After six years of setbacks, Meta's ambitions for stablecoins have taken a new turn

Written by: Yangz, Techub News

The once “ever-changing” cryptocurrency industry is no longer as bustling as in the past, but six years are enough to lay the groundwork for many things.

In 2019, when Mark Zuckerberg entered the U.S. Capitol to testify about the Libra project, he probably sensed it would be a tough battle. But he might not have expected that this fight would end in complete failure—not because the technology was lacking, not because users weren’t interested, but because he himself became the target of the entire financial regulatory system.

Today, six years later, Zuckerberg is trying again. But this time, the environment has changed, and Facebook, now renamed Meta, has likely learned its lesson.

Using a Platform to Play a Role

According to CoinDesk, citing multiple insiders, Meta plans to re-enter the stablecoin market in the second half of this year. Unlike the high-profile Libra days, this time Meta is taking a more cautious approach: not issuing, not leading, and not taking center stage. Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Meta Platforms, also responded, saying: Meta still has no stablecoin, and the company’s role in the stablecoin business is more about “supporting user payments.”

Insiders reveal that Meta is looking for a third-party company to provide stablecoin technology support. Payment giant Stripe, which acquired stablecoin infrastructure provider Bridge last year and has an existing relationship with Meta (Stripe CEO Patrick Collison joined Meta’s board of directors last April), is a leading candidate. Notably, insiders say Stripe is considering acquiring PayPal. Meanwhile, Bridge recently received preliminary approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for a national trust bank charter, allowing it to issue stablecoins, custody digital assets, and manage reserves under federal regulation.

If Libra was Meta’s attempt to build its own stage and perform, this time it’s about borrowing someone else’s stage to perform. The cleverness of this strategy lies in risk separation—Meta is the performer, but the stage is built by others. If a collapse occurs, the blame first falls on the stage builders. The painful lessons from Libra made Meta realize: in the face of financial regulation, whoever is in the spotlight becomes the target.

Libra: An Overly Advanced Story

Looking back at Libra’s failure, one question is worth pondering: where did it go wrong? Regulatory resistance was undoubtedly a primary reason, but perhaps a deeper reason was that Libra aimed to tell a global story, which the existing regulatory system simply couldn’t digest at the time.

Libra’s initial concept was to anchor a basket of sovereign currencies, meaning it challenged not only national payment systems but also the very concept of monetary sovereignty. For a country, currency is a symbol of sovereignty; any attempt to cross that red line triggers instinctive resistance.

At a U.S. congressional hearing, lawmakers repeatedly asked Zuckerberg a potential question: do you really want to replace the dollar? No matter how sincere Zuckerberg’s answers, doubts remained. Because Libra’s story carried a disruptive gene. A social platform with over 2 billion monthly active users issuing a global currency was, logically, a challenge to the existing order. Worse, Facebook was then at a credibility low. The Cambridge Analytica scandal had eroded public and regulatory trust to a freezing point. An untrusted player trying to enter the financial system was a recipe for trouble.

Libra was eventually renamed Diem, and repeatedly compromised, attempting to survive through self-castration. In 2022, Diem was sold to Silvergate Capital, marking the end of this gamble. Ironically, Silvergate Bank itself didn’t last long. Impacted by the 2022 crypto market crash, the bank announced liquidation in March 2023, and Diem’s name faded into the winter snow of the crypto cold spell.

Regulatory Changes and Competitive Landscape

If Libra’s failure was due to rushing ahead before the track was ready, the current situation is entirely different.

The U.S. is undergoing a systematic overhaul of cryptocurrency regulation. The passage of the GENIUS Act means stablecoin issuers now have a clear legal identity for the first time. From reserve asset requirements to disclosure standards, from consumer protection to market access, a relatively complete regulatory framework is taking shape. The essence of this change is that regulators are no longer trying to block but are instead laying out the track. Once rules are clear, compliant operation becomes possible. Meta’s decision to re-enter at this moment is clearly no coincidence.

Additionally, the direction of the track is also intriguing. The GENIUS Act focuses on dollar-pegged stablecoins, not the basket of currencies Libra envisioned. This means regulators are willing to greenlight dollar-stablecoins, provided they operate within this framework. From this perspective, Meta’s focus on dollar stablecoins is both an active adjustment and a strategic move.

Of course, Meta isn’t the only social platform eyeing stablecoin payments. Elon Musk, after taking over Twitter, has been pushing for integrated payment features. His vision is clear—transform X into a “super app,” handling everything from socializing to payments in one place. Additionally, Telegram has already integrated the TON blockchain, attempting to combine instant messaging with cryptocurrency payments.

The common logic among these players is: social platforms have natural payment scenarios. People chat, share, shop—why not also pay? Once a payment loop is established, user stickiness and commercial value can leap forward.

Conclusion

From Libra’s radical approach to the pragmatic integration of stablecoins, Meta’s payment journey reflects the typical path most tech giants take when entering finance: initial disruptive narratives are gradually adjusted in the face of regulation, ultimately returning to incremental innovation that coexists with the existing system.

For Zuckerberg, this is both a boundary expansion for business and a test of trust repair. Under the new regulatory landscape, he is trying to bring Meta into the stablecoin payment domain with a more cautious stance. This time, he hopes the waves will be smaller and the course clearer.