a top-down approach. The publicly traded medtech company adopted Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset in 2024, becoming one of the first healthcare companies to do so. For Semler chairman Eric Semler, Bitcoin represents resilience, scarcity, and alignment, traits sorely lacking in the healthcare system. 'Bitcoin is monetary freedom,' Semler told Forbes. 'We're freeing people medically through early detection, and Bitcoin helps us stay strong financially.' The company's core product, QuantaFlo, is an FDA-cleared diagnostic tool for vascular disease. It enables early detection of cardiovascular issues, allowing for timely and potentially life-saving interventions. Semler emphasized the importance of early detection and noted that healthcare could benefit from adopting principles found in Bitcoin's design, such as decentralization, transparency, and reducing reliance on middlemen. In an interview with Forbes, Eric Semler of Semler Scientific explained that their Bitcoin strategy isn't just about protecting cash in an inflationary environment. It's about owning the digital future. The company is exploring ways to mine Bitcoin creatively and integrate value into its shareholder model. 'We're in acceleration mode,' Semler said. 'We're not just buying Bitcoin, we're adding value to our value.' In 2023, Semler became active in the company his father had founded. He joined the board to improve capital allocation and saw Bitcoin as the obvious next step, following Michael Saylor's Strategy concept. 'It was a last resort in the best way.' Bitcoin offered a neutral reserve asset with no counterparty exposure or political entanglements, making it a good fit. Despite its early-mover status, Semler Scientific remains a rarity. Semler said that few medtech or biotech peers have followed suit. One exception is KindlyMD, a company that shares philosophical alignment but little market overlap. Still, he believes healthcare is well-positioned to lead a treasury shift. Healthcare companies generate steady cash flow, operate under strict regulations, and require long-term resilience, which according to Semler, makes Bitcoin a natural fit. That shift may be slow, but for now, Semler is content leading the charge. The future of Bitcoin in healthcare, according to companies like CrowdHealth and Semler Scientific, is not about layering crypto onto a broken system. It is about rebuilding that system from the ground up using first principles. They see Bitcoin with the potential to help make healthcare more affordable, build trust by putting patients in control, protect savings from inflation, and support better systems for sharing medical information. Schoonover envisions a future where bitcoiners fund one another's procedures and doctors accept bitcoin directly, cutting out insurers entirely. Semler imagines a more robust, future-proof treasury model that gives healthcare companies stronger balance sheets and global leverage. Bitcoin won't eliminate the need for regulation, nor will it immediately replace legacy players. But it does offer some interesting options. The examples of CrowdHealth and Semler Scientific suggest that some healthcare companies are exploring Bitcoin not for its popularity, but as a response to challenges in the current system.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Questioned Extent Of Musk's DOGE Cuts, Report Says
President Donald Trump questioned the extent of the federal cuts made by billionaire adviser Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the The Wall Street Journal reported, bringing the savings into doubt as Musk ended his short stint as special government employee this week after making controversial cuts and layoffs within the federal government. DOGE claims it has saved an estimated $175 billion through workforce reductions, grant ... More cancellations, contract cancellations. (Photo by) Trump asked, 'Was it all bull****?' according to unnamed administration officials cited by the Journal on Friday, referring to Musk's vow to cut $1 trillion in government spending. Musk reiterated the promise during an Oval Office press conference with Trump on Friday, saying he was confident DOGE will produce '$1 trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction' over time. Musk has seemingly pushed back the deadline for the $1 trillion in savings, as the billionaire Tesla chief said in March the ambitious cuts would be completed in roughly two months. Trump's purported doubt came as Musk's time as a special government employee came to an end Friday, though he and the president have maintained he will continue visiting the White House and acting as a friend and adviser. Forbes asked for comment from the White House and Musk, the latter of whom did not respond to the Journal's request for comment Friday. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. The Musk-led department says it has saved an estimated $175 billion through workforce reductions, grant cancellations, contract cancellations and more. It also claims it has saved $1,086 per taxpayer. DOGE's claims of savings have been rife with inconsistencies and errors, according to multiple reports, suggesting the true savings figures are lower than what the agency has reported. For example, DOGE once claimed it saved $8 billion by cancelling an immigration contract that actually had a value of $8 million. A BBC analysis from April found that only about half of the itemized savings published by DOGE were linked to receipts or other forms of evidence. DOGE lists some receipts as being 'unavailable for legal reasons.' Prior to Trump's election and his time in government, Musk pledged to erase $2 trillion from federal spending—a vow that has since been reduced to $1 trillion. Many of the DOGE-directed cuts have been contested, with federal layoffs in particular seeing challenges in court. Some 216,000 federal employees were laid off in March, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Agencies hit or expected to be targeted by the layoffs include the Department of Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and several others. The firings have been contested in court, going as far as the Supreme Court last month, when the high court blocked a judge's order requiring employees at six federal agencies to be rehired. Inside Trump and Musk's Complicated Relationship (WSJ) How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending? (Forbes) Supreme Court Blocks Judge's Order Requiring Employees At Six Federal Agencies To Be Rehired—For Now (Forbes)
