How to Build a Stablecoin in 2026
Author: Alchemy
The stablecoin landscape has transformed dramatically in recent years. What was once a regulatory gray zone has crystallized into a structured market with clear rules, defined pathways, and unprecedented opportunity. With over $300 billion in circulation and projections reaching $1.9 trillion by 2030, stablecoins are evolving from crypto trading pairs into core financial infrastructure.
This guide provides everything you need to understand the technical, regulatory, and strategic dimensions of building a stablecoin in 2026.
The New Regulatory Reality
For years, stablecoin issuers operated in legal ambiguity: state money transmission licenses here, offshore structures there, a patchwork of interpretations that varied by jurisdiction and enforcement mood. That era finally ended in 2025.
Three major regulatory frameworks now define the global stablecoin landscape: the GENIUS Act in the United States, MiCA in the European Union, and a wave of coordinated frameworks across Asia-Pacific. Together, they've transformed stablecoin issuance from a regulatory gray zone into a licensed financial activity with clear rules, defined capital requirements, and explicit technical mandates.
What This Means for Builders
These frameworks dictate your smart contract architecture before you write a single line of code. In particular, there are 3 types of restrictions for issuers that global jurisdictions are converging on.
Regulatory controls: Your stablecoin contract can’t be fully immutable and admin-less. You will need the ability to freeze, seize, and clawback transactions.
Reserve requirements: If a user deposits $1 with you to mint a stablecoin, you can’t do whatever you like with it. Deposits are increasingly required to be held in reserve, in a pre-approved list of assets, at all times.
Disclosures/licensing: The size of reserves has meaningful implications for accounting and auditing requirements. More than $50B in reserves? The GENIUS Act stipulates that you now require annual audits and monthly attestations from accounting firms.
These aren't optional features you might add later: they're legal prerequisites for issuance. Reference the legal documents linked above or consult with an attorney that specializes in digital assets to learn more about what regulatory requirements looks like for your specific use case.
Choosing Your Stablecoin Model
Considering regulatory requirements is one decision. You’ll also need to consider what stablecoin model you want to build.
The stabilization mechanism you choose determines everything from capital requirements to technical architecture to how regulators classify your product. Not all models are created equal in the eyes of regulators, and some approaches that thrived in crypto's early days are now effectively excluded from regulated markets entirely. Each model carries distinct trade-offs that must align with both your strategic objectives and the jurisdictions you're targeting.
Fiat-Backed Stablecoins
Fiat-backed stablecoins maintain their peg through direct collateralization with traditional currency. For every token in circulation, an equivalent amount of USD sits in reserve accounts. This model represents over 90% of the $300+ billion stablecoin market.
How It Works
Users deposit $1,000, the issuer mints 1,000 tokens. Those dollars flow into segregated reserves—bank deposits, short-dated Treasury bills, and money market funds. When users redeem tokens for cash, the process reverses: tokens burn, then dollars return to user accounts.
The peg holds through arbitrage. If tokens trade at $0.99 on secondary markets, arbitrageurs buy cheaply, redeem at $1.00 from the issuer, and pocket the spread. This mechanism forces prices back to peg.
Economics
A $10 billion stablecoin generates approximately $400-500 million annually in reserve interest at current Treasury rates—all retained by the issuer since regulations prohibit passing yield to holders. This creates powerful unit economics but requires significant upfront capital. You need substantial reserves before the yield becomes meaningful, creating a chicken-and-egg problem for new entrants.
Operational Requirements
Running fiat-backed stablecoins requires banking relationships (often difficult for crypto businesses), custody infrastructure, real-time treasury management, compliance teams for AML/KYC and regulatory reporting, and attestation relationships with qualified accounting firms.
Examples
USDT (Tether) leads at $140+ billion. USDC (Circle) follows with $45 billion as the regulated alternative. PYUSD (PayPal) has reached $3.8 billion.
Choose This Model When...
Regulatory compliance is paramount, you have access to banking infrastructure, you're targeting institutional or payment use cases, and you have sufficient capital to fund reserves.
Crypto-Collateralized Stablecoins
Crypto-collateralized stablecoins maintain their peg through overcollateralization with other digital assets, managed entirely through smart contracts. No fiat reserves exist, stability comes from the mathematical relationship between collateral value and outstanding tokens.
How It Works
Users deposit cryptocurrency (typically ETH, BTC, or other major assets) into a smart contract as collateral. The contract allows them to mint stablecoins up to a specified collateral ratio. If you deposit $150 worth of ETH at a 150% collateral ratio, you can mint up to 100 stablecoins.
The critical mechanism is liquidation. When collateral value drops below the minimum threshold (e.g., collateral falls to 120% of debt), anyone can trigger a liquidation, repaying the stablecoin debt in exchange for the collateral at a discount. This incentivizes liquidators to maintain system solvency while protecting stablecoin holders from under-collateralization.
Governance
Unlike fiat-backed stablecoins with centralized issuers, crypto-collateralized systems typically operate through decentralized governance. Token holders vote on critical parameters: collateral types, stability fees (interest rates), debt ceilings per collateral type, and liquidation penalties. This introduces flexibility but also risk—poor governance decisions can threaten stability.
Peg Stability
Modern systems often include a Peg Stability Module (PSM) allowing direct 1:1 swaps with approved stablecoins like USDC. This creates hard price floors and ceilings but introduces dependency on centralized collateral.
Examples
DAI (MakerDAO) has approximately $5 billion in circulation. Liquity's LUSD offers a more decentralized alternative with ETH-only collateral.
Choose This Model When...
You want to avoid fiat banking entirely, your users value decentralization, and you're comfortable with liquidation mechanics and governance complexity.
Algorithmic Stablecoins
Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to maintain their peg through automated supply adjustments without external collateral. The protocol algorithmically mints or burns tokens based on price deviations from the target peg (e.g. if the token trades above $1, the protocol will mint new tokens to increase supply).
The algorithmic stablecoin market has contracted to under $500 million in total, down from over $20 billion at its peak. No algorithmic stablecoin has achieved meaningful adoption for payments or institutional use cases.
How It (Theoretically) Works
Pure algorithmic stablecoins use a dual-token or seigniorage model. When the stablecoin trades above $1, the protocol mints new tokens and distributes them (often to holders of a secondary "share" token), increasing supply until price returns to peg. When trading below $1, the protocol offers bonds or burns mechanisms to reduce supply.
The fundamental challenge is reflexivity. In downturns, the mechanism requires market participants to buy bonds or share tokens with the expectation of future profits. But when confidence erodes, demand for these secondary tokens evaporates precisely when it's needed most, creating a death spiral.
The Terra/Luna Collapse
Terra's UST reached $18 billion in circulation before collapsing in May 2022. The collapse erased approximately $60 billion in value. It fundamentally discredited purely algorithmic approaches in the eyes of regulators and most market participants.
Regulatory Treatment
The GENIUS Act explicitly excludes algorithmic stablecoins from the payment stablecoin framework. MiCA's frameworks require reserve assets. This means algorithmic stablecoins cannot access regulated payment rails, banking relationships, or institutional adoption pathways.
Choose This Model When...
Don't (sorry). The regulatory exclusion, reputational damage, and mechanism fragility make algorithmic stablecoins impractical for any serious application.
Technical Architecture Deep Dive
With that context out of the way, let’s get into building. How do you actually build a stablecoin?
Building a production stablecoin requires sophisticated smart contract engineering, security infrastructure, and operational tooling. The code you deploy isn't just a token, it's a financial instrument that must satisfy regulators, survive adversarial conditions, and handle potentially billions of dollars in value. The GENIUS Act's technical mandates (freeze, seize, blacklist capabilities) aren't suggestions; they must be baked into your contract architecture from day one.
This section provides the technical foundation for implementation, starting with smart contract patterns that satisfy both regulatory requirements and security best practices.
Core Smart Contract
A compliant stablecoin smart contract must implement several interlocking components: the token standard itself, access control mechanisms, supply management functions, and compliance controls. The good news is that battle-tested building blocks exist, OpenZeppelin's audited contracts provide a foundation that's been stress-tested across billions of dollars in deployed value. The key is extending these primitives with the specific capabilities your regulatory and operational context demands.
Base Token Implementation
Let's start with the contract skeleton. We're inheriting from multiple OpenZeppelin base contracts, each providing a specific capability: ERC20Upgradeable gives us the standard token interface, ERC20PausableUpgradeable adds emergency stop functionality, AccessControlUpgradeable enables granular permissions, and UUPSUpgradeable allows the contract to be upgraded without migrating token balances.
The role definitions at the top establish the permission structure. Rather than a single "owner" who can do everything, we separate concerns: minters handle supply expansion, burners process redemptions, pausers manage emergencies, and blacklisters handle compliance actions. This separation matters both for security (compromising one key doesn't compromise everything) and for operational clarity (your compliance team doesn't need access to minting functions).
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/token/ERC20/ERC20Upgradeable.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/token/ERC20/extensions/ERC20PausableUpgradeable.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/access/AccessControlUpgradeable.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/proxy/utils/Initializable.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable/proxy/utils/UUPSUpgradeable.sol";
contract RegulatedStablecoin is
Initializable,
ERC20Upgradeable,
ERC20PausableUpgradeable,
AccessControlUpgradeable,
UUPSUpgradeable
{
bytes32 public constant MINTER_ROLE = keccak256("MINTER_ROLE");
bytes32 public constant BURNER_ROLE = keccak256("BURNER_ROLE");
bytes32 public constant PAUSER_ROLE = keccak256("PAUSER_ROLE");
bytes32 public constant BLACKLISTER_ROLE = keccak256("BLACKLISTER_ROLE");
bytes32 public constant UPGRADER_ROLE = keccak256("UPGRADER_ROLE");
mapping(address => bool) private _blacklisted;
event Blacklisted(address indexed account);
event UnBlacklisted(address indexed account);
event Mint(address indexed minter, address indexed to, uint256 amount);
event Burn(address indexed burner, uint256 amount);
/// @custom:oz-upgrades-unsafe-allow constructor
constructor() {
_disableInitializers();
}
function initialize(
string memory name,
string memory symbol,
address defaultAdmin
) public initializer {
__ERC20_init(name, symbol);
__ERC20Pausable_init();
__AccessControl_init();
__UUPSUpgradeable_init();
_grantRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
_grantRole(MINTER_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
_grantRole(BURNER_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
_grantRole(PAUSER_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
_grantRole(BLACKLISTER_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
_grantRole(UPGRADER_ROLE, defaultAdmin);
}
function decimals() public pure override returns (uint8) {
return 6; // USDC convention for USD stablecoins
}
}Notice that we're using 6 decimals rather than the typical 18. This follows the USDC convention for dollar-denominated stablecoins. It maps cleanly to cents and avoids the awkward precision of 18 decimal places for a currency that only needs two. This is a design decision you'll make early and live with forever, so consider your use case carefully.
Supply Management: Minting and Burning
The mint and burn functions are where tokens enter and exit circulation. In a fiat-backed model, minting happens when users deposit dollars and burning happens when they redeem. These operations must be tightly controlled. Only authorized treasury operations should create new tokens, and every mint should correspond to actual dollars entering your reserve accounts.
The onlyRole(MINTER_ROLE) modifier ensures that only addresses granted minting permission can call this function. The whenNotPaused modifier prevents minting during emergencies. And critically, we check that the recipient isn't blacklisted before minting—you don't want to create tokens for a sanctioned address.
The burnFrom function handles the common redemption flow where a user approves your redemption contract to burn tokens on their behalf. The _spendAllowance call verifies and decrements the approval, preventing unauthorized burns.
// Minting - only authorized minters (typically treasury operations)
function mint(address to, uint256 amount)
external
onlyRole(MINTER_ROLE)
whenNotPaused
{
require(!_blacklisted[to], "Recipient is blacklisted");
_mint(to, amount);
emit Mint(msg.sender, to, amount);
}
// Burning - for redemptions
function burn(uint256 amount)
external
onlyRole(BURNER_ROLE)
whenNotPaused
{
_burn(msg.sender, amount);
emit Burn(msg.sender, amount);
}
// Burn from specific address (for redemption processing)
function burnFrom(address account, uint256 amount)
external
onlyRole(BURNER_ROLE)
whenNotPaused
{
_spendAllowance(account, msg.sender, amount);
_burn(account, amount);
emit Burn(account, amount);
}Blacklist Implementation
Here's where we implement the GENIUS Act's freeze requirements. The blacklist is conceptually simple, a mapping from addresses to booleans, but its integration into the transfer flow is what makes it effective. By overriding the _update function (which OpenZeppelin's ERC-20 calls on every transfer, mint, and burn), we ensure that blacklisted addresses cannot send or receive tokens under any circumstances.
The isBlacklisted view function lets anyone check an address's status, important for integrating protocols that need to verify compliance before interacting with your token. The events (Blacklisted, UnBlacklisted) create an auditable on-chain record of every compliance action.
function blacklist(address account)
external
onlyRole(BLACKLISTER_ROLE)
{
require(!_blacklisted[account], "Already blacklisted");
_blacklisted[account] = true;
emit Blacklisted(account);
}
function unBlacklist(address account)
external
onlyRole(BLACKLISTER_ROLE)
{
require(_blacklisted[account], "Not blacklisted");
_blacklisted[account] = false;
emit UnBlacklisted(account);
}
function isBlacklisted(address account) external view returns (bool) {
return _blacklisted[account];
}
// Override _update to enforce blacklist on all transfers
function _update(
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount
) internal virtual override(ERC20Upgradeable, ERC20PausableUpgradeable) {
require(!_blacklisted[from], "Sender is blacklisted");
require(!_blacklisted[to], "Recipient is blacklisted");
super._update(from, to, amount);
}Pause Functionality
Sometimes you need to stop everything. A critical vulnerability discovered in your contract, a coordinated attack, or a regulatory order might require halting all transfers immediately. The pause functions provide this emergency brake.
function pause() external onlyRole(PAUSER_ROLE) {
_pause();
}
function unpause() external onlyRole(PAUSER_ROLE) {
_unpause();
}Because _update inherits from ERC20PausableUpgradeable, calling _pause() will cause all transfers to revert until _unpause() is called. Consider carefully who holds the PAUSER_ROLE,it needs to be accessible quickly in emergencies but not so broadly distributed that it becomes a griefing vector.
Upgradeability
Smart contracts are immutable by default, but regulated financial infrastructure needs to evolve. Bug fixes, new compliance requirements, and feature additions all require the ability to upgrade. The UUPS pattern puts the upgrade logic in the implementation contract itself, and the _authorizeUpgrade function ensures only authorized parties can trigger upgrades.
function _authorizeUpgrade(address newImplementation)
internal
override
onlyRole(UPGRADER_ROLE)
{}
// Version tracking for upgrade history
function version() external pure returns (string memory) {
return "1.0.0";
}The version function is simple but valuable. It lets anyone verify which implementation version is currently active, crucial for debugging and audit trails. In production, consider adding more detailed upgrade tracking: timestamps, previous implementation addresses, and upgrade rationale stored on-chain or referenced via content hashes.
Advanced Compliance Features
The base implementation covers the GENIUS Act's core requirements, but sophisticated stablecoin operations often need additional capabilities. These advanced features address specific regulatory scenarios and institutional requirements.
Whitelist Mode for Closed-Loop Systems
While blacklisting blocks specific bad actors, some use cases require the opposite approach: only allowing pre-approved addresses to hold or transfer tokens. This "closed-loop" model suits institutional environments where every participant must complete KYC before touching the stablecoin.
The implementation adds a toggle (whitelistEnabled) and a separate mapping for approved addresses. When enabled, the _update override checks whitelist status in addition to blacklist status. Note that we explicitly allow minting to non-whitelisted addresses when from is the zero address (minting) and burning from non-whitelisted addresses when to is the zero address (burning)—this lets the issuer onboard new users by minting to them before they're formally whitelisted.
bool public whitelistEnabled;
mapping(address => bool) private _whitelisted;
bytes32 public constant WHITELISTER_ROLE = keccak256("WHITELISTER_ROLE");
event WhitelistEnabled();
event WhitelistDisabled();
event Whitelisted(address indexed account);
event RemovedFromWhitelist(address indexed account);
function enableWhitelist() external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
whitelistEnabled = true;
emit WhitelistEnabled();
}
function disableWhitelist() external onlyRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) {
whitelistEnabled = false;
emit WhitelistDisabled();
}
function addToWhitelist(address account)
external
onlyRole(WHITELISTER_ROLE)
{
_whitelisted[account] = true;
emit Whitelisted(account);
}
function removeFromWhitelist(address account)
external
onlyRole(WHITELISTER_ROLE)
{
_whitelisted[account] = false;
emit RemovedFromWhitelist(account);
}
// Modify _update to check whitelist when enabled
function _update(
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount
) internal virtual override {
require(!_blacklisted[from], "Sender is blacklisted");
require(!_blacklisted[to], "Recipient is blacklisted");
if (whitelistEnabled) {
// Allow minting (from = 0) and burning (to = 0)
if (from != address(0)) {
require(_whitelisted[from], "Sender not whitelisted");
}
if (to != address(0)) {
require(_whitelisted[to], "Recipient not whitelisted");
}
}
super._update(from, to, amount);
}Clawback Capability
Some jurisdictions, notably Hong Kong under the Stablecoins Ordinance, require the ability to forcibly transfer tokens from one address to another upon court order. This is the most invasive compliance capability: it allows the issuer to move tokens without the holder's consent.
The implementation is straightforward but the implications are significant. The reason parameter creates an on-chain record of why the clawback occurred, and the event provides full transparency. Consider requiring multi-sig approval for clawback operations and maintaining detailed off-chain records linking each clawback to specific legal orders.
bytes32 public constant CLAWBACK_ROLE = keccak256("CLAWBACK_ROLE");
event Clawback(
address indexed from,
address indexed to,
uint256 amount,
string reason
);
function clawback(
address from,
address to,
uint256 amount,
string calldata reason
) external onlyRole(CLAWBACK_ROLE) {
require(bytes(reason).length > 0, "Reason required");
_transfer(from, to, amount);
emit Clawback(from, to, amount, reason);
}Oracle Integration for Crypto-Collateralized Systems
If you're building a crypto-collateralized stablecoin rather than a fiat-backed one, reliable price feeds become critical infrastructure. The collateralization ratio that determines whether a position is healthy or liquidatable depends entirely on accurate, timely price data.
Chainlink has become the industry standard for on-chain price oracles. The integration pattern below shows how to fetch prices with appropriate safety checks. The staleness check (requiring price data less than one hour old) prevents the system from operating on outdated information—crucial during periods of high volatility when prices can move significantly within minutes.
The getCollateralRatio function calculates the current health of a user's position by comparing their collateral value (collateral amount times current price) to their outstanding debt. The liquidate function allows anyone to close out an undercollateralized position, repaying the debt and claiming the collateral plus a bonus. This bonus incentivizes liquidators to monitor positions and act quickly, maintaining system solvency.
import "@chainlink/contracts/src/v0.8/interfaces/AggregatorV3Interface.sol";
contract CollateralizedStablecoin {
AggregatorV3Interface internal priceFeed;
uint256 public constant LIQUIDATION_THRESHOLD = 150; // 150%
uint256 public constant LIQUIDATION_BONUS = 10; // 10% bonus for liquidators
struct Vault {
uint256 collateralAmount;
uint256 debtAmount;
}
mapping(address => Vault) public vaults;
constructor(address _priceFeed) {
priceFeed = AggregatorV3Interface(_priceFeed);
}
function getLatestPrice() public view returns (uint256) {
(
,
int256 price,
,
uint256 timeStamp,
) = priceFeed.latestRoundData();
// Staleness check - revert if price is older than 1 hour
require(block.timestamp - timeStamp < 3600, "Stale price data");
require(price > 0, "Invalid price");
return uint256(price);
}
function getCollateralRatio(address user) public view returns (uint256) {
Vault memory vault = vaults[user];
if (vault.debtAmount == 0) return type(uint256).max;
uint256 collateralValue = (vault.collateralAmount * getLatestPrice()) / 1e8;
return (collateralValue * 100) / vault.debtAmount;
}
function liquidate(address user) external {
require(
getCollateralRatio(user) < LIQUIDATION_THRESHOLD,
"Position is healthy"
);
Vault storage vault = vaults[user];
uint256 debtToCover = vault.debtAmount;
uint256 collateralToSeize = (debtToCover * (100 + LIQUIDATION_BONUS)) /
(getLatestPrice() / 1e8);
// Transfer stablecoins from liquidator to protocol
// Transfer collateral to liquidator with bonus
// Clear vault
vault.collateralAmount = 0;
vault.debtAmount = 0;
}
}Multi-Signature and Timelocks
Production deployments shouldn't trust any single key with critical operations. Multi-signature wallets require multiple parties to approve transactions, and timelocks add mandatory waiting periods that give the community time to react to proposed changes.
The pattern below illustrates timelock-protected minting. Rather than executing immediately, a mint operation is first proposed, recording its parameters and unlock time. Only after the delay expires can the operation be executed. For routine operations like minting (where reserves have already been verified), a 24-hour delay balances security with operational efficiency. For upgrades that could fundamentally change the contract's behavior, longer delays (7 days or more) give users time to exit if they disagree with the change.
Note that blacklisting is intentionally excluded from timelock requirements, when you receive a court order to freeze assets, you need to act immediately, not wait 24 hours.
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/governance/TimelockController.sol";
contract StablecoinGovernance {
TimelockController public timelock;
uint256 public constant MINT_DELAY = 24 hours;
uint256 public constant UPGRADE_DELAY = 7 days;
mapping(bytes32 => uint256) public pendingOperations;
function proposeMint(address to, uint256 amount) external {
bytes32 operationId = keccak256(abi.encode("mint", to, amount));
pendingOperations[operationId] = block.timestamp + MINT_DELAY;
}
function executeMint(address to, uint256 amount) external {
bytes32 operationId = keccak256(abi.encode("mint", to, amount));
require(
block.timestamp >= pendingOperations[operationId],
"Timelock not expired"
);
require(pendingOperations[operationId] != 0, "Operation not proposed");
delete pendingOperations[operationId];
// Execute mint
}
}Security Considerations
Beyond the contract logic itself, production stablecoins require comprehensive security practices.
Access Control Checklist
Before deployment, verify that all privileged functions have appropriate role checks, role assignment follows least-privilege principles (nobody has more access than they need), critical roles (admin, upgrader) require multi-sig approval, emergency procedures are documented and tested, and key rotation procedures are established for when team members leave or keys are potentially compromised.
Audit Requirements
Production stablecoins require multiple independent security audits. The standard practice includes at least two audits from reputable firms (Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Consensys Diligence, Halborn, etc.), formal verification of critical invariants (total supply equals sum of balances, blacklisted addresses cannot transfer), economic audits for collateralized systems (stress testing liquidation mechanisms under extreme market conditions), and ongoing monitoring with automated invariant checking in production.
Don't treat audits as a checkbox exercise. Engage auditors early, give them time to understand your system deeply, and address all findings—not just the critical ones. The cost of a thorough audit is trivial compared to the cost of a production exploit.
Ongoing Monitoring
Deploy automated invariant checking in production. Monitor that total supply equals sum of balances, blacklisted addresses cannot transfer, and role assignments match expected configurations. Set up alerts for unusual activity patterns.
Multi-Signature Requirements
Production deployments shouldn't trust any single key with critical operations. Use multi-sig wallets (Gnosis Safe or similar) for all admin functions. Consider timelocks for non-emergency operations—a 24-hour delay on minting gives time to catch errors, while a 7-day delay on upgrades lets users exit if they disagree with changes. Note that blacklisting should be excluded from timelocks, when you receive a court order to freeze assets, you need to act immediately.
Reentrancy Protection
While standard ERC-20 transfers don't create reentrancy vulnerabilities (they don't call external contracts), any integration with DeFi protocols, callback patterns, or external systems should use OpenZeppelin's ReentrancyGuard. Apply the nonReentrant modifier to any function that interacts with untrusted external contracts.
Blockchain Platform Selection
With your regulatory strategy defined, stablecoin model chosen, and smart contracts architected, there's one more foundational decision: where does this actually run?
The choice of blockchain infrastructure fundamentally shapes your stablecoin's capabilities, costs, and market reach. A year ago, this decision meant choosing between a handful of general-purpose chains. Today, the landscape has fragmented into specialized options, including purpose-built stablecoin L1s from major players like Stripe, Circle, and Tether. Each platform carries distinct trade-offs in transaction costs, throughput, ecosystem access, and regulatory positioning, and you’ll want to do your due diligence to figure out where you want to launch first.
While you may choose to launch on a single chain, the reality for many successful stablecoins is multi-chain deployment. For example, USDC operates on 30+ chains, and Paypal’s PYUSD spans Ethereum, Solana, and soon Stellar and Stable.
For new stablecoin builders, the approach you should take likely looks like this:
Launch on one primary chain aligned with your core use case.
Establish operational procedures and security practices on that chain.
Expand to secondary chains based on user demand and strategic value.
Use bridging protocols (CCTP, Wormhole NTT, LayerZero) for cross-chain transfers.
Build vs. Buy: The White-Label Decision
The stablecoin infrastructure market has matured dramatically. Regulated providers now offer turnkey issuance that can get you to market in months rather than years, with compliance frameworks already in place. The question isn't whether white-label solutions are capable—it's whether your specific requirements justify custom development.
For builders looking for less technical complexity and a faster time to market, there are a number of solutions availalbe to you, including:
Paxos
Paxos is the infrastructure behind some of the largest stablecoins in market: PYUSD (PayPal), BUSD (before their Binance partnership ended), and Paxos’ own USDP. They hold licenses from NYDFS, MAS (Singapore), and FIN-FSA (Abu Dhabi), providing global regulatory coverage that took years to obtain. Their November 2025 acquisition of Fordefi added institutional wallet infrastructure to their offering, creating a more complete stack.
Paxos has also launched a Global Dollar Network initiative to enable easy integration for partners, while letting Paxos handle reserve management, compliance, and regulatory requirements.
Coinbase Custom Stablecoins
Coinbase launched its white-label stablecoin solution, Coinbase Custom Stablecoins, in December 2025, allowing partners to issue branded stablecoins using USDC as underlying collateral. The model is clever: rather than creating new reserve management infrastructure, Coinbase essentially wraps USDC with custom branding. Partners get the liquidity and compliance benefits of USDC while maintaining their own brand identity.
Coinbase has applied for an OCC charter, potentially providing direct federal regulation for stablecoin activities. Their existing exchange infrastructure provides immediate liquidity solutions, your branded stablecoin can tap into USDC/USD trading pairs from day one. The custody infrastructure (through Coinbase Prime and Coinbase Custody) is already institutional-grade.
Brale
Brale focuses on faster time-to-market with multi-chain deployment capabilities. While Paxos and Coinbase emphasize regulatory pedigree and institutional relationships, Brale emphasizes customization and flexibility. Their platform supports deployment across multiple chains simultaneously, with more configurability around token features and compliance rules.
When to Build Custom
White-label solutions sacrifice control for convenience. The trade-off makes sense for most builders, but there are scenarios where custom development is worth the additional cost, time, and complexity.
Consider custom development when you require unique stabilization mechanisms not supported by providers (algorithmic components, novel collateral types, yield-bearing structures), when strategic differentiation requires proprietary technology that would be diluted by shared infrastructure, when geographic or regulatory requirements exceed provider capabilities (certain jurisdictions may require local infrastructure), when long-term cost economics favor owned infrastructure at scale (at $10B+ circulation, the math changes), or when you need custom compliance or governance features that providers can't or won't support.
The hybrid approach, using white-label for core issuance while building custom distribution and application layers, often provides the best balance. Let Paxos or Coinbase handle reserve management and regulatory compliance while you focus on the user experience, integrations, and features that differentiate your product.
Conclusion
Building a stablecoin in 2026 means navigating a fundamentally different landscape than even two years ago. Regulatory clarity has arrived through the GENIUS Act and MiCA, creating defined pathways but also clear requirements. Technical patterns are well-established, with battle-tested architectures and audited libraries. The strategic question isn't whether stablecoins achieve mainstream adoption—it's positioning for a market scaling toward trillions.
The builders who succeed will combine technical excellence with regulatory sophistication. They'll choose infrastructure thoughtfully and build compliance into architecture from day one, recognizing that regulatory adherence is competitive advantage, not burden.
Looking for an infrastructure partner? Alchemy powers the top stablecoins, issuers, and chains in the industry—from USDC and PYUSD to the leading L1/L2 networks. Whether you need node infrastructure, token APIs, or multi-chain deployment, you can interact with every level of the stack to bring your stablecoin to market. Reach out to our sales team to start the conversation.
Alchemy Newsletter
Be the first to know about releases
Sign up for our newsletter
Get the latest product updates and resources from Alchemy
By entering your email address, you agree to receive our marketing communications and product updates. You acknowledge that Alchemy processes the information we receive in accordance with our Privacy Notice. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Related articles
How to Build Solana AI Agents in 2026
A technical tutorial showing you how to build agents on Solana.
How to Make a Memecoin on Solana: A Step-by-Step Guide
Learn how to make a memecoin on Solana from a launchpad or DIY.
