Meta's Stablecoin Journey: From Ambition to Compromise

Meta once had grand stablecoin plans, but has now shifted to a more pragmatic strategy. In 2019, when it was still called Facebook, Meta launched the Libra project, attempting to establish a central bank-like digital currency system. However, this ambitious plan soon faced strong opposition from regulators.

In the following three years, Zuckerberg was summoned to testify before Congress multiple times. Libra had to compromise repeatedly, changing from a multi-currency peg to a single dollar, removing sensitive wording, and even renaming itself to Diem. But ultimately, in January 2022, Diem declared failure and sold all its assets for $200 million.

This failure has become a cautionary tale for tech giants venturing into the financial sector. The U.S. Congress even enacted legislation explicitly prohibiting large platform companies from issuing assets pegged to fiat currency, repeatedly naming Diem as a negative example.

However, Meta has not given up on the stablecoin sector. In early 2025, payment industry veteran Ginger Baker returned to Meta as the Vice President of Payment Products, which is seen as a signal of Meta's return to the stablecoin race. However, this time, Meta has adopted a more cautious strategy.

According to reports, Meta is exploring the use of various stablecoins such as USDC as payment solutions for income settlement for content creators on the platform. In this mechanism, Meta does not directly participate in reserves and clearing, but only manages the payment route. This approach both avoids regulatory red lines and retains control over the core payment process.

The biggest difference between Meta's new path and the Diem era is that it no longer insists on issuing its own stablecoins, but instead turns to distributing existing compliant coins. This light asset model not only aligns with the operational logic of internet platforms but also helps to avoid regulatory risks.

However, even with this indirect approach, Meta's actions have still raised the vigilance of regulatory authorities. U.S. senators have questioned whether Meta is using the guise of cooperation to bypass regulations and restart a private coin network, pointing out that even if stablecoins are not directly issued, as long as they control the accounts and settlement channels, systemic risks still exist.

Meta's shift reflects the overall trend in the stablecoin industry. As regulations become increasingly clear, large platforms are no longer competing for issuance rights, but rather for traffic entry points. Stablecoins are transitioning from user-facing assets to embedded clearing modules in the underlying system.

For users, stablecoins are becoming invisible, turning into a plug-and-play settlement API. The real transformation is not that users start to understand cryptocurrencies, but that they complete a smoother payment without even realizing it.

In this new landscape, the focus of competition between platforms has shifted to who can control the flow of funds. Although they no longer directly issue currency, platforms that master identity verification, fund scheduling, and payment pathways are effectively redefining the underlying logic of finance.

As stablecoins gradually blend into the Web2 ecosystem, new questions arise: how will regulators define these new roles? How can we balance innovation and risk? The discussion about the boundaries between platforms and finance may have only just begun.