Not all stablecoins are the same. In practice, stablecoins serve two core purposes:

💸Moving money → payment stablecoins

💰Growing money → yield stablecoins

This simple distinction is by no means exhaustive, yet it is helpful and can be illuminating for many. It should guide how we design for adoption, user experience, regulation, and use cases. Other, more robust classifications (by collateral, peg mechanism, decentralization, or regulatory status) still matter. However, none of them reflect the user-facing function.

Stablecoins are widely seen as crypto’s breakout use case. But to scale, we need a more user-centric framework. You shouldn’t buy coffee with your yield vault. Combining both types in one category (as many dashboards do) is like storing your paycheck in a hedge fund: technically possible, but it doesn’t make too much sense.

Of course, the line isn’t always clean. Stablecoins can play either role, and every design carries its own risks. Here, I zoom in on the primary user purpose. We can refine the distinction to make it a bit less simplistic:

• 💳 Payment-first stablecoin: keeps the peg as closely as possible; aims for instant spend and cheap settlement; usually, yield stays with the issuer; still can be lent out for yield in lending markets; optimizes for simplicity.
• 📈 Yield-first stablecoin: still targets the peg, but usually passes yield from a specific yield strategy to the holder; usually held, not spent; many exotic designs available.

As said, stablecoins can role-flip from payments to yield and vice versa. Still, the payments vs yield can help unlock smarter UX, clearer regulation, and easier adoption. It’s the same peg (usually), but a different purpose.

This simple framework uses a market-driven lens. It starts with how people actually use stablecoins, not with code or statute. Regulators already echo the split: think the U.S. GENIUS Act’s “payment stablecoins”. Builders, like my favorite@SkyEcosystem""> @SkyEcosystem where I’ve been involved for years, separate USDS (spend/payments) from sUSDS (yield).

What might we gain from the payments vs yield split?

• Better risk frameworks.
  Yield-bearing coins should be measured by: yield source and its health, strategy concentration, redemption/exit risk, peg resilience, use of leverage, protocol exposure, among others. Payment coins require more focus on peg stability, market depth and liquidity, redemption mechanics, reserve quality and transparency, issuer risk. One-size-fits-all metrics don’t work.

• Retail adoption.
  This distinction matches TradFi mental models and reduces user confusion and error. New users shouldn’t unknowingly hold complex yield tokens.

• Better UX.
  Providers like wallets should avoid confusing users by mixing up payments and yield stablecoins. This will unlock a simpler and smarter wallet UX. Sophisticated users know the difference perfectly, but proper labels should be presented in the UX to make it clear even for newbies. This will also make integration easier for neobanks and other fintechs. Of course, the real UX hurdle is not just labeling, but educating on tail risk.

• Institutional adoption.
  Yield/payment distinction aligns with existing financial categories, improves accounting and risk segregation, and supports regulatory clarity.

• Better regulation.
  Payment and yield stablecoins will be regulated differently. These products have different risk profiles and the regulators will naturally distinguish between them. It’s not an accident that payments and investments (securities, most generally speaking) are subject to almost entirely different regulatory regimes everywhere. Lawmakers are already moving in this direction: the GENIUS Act bill in the US and MiCAR in the EU recognize this. It does not mean that some payment stablecoins could never offer yield (as debated in the context of the GENIUS Act bill), but it’d be like a savings account among a wide range of investment products.

This isn’t a perfect model (far from it). But it’s the simplest way to orient product, users, and policy around purpose. Some of the drawbacks:

• Yield is a complex category that encompasses various subtypes. They vary in terms of structure, risks, and use cases. Some lend into DeFi, some stake ETH; others buy Treasuries. It’s hard to disagree that this is a (big) umbrella term, and one can expect changes over time as the market matures and—especially—regulators get to it. It’s possible that over time, the concept of “yield stablecoin” will lose sense as it unbundles into more specific and clear categories.
• Who earns the yield? If yield is not passed to the users, there is some other actor getting it (usually, the issuer). As mentioned, stablecoins can migrate from “issuer-yield” to “holder-yield.” Also, stablecoin users can earn yield in lending markets and it is not yet certain if yield stablecoins are sufficiently distinct from the secondary yield sources from the user perspective.
• Some argue we should call this broader group “yield tokens,” not “yield stablecoins.” That’s fair. But in practice, yield stablecoins have emerged as a distinct subclass with stable pegs and specific user roles. They often are treated as a separate category from, for instance, non-stablecoin tokenized RWAs, LSTs (liquid stake tokens), or different DeFi structured yield products. We’ll see how this trend develops over time, as the boundaries are often blurred, such as with rebasing yield stablecoins.
• Payment stablecoins might someday offer yield. Regulation will define those boundaries. MiCAR forbids it. The GENIUS Act debates it. The market will adapt accordingly.

These concerns are real. Still, it’s unhelpful to talk about “stablecoins” as one thing. The payment vs yield split is foundational and overdue. Let’s label it clearly and build around it. If your stablecoin does not fit into either category easily, also make it clear.

More research is needed, especially on assets that blur the line (like rebasing tokens) or live outside it (like non-stable yield tokens and tokenized RWAs).

Keep an eye on @stablewatchHQfor deeper data and clearer classifications, and especially the upcoming work on the stablecoin risk assessment framework. This is a cool project that will bring more clarity to the space, very, very soon. Perhaps tomorrow?

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [@ Jacek_Czarnecki]. All copyrights belong to the original author [@ Jacek_Czarnecki]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.