HTX Pitches Open USD Model as UK Legal Pressure Mounts
HTX Ventures is examining a potentially important shift in stablecoin economics as Open USD prepares for launch later in 2026, arguing that the next phase of competition may be determined less by blockchain infrastructure than by who controls the revenue generated from digital dollars.
Summary:
- HTX Ventures argues that stablecoin competition is shifting from technology toward control of revenue and distribution.
- Open USD plans to share reserve income with institutions that contribute to its network.
- More than 140 organizations are associated with the initiative, but participation does not yet equal adoption.
- OUSD’s real test will be payment volume, liquidity, governance authority and performance under lower interest rates.
The proposed OUSD model would redirect part of the income earned on reserves toward the institutions that distribute and support the stablecoin, challenging an issuer-centric structure that has helped make tokens highly profitable businesses.
The analysis comes from HTX Ventures’ report, Open Infrastructure, Closed Financial Rails: Open USD, Revenue Redistribution, and Participant Governance, which examines how the economics of stablecoins could change as banks, payment companies, exchanges and asset managers become more deeply involved in digital-dollar infrastructure.
The timing creates an unusual backdrop for HTX. Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority is separately negotiating with the HTX crypto exchange over allegations that the platform illegally promoted crypto services to UK consumers. The High Court has paused that case while settlement discussions continue, placing the wider HTX organization under regulatory scrutiny even as its investment arm publishes research on the institutional structure of stablecoins.
Stablecoin infrastructure is open, but its revenue remains concentrated
Stablecoins have developed far beyond their original role as settlement assets for crypto traders. They increasingly sit inside cross-border payments, treasury operations and institutional settlement systems.
Yet the economics remain concentrated.
A conventional fiat-backed stablecoin issuer receives dollars, issues digital tokens and invests much of the reserve portfolio in cash and short-term government securities. Interest generated by those reserves can become a major source of revenue for the issuer.
Distribution depends on a much larger network.
Exchanges provide trading and liquidity. Wallets give users access to the tokens. Banks operate fiat connections. Payment processors connect merchants, while custodians, market makers and compliance providers support the infrastructure around them.
Those companies incur real operating costs but generally do not receive an automatic share of the reserve income generated by the stablecoin. Their economics instead depend on fees, commercial agreements and their negotiating power with issuers.
OUSD is attempting to alter that relationship.
Under the proposed Open Standard framework, enterprises would be able to mint and redeem OUSD without fees or volume limits.
Open Standard would charge a management fee and direct part of the remaining reserve income toward participating institutions.
The economic proposition is therefore not simply another dollar-backed token. It is an attempt to make distribution itself part of the stablecoin’s revenue model.
Why sharing Treasury income could change stablecoin distribution
The mechanism matters because stablecoin distribution has a classic network problem.
A new token needs wallets, exchanges, market makers, banks and payment companies before it becomes genuinely useful. Those institutions must spend money on integration, compliance, liquidity and customer acquisition before transaction volume is guaranteed.
OUSD effectively proposes using reserve income to help finance that distribution layer.
For a regional payments company, for example, supporting another stablecoin may normally mean additional engineering and compliance expenses with uncertain commercial returns. If participation also creates a recurring claim on reserve-generated income, the economics of integration become more attractive.
That could be especially relevant for smaller institutions that lack the scale to negotiate favorable bilateral arrangements with major issuers.
The trade-off is complexity. Once reserve income is shared across a network, the system needs a credible method for deciding who contributed enough economic value to receive it.
The hardest question is who deserves the yield
A revenue-sharing stablecoin immediately creates a measurement problem.
Allocating rewards primarily according to balances would favor banks, exchanges and asset managers capable of holding large amounts of OUSD. Using transaction volume instead could create different distortions because transfers between related accounts can generate activity without representing genuine commercial payments.
Customer acquisition presents another problem. A wallet that introduces thousands of active users may contribute more to the network than an institution holding a large passive balance, yet comparing those contributions objectively is difficult.
HTX Ventures argues that a workable framework may need several variables, including retained balances, genuine payment activity, new customers and investments in regional compliance.
That makes the allocation formula one of the most consequential pieces of OUSD’s design. Poor incentives could encourage participants to optimize for whatever metric generates the largest payout rather than build useful payment infrastructure.
The 140-name partner roster still needs to translate into volume
Open Standard has assembled an unusually broad institutional network, with more than 140 entities associated with the initiative.
The roster includes major names across payments, finance and crypto infrastructure.
Its size, however, should not be confused with established adoption.
OUSD is scheduled to launch later in 2026, which means the network does not yet have the circulating balances, redemption history or sustained payment flows needed to judge its economic significance. Joining an initiative is also substantially easier than migrating payment or treasury operations onto a new settlement asset.
That migration requires accounting integration, liquidity management, regulatory work and reliable connections to fiat banking systems.
The more useful benchmark after launch will therefore be how much business participants actually move onto OUSD rather than how many companies appear on the initial roster.
Visa’s $7 billion run rate shows what OUSD is competing for
The opportunity is becoming easier to quantify as traditional payment companies expand their blockchain operations.
Visa’s stablecoin settlement activity had reached an annualized run rate of roughly $7 billion by April 2026, according to the data cited by HTX Ventures. While that remains small relative to conventional card settlement, it provides evidence that blockchain-based settlement has progressed beyond limited technical demonstrations.
Other institutional projects are approaching the same problem from different directions. Swift, Canton Network, Fnality and Project Agorá are exploring forms of tokenized deposits, wholesale settlement and central-bank money infrastructure.
OUSD is making a different wager. Rather than competing solely on settlement technology, it is attempting to make the economics of participation attractive enough that financial institutions have a reason to distribute and use the asset.
That distinction could matter because technical compatibility alone does not create liquidity. A stablecoin also needs institutions willing to hold balances, make markets, process payments and provide reliable conversion into conventional currencies.
Governance could matter as much as revenue sharing
Open Standard also proposes moving some influence away from a purely issuer-controlled structure by bringing selected participating institutions into governance.
The practical value of that arrangement will depend on what those participants can actually decide.
A board with authority over fee structures, revenue allocation, service providers, technical upgrades and emergency procedures would represent meaningful participant governance. A board with primarily advisory powers would leave the economic structure much closer to the traditional issuer model.
Governance can also become more difficult as the network grows. A global exchange, regional bank, card network and crypto wallet may all want different rules around liquidity, compliance, fees and geographic expansion.
OUSD will therefore have to demonstrate not only that participants receive economic benefits, but that decision-making remains workable when those interests conflict.
Lower interest rates could test the model’s economics
OUSD’s revenue-sharing model relies heavily on short-term government debt remaining lucrative. If interest rates decline, reserve yields drop, reducing the income available to distribute to partners. Over time, OUSD will need to prove it can generate independent fee-based revenue from payments or treasury services to remain attractive through shifting monetary cycles
HTX’s UK dispute creates a separate regulatory backdrop
HTX Ventures’ stablecoin research arrives while the HTX exchange remains involved in a significant dispute with Britain’s FCA, according to Yahoo Finance.
The regulator sued HTX, formerly Huobi, last October over allegations that it illegally promoted crypto services to UK consumers. The case is notable because it is the FCA’s first lawsuit against a crypto company over Britain’s financial promotion regime for digital assets.
Court proceedings have been paused while the parties pursue settlement discussions, which were extended through late August.
The FCA has previously described HTX’s operational structure as opaque and accused the platform of failing to engage with repeated regulatory approaches. HTX, meanwhile, says its services are not intended for UK users and has said it remains committed to compliance, transparency and user protection.
The dispute is legally separate from HTX Ventures’ analysis of OUSD. Still, the contrast illustrates the regulatory environment surrounding global digital-asset businesses: institutional stablecoin infrastructure is becoming more sophisticated at the same time regulators are demanding clearer accountability over who provides crypto services in individual markets.
What to watch when OUSD launches
The first meaningful evidence will arrive once OUSD begins circulating. Rather than focusing on headline partner numbers, investors and industry participants can track stablecoin balances, genuine payment volume, market-making depth, redemption performance and the availability of fiat conversion across major markets.
Revenue disclosures will be equally revealing. If Open Standard provides enough information to determine how reserve income is allocated among distributors, investors will be able to assess whether the network genuinely changes stablecoin economics or simply introduces another layer of commercial agreements.
Governance will face its own test once participants must make consequential decisions rather than endorse a common framework.
The authority given to institutional partners over fees, vendors, upgrades and emergency procedures will indicate how far OUSD has actually moved from issuer-led control toward participant governance.
The information presented in this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial, investment, or trading advice. Coinspress.com does not promote or advocate for any particular investment strategy, asset, or cryptocurrency project. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and unpredictable – always perform your own research and seek guidance from a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.
Kosta Gushterov
Reporter at CoinsPress
Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.
