Most goods today are denominated in fiat, so stablecoins are a better fit than gold.
And at this stage, stablecoins are great for easy money movement (rather than holding in crypto). I actually think most people won't even know that crypto rails have been used to move their money, with stablecoins like tcp/ip for money movement.
Fast, cheap money movement globally (compared to wire or ACH in US).
At this phase, stablecoins are largely best for easy money movement, but the money ends up in fiat.
We are seeing some examples of teams using it for payouts, e.g., Gusto and Deel both support stablecoin payouts. Expect that to grow, but still very early days.
I hope we aren't too close to "territorial currencies" where each feudal lord was authorized (or not forbidden) to mint his own currency, which couldn't be carried over the next feud. Think awarded "miles" by your credit card, or tickets in a games center.
Between this and Canada being dropped as an investable country shortly after the recent US/Canada fracas, I'm starting to wonder about YC's current political affiliations. Also, if you want to put your tinfoil hat on, Michael Seibel and Dalton Caldwell were publicly anti-Trump, and they both left months after the Trump admin took over, a very paranoid take is that the big shot VCs tied to YC made a push to "clean house" or "toe the line" and they were either gently pushed out or decided to leave because they didn't like the new vibes.
Occasionally in YC founder circles a new founder will raise a bunch of money and then ask something like "What's the best way to invest all the money our company just raised?"
The responses are always along the lines of "Your startup is already risky. Don't innovate in areas of your business where the status quo is known to work. Innovate your product + technology, don't be innovative with your company's finances, HR, etc"
That advice always stuck with me. It just makes a lot of sense to do things in the most boring way possible, except where it matters (your competitive advantage <-- that's where you innovate, that's where you set yourself apart)
Running a startup is distracting enough. Doing things non-standard just adds to the list of distractions that you don't need as a founder.
It does seem ironic that a startup would immediately pivot to devoting some of its precious time and attention to becoming a hedge fund just as they've got the funding for their 'startup idea'. On the other hand, any big whack of cash should have an optimisation plan, lest it be wasted. Does YC provide templates?
Oversimplifying:
X = full amount of raised capital
Y = expected spend over 12 months
Z = $ value of percentage contingency for 12 months
Y+Z goes into use-it-however-and-whenever-you-want account (likely low to no interest)
X - (Y+Z) goes into a 12 month higher interest account, ideally staying untouched until maturity (stake the stablecoins in this context)
I'm skeptical of crpyto holding companies though, explicitly because of the lack of regulation. The likes of BlockFi, Celsius, and FTX gives me the cold sweats. Regulation in the US is notoriously lacking even in well established finance and banking, never mind the crypto 'industry' which was always high-percentage grifters, and now the Epstein files has added 'morally corrupt' tags to more of them.
Recipe for sleepless nights, which is already a problem for a startup founders isn't it?
I agree, if you just want to not "waste" the cash while it's sitting, keep it very simple with something like T bills or, if you don't need it immediately, maybe a total market fund.
This also makes sense from the investors point of view, they invested in your company to receive growth from your product/business, not from random stocks you bought with it.
That said, I think there is a distinction between trying to be innovative across the company (ex. Gitlab's open employee handbook, CEO shadows, etc.) which is arguably not a bad thing at all, and this specific case of trying to actively invest company funds. In some cases, a more innovative way of doing things may actually be simpler and less complex than the default way for bigger companies, it just depends on the exact scenario.
Not all stablecoins are intended as investments. For many it's just a way to send money internationally without dealing with the SWIFT system, waiting periods, banks losing payments etc.
> You can easily put stablecoins in a Lulo savings account and get 5% interest instead of 0.1% or whatever your bank provides. Yes Lulo has insurance.
From Lulo's site[1]: "Lulo’s yield comes from interest paid by traders and borrowers in integrated DeFi protocols. These loans are over-collateralized with assets like SOL, ETH, and BTC, reducing lender risk."
SOL, ETH and BTC as collateral? What if their value goes down? We know what happened when the banks made bad housing loans (2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis). At least the houses had some tangible value - bricks and mortars. Crypto seems like a fiat currency minus the "full faith and credit of the United States government".
> 1234.56 in PyUSD means you get 1234.56 in Chase or Wells Fargo or whatever. In future your bank will hold these assets directly without need to off-ramp at all.
If the appeal of PyUSD is that you can convert it into equivalent USD anytime, why do we need PyUSD at all? What's the value-add, apart from low transfer fees?
Stablecoins make a lot of sense in countries like Argentina where the national currency is a shitcoin. But YC doesn't fund startups in Argentina. Stablecoins can also be used to pay remote employees but that should probably go through an employer of record so that people aren't paid under the table. This sounds like more crypto for the sake of crypto.
Right, it would make a lot of sense for international founders, except that YC already requires them to have a company in one of a few countries (US, Canada, Seychelles, maybe a couple more?) and thus would otherwise be receiving it in USD or possibly another stable currency and storing it in a bank account there.
The first wave of stablecoins isn't replacing fiat currency, but replacing money movement protocols.
Expect most teams to convert stablecoins once they receive it, but even then it's a cheap/fast money movement layer, especially globally. Even in US, cheaper and faster than wire.
Might help them win crypto deals. Or expand into shady geographies. Otherwise, I guess having a signal that your founders will donate the interest they’re owed is…something.
Despite still not really showing any utility these tech companies want so so so much for cryptocurrency to catch on.
It feels like the entirety of cryptocurrency, outside of being a thing people used to buy drugs, has been an example of Chesterton's Fence, with half of Silicon Valley in denial of this fact.
Stablecoins work quiet fine as exchange medium for millions of people around the world, including myself, so they are different from vouchers and ramen.
I guess this can make sense if the startup is doing crypto, otherwise it seems like financial friction. That said, I believe the entire crypto ecosystem is just a giant scam.
Beyond crypto teams, we're seeing increasing use cases for more teams to use stablecoins to pay. For example, both Gusto and Deel (YC teams) are using stablecoins to offer worldwide payouts.
“Stablecoins is one of the key pillars for us,” Dalal said, referring to one of the areas where Y Combinator would like to see more startup ideas. “So we just want to live and breathe that as well.”
I asked ChatGPT for an honest translation:
“We’re actively trying to manufacture demand and legitimacy for stablecoins by forcing them into the startup supply chain.”
I would do this and make sure to convert to a privacy coin like Monero the first chance I get. I get audited by the IRS every year, even when I was making minimum wage in college. I hate the regulators and making it as difficult as possible for them would feel like justice.
That being said, there are slim chances I would ever be selected as a YC founder. My ideas are more like ChatGPT, nobody would dare invest in them until after it's already released, then all of a sudden chatbot startups get trillions of dollars.
Feels like step 1 to providing liqudity further down the toad. Also opening investment to “unqualified” investors. It never made sense that you could buy crypto, buy multiple homes, but sinking 10k into a friends startup was somehow regulated.
54 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] threadBoth are equally stupid, and you have to exchange them to buy most of the things you might need.
Most goods today are denominated in fiat, so stablecoins are a better fit than gold.
And at this stage, stablecoins are great for easy money movement (rather than holding in crypto). I actually think most people won't even know that crypto rails have been used to move their money, with stablecoins like tcp/ip for money movement.
At this phase, stablecoins are largely best for easy money movement, but the money ends up in fiat.
We are seeing some examples of teams using it for payouts, e.g., Gusto and Deel both support stablecoin payouts. Expect that to grow, but still very early days.
https://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/41452/1/112....
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31686140
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31461634
Occasionally in YC founder circles a new founder will raise a bunch of money and then ask something like "What's the best way to invest all the money our company just raised?"
The responses are always along the lines of "Your startup is already risky. Don't innovate in areas of your business where the status quo is known to work. Innovate your product + technology, don't be innovative with your company's finances, HR, etc"
That advice always stuck with me. It just makes a lot of sense to do things in the most boring way possible, except where it matters (your competitive advantage <-- that's where you innovate, that's where you set yourself apart)
Running a startup is distracting enough. Doing things non-standard just adds to the list of distractions that you don't need as a founder.
Oversimplifying:
X = full amount of raised capital
Y = expected spend over 12 months
Z = $ value of percentage contingency for 12 months
Y+Z goes into use-it-however-and-whenever-you-want account (likely low to no interest)
X - (Y+Z) goes into a 12 month higher interest account, ideally staying untouched until maturity (stake the stablecoins in this context)
I'm skeptical of crpyto holding companies though, explicitly because of the lack of regulation. The likes of BlockFi, Celsius, and FTX gives me the cold sweats. Regulation in the US is notoriously lacking even in well established finance and banking, never mind the crypto 'industry' which was always high-percentage grifters, and now the Epstein files has added 'morally corrupt' tags to more of them.
Recipe for sleepless nights, which is already a problem for a startup founders isn't it?
Stablecoin-adjacent YC companies:
• Bridge (acquired by Stripe for $1.1B) — stablecoin infrastructure, now offers "Open Issuance" platform for others to launch stablecoins
• PrimeVault (S2022) — helps enterprises issue & manage digital assets/stablecoins
• BlindPay (W2025) — stablecoin API for payments
• Coinbase (S2012) — issues USDC (with Circle)
You should invest in some YC startups with your YC investment money.
This also makes sense from the investors point of view, they invested in your company to receive growth from your product/business, not from random stocks you bought with it.
That said, I think there is a distinction between trying to be innovative across the company (ex. Gitlab's open employee handbook, CEO shadows, etc.) which is arguably not a bad thing at all, and this specific case of trying to actively invest company funds. In some cases, a more innovative way of doing things may actually be simpler and less complex than the default way for bigger companies, it just depends on the exact scenario.
From Lulo's site[1]: "Lulo’s yield comes from interest paid by traders and borrowers in integrated DeFi protocols. These loans are over-collateralized with assets like SOL, ETH, and BTC, reducing lender risk."
SOL, ETH and BTC as collateral? What if their value goes down? We know what happened when the banks made bad housing loans (2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis). At least the houses had some tangible value - bricks and mortars. Crypto seems like a fiat currency minus the "full faith and credit of the United States government".
> 1234.56 in PyUSD means you get 1234.56 in Chase or Wells Fargo or whatever. In future your bank will hold these assets directly without need to off-ramp at all.
If the appeal of PyUSD is that you can convert it into equivalent USD anytime, why do we need PyUSD at all? What's the value-add, apart from low transfer fees?
[1] https://lulo.fi
The lender provides the collateral. If when the value goes down, Lulo does a partial liquidation.
> What's the value-add, apart from low transfer fees?
High interest, with insurance. Mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
Expect most teams to convert stablecoins once they receive it, but even then it's a cheap/fast money movement layer, especially globally. Even in US, cheaper and faster than wire.
Or perhaps Y Combinator is great at funding startups, but incredibly bad with financial decision making.
In which case it is an IQ test for Y Combinator, which they have failed.
It feels like the entirety of cryptocurrency, outside of being a thing people used to buy drugs, has been an example of Chesterton's Fence, with half of Silicon Valley in denial of this fact.
Indirectly it might provide some more public visibility initally anyways.
Here's Gusto's CTO: https://x.com/edawerd/status/2018785968669815011
I asked ChatGPT for an honest translation:
“We’re actively trying to manufacture demand and legitimacy for stablecoins by forcing them into the startup supply chain.”
That being said, there are slim chances I would ever be selected as a YC founder. My ideas are more like ChatGPT, nobody would dare invest in them until after it's already released, then all of a sudden chatbot startups get trillions of dollars.