Stablecoins, Simplified: A Practical Framework for User Needs

As stablecoins expand across global payments, DeFi, and capital preservation strategies, they’ve outgrown any single definition. Different users see and use them in entirely different ways — remittance rails for some, yield engines for others.

This user diversity highlights a key insight: stablecoin use cases are shaped by intent. As adoption deepens, understanding the ecosystem requires a classification framework that reflects user goals, risk profiles, and technical design.

This article takes a user-first perspective to rethink how we categorize stablecoins. It introduces a practical framework grounded in real-world use, aiming to align stablecoin models with the needs of the people who rely on them.

I. The Traditional Stablecoin Landscape

Amid the ever-changing narratives of the crypto space, stablecoins have remained a consistent pillar. Traditionally, the market has categorized stablecoins based on their peg mechanisms, falling into three core types:

• Fiat-Collateralized (e.g., USDT, USDC): Backed 1:1 by fiat reserves, typically USD. These stablecoins offer strong liquidity and broad acceptance.
• Crypto-Collateralized (e.g., DAI, RAI): Backed by overcollateralized crypto assets like ETH, prioritizing decentralization and censorship resistance.
  Algorithmic Stablecoins (e.g., the now-defunct UST): Rely on algorithmic mechanisms and market incentives rather than asset backing — often with significant risk.

Beyond USD-pegged assets, stablecoins also exist for other benchmarks like gold and the euro. A notable example is Tether Gold (XAU₮), which is backed 1:1 by physical gold stored in Tether’s private Swiss vaults. With $8B in holdings, it positions Tether among the world’s largest private gold holders, offering on-chain mobility with physical redemption.

For years, this peg-based framework offered a useful starting point for understanding stablecoins. But at the application level, it has become increasingly inadequate for addressing the diverse needs of users.

As stablecoins move into the mainstream, their user base has expanded beyond on-chain traders and DeFi participants. This shift has exposed the limitations of a single-axis classification. Users now ask more practical questions: Is this safe? Does it work on the chains I use? Is it right for my use case?

Take USDT and USDC — both fiat-backed, yet vastly different in reserve transparency, regulatory posture, and market trust. Meanwhile, new regulations like the GENIUS Act and MiCA are introducing classifications based on use case and compliance, pushing the industry further away from traditional peg-based models.

II. The Classification Dilemma Amid New Variables

In a recent interview, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino noted that since 2020, many developing countries have struggled with inflation, currency devaluation, and high unemployment — leaving families in financial distress. Stablecoins like USDT stepped in to fill the gap, serving as tools for savings, remittances, and everyday payments.

This utility brought millions of first-time users across Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia into crypto — not for speculation, but out of necessity. For them, key concerns are stability, low fees, and easy cash-out options.

By contrast, crypto-native users — DeFi veterans, arbitrageurs, institutional traders — care about liquidity depth, protocol compatibility, capital efficiency, and arbitrage potential. The peg mechanism alone says little about how they choose or use stablecoins.

This widening user split makes it clear: the old fiat/crypto/algorithmic model no longer reflects the realities of how stablecoins are used. A new, user-centered classification is needed — one that accounts for use cases, motivations, and access conditions.

This shift is being shaped by three key forces: the explosion of use cases (from DeFi staking to cross-border payroll), increasingly diverse user profiles (from savers to yield seekers), and advancing regulation (from the EU’s MiCA to U.S. proposals). In practice, the stablecoin market now consists of several distinct user domains:

• Crypto Novices want simple, secure stablecoins for basic savings.
• DeFi Users seek yield, using stablecoins in lending and liquidity mining.
• Active Traders demand deep liquidity and fast execution across venues.
• Global Users prioritize low-cost, fast cross-border transfers.

This growing complexity makes traditional classification frameworks increasingly outdated. In today’s Web3 landscape, there’s no such thing as the “best” stablecoin — only the one best suited to a specific purpose.

III. Building a Multi-Dimensional Framework for Stablecoins

To help users choose the right stablecoin for their needs, imToken proposes a classification model based on three key dimensions:

• User Goal (Why use it?)
• Risk & Trust (How safe is it?)
• Technical Architecture (Where and how is it used?)

This framework aims to give each stablecoin a clear profile, helping users make informed decisions across diverse use cases.

1. User Intent & Financial Goals (Why use it?)

This axis focuses on why users adopt stablecoins, linking different stablecoins to specific financial goals and real-world needs. As use cases diversify, no single type fits all. Instead, choice depends on intent:

• Payments & Transfers — e.g., USDT (on Tron)
  Known for low fees, broad exchange support, and ease of cross-border use.
• Capital Preservation & Risk Hedging — e.g., USDC
  Favored as an on-chain “digital dollar” and safe haven during volatile markets.
• Yield Generation & Wealth Growth — e.g., USDe (Ethena)
  Generates native yield via its peg mechanism and derivatives-based hedging model.
• Collateral & Leverage — e.g., DAI, USDC, USDT
  Commonly used in DeFi protocols as collateral for lending and leveraged trading.

This classification speaks directly to what most users ask:
“I want to do X — what’s the best stablecoin for that purpose?”

2. Risk Profile & Trust Model (How Safe Is It?)

This axis reflects the level of risk users are willing to take, based on reserve backing, audit transparency, and regulatory status.

• Top-tier: Regulated, bank-grade stablecoins like USDC and PYUSD, trusted for their compliance and oversight.
• Mid-tier: Dominant players like USDT, backed by liquidity and scale, but with unresolved concerns around reserves and regulation.
• Decentralized: Protocol-based stablecoins like DAI, where trust relies on on-chain transparency and community governance.
• Experimental: Algorithmic and synthetic models like USDe, driven by complex economic mechanisms with higher, untested risk.

Real-world benchmarks reflect this structure — S&P Global rates USDC as “Strong” and USDT as “Constrained.”

3. Technical Architecture & Ecosystem Fit (Where & How to Use It?)

This axis covers how a stablecoin is deployed and where it’s most effective.

• Native deployments (e.g., USDC on Base) are issued directly by the provider and are typically more secure.
• Bridged versions rely on cross-chain infrastructure, which introduces smart contract risk.

Ecosystem alignment also shapes usage:

• Ethereum Mainnet: High security, suited for settlement.
• Solana and other L1s: Low-cost, fast transactions, ideal for payments.
• L2s like Arbitrum/Base: Low fees and strong DeFi integration.

Users can choose the most suitable version based on fees, speed, and use case.

https://web.token.im/

As of this writing, imToken Web has introduced a token collection feature based on this framework, organizing stablecoins into practical, user-focused categories:

• Popular Stablecoins: Top-tier assets like USDT and USDC
• DeFi Stablecoins: Used across DeFi protocols, e.g., DAI, crvUSD, USDe
• Remit Stablecoins: Settlement-focused options like Tron-USDT and TUSD
• Legal Stablecoins: Regulated assets such as PYUSD and FDUSD
• Yield Stablecoins: With built-in yield, like USDe, USDS, USDB
• Non-USD Stablecoins: Expanding into new monetary zones, e.g., EURC, XAU₮, PAXG

These collections are mapped to user intent — Getting Started, DeFi Yield, Global Payments — helping users match their financial goals, regional needs, and risk tolerance with the right stablecoin portfolio.

Conclusion

At its core, a stablecoin is a tool meant to serve people. Shifting from a one-dimensional classification to a multi-dimensional, user-centric framework isn’t just a structural change — it’s about aligning with real-world needs.

There’s no “perfect” stablecoin — only the one best suited to the task. For example, a full profile of USDC would show:

• User intent: Capital preservation, collateral
• Risk: Bank-grade, regulated
• Technical architecture: Natively deployed across major L1s and L2s

This is far more informative than simply calling it “fiat-backed.” It helps users weigh trade-offs — between safety, yield, composability, and transaction cost — to make better decisions.

To put it simply:

The true value of a stablecoin lies in how well it serves its users. It should be more than just another crypto narrative — it should be a practical tool for real-world asset management.

In Web3, the best stablecoin is the one that’s right for you.