Open USD’s proposed model would direct part of stablecoin reserve income to the companies that distribute, support, and govern the token, challenging the issuer-first economics that have dominated the dollar-pegged token market. Under the Open Standard framework described in project materials, enterprises could mint and redeem OUSD without direct fees, while a management fee would be taken from reserves and the remaining yield shared with participating partners.
The design places the commercial battle for stablecoins less on token issuance itself and more on the networks that provide customer access, payment integration, liquidity, compliance, and fiat conversion. If adopted at scale, the arrangement could give wallets, payment companies, banks, custodians, and market makers a recurring claim on income that has traditionally stayed with the issuer.
OUSD is scheduled to launch later in 2026. It should not be confused with Origin Dollar, the yield-bearing stablecoin launched by Origin Protocol in 2020 that also uses the OUSD ticker.
A different claim on reserve income
Most large stablecoin issuers generate revenue by holding customer funds in cash, short-dated government securities, and similar low-risk reserve assets. The yield produced by those assets generally accrues to the issuer, while distributors and service providers negotiate separate commercial terms for their role in helping a stablecoin reach users.
Open Standard proposes a different allocation. Rather than charging enterprises for minting and redemption, it would use reserve income to subsidize distribution and reward firms that promote and integrate OUSD. The framework also contemplates board participation for selected partners, linking economic participation with a formal role in the network’s governance.
That approach could reduce the issuer’s share of the reserve-yield spread if a large portion of income is committed to partners. In return, OUSD would seek to lower the cost of acquiring payment volume, building liquidity, connecting to local fiat systems, and meeting regional compliance requirements.
The trade-off is central to whether the model works. A stablecoin can promise revenue sharing, but it needs sustained balances and real payment use to produce an income pool worth dividing. Early distribution incentives may help attract integrations, yet those incentives depend on the token maintaining reliable reserves, deep redemption capacity, and enough transaction activity to justify the operational work required from partners.
Partners face incentives and measurement questions
Open Standard’s published partner roster reportedly includes more than 140 entities, among them Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Stripe, Coinbase, BlackRock, and BNY. Inclusion on a partner list does not necessarily mean each company will shift core payment, custody, treasury, or settlement operations to OUSD. Large financial and payments firms frequently test multiple tokenization and stablecoin initiatives while retaining existing infrastructure.
The more revealing measure will be whether participants commit balance-sheet liquidity, customer-facing product placement, merchant acceptance, local banking connections, or market-making capacity. Those activities are harder to replicate than a technical integration and would give a new stablecoin a stronger foundation for routine commercial use.
Revenue allocation also creates difficult design choices. A formula based largely on outstanding balances could favor firms with the largest capital resources, allowing major institutions to capture a disproportionate share of rewards. A formula based on transaction volume carries a different risk: partners could generate internal transfers or circular activity that increases recorded volume without representing genuine payments or settlement demand.
A hybrid model could reward several forms of contribution, such as stable balances, verified merchant payments, liquidity provision, redemption reliability, and regional fiat access. Each metric would need clear rules. Otherwise, disputes over attribution and economic rewards could undermine the collaborative structure the network is trying to create.
Pressure spreads across the stablecoin stack
The proposal targets the middle layers of the stablecoin market, where no single company normally controls every necessary function. Issuers supply the token and reserve structure, banks provide account access and cash movement, custodians safeguard assets, market makers support secondary-market liquidity, payment firms connect merchants, and wallets control much of the user interface.
A network-wide revenue pool would give some of those firms a reason to promote one stablecoin over competing alternatives. Wallets and payment processors could move beyond acting as access providers that receive fixed commercial fees, becoming participants with an ongoing financial interest in the token’s growth and rule-setting.
Banks face a more mixed outcome. Greater stablecoin use could divert some transaction balances from conventional deposits and reduce fees connected with correspondent banking and cross-border transfers. The same expansion could create demand for reserve custody, regulated fiat on- and off-ramps, foreign-exchange liquidity, and account infrastructure. The effect would likely vary by bank: institutions with international payment networks and compliance capabilities may be better positioned to supply services around stablecoin settlement.
Card networks could experience less direct pressure because stablecoin settlement does not replace all of the work behind a card payment. Authorization, fraud controls, dispute handling, merchant acceptance, and liability management remain valuable functions even if settlement increasingly occurs through tokenized money. The commercial impact may therefore depend on whether stablecoins become an alternative payment rail at checkout or remain mainly a behind-the-scenes settlement tool.
Adoption will depend on payments, not announcements
Stablecoins are increasingly being explored for cross-border payments, corporate treasury transfers, and institutional settlement workflows. Visa has previously disclosed stablecoin settlement activity through selected partners, while Swift, Canton Network, Fnality, and Project Agorá have examined models involving tokenized deposits, central bank money, and shared settlement infrastructure.
Those initiatives illustrate why a distribution-focused stablecoin model is emerging now. The difficult part of stablecoin growth is often not minting a dollar-pegged token. It is obtaining regulated access to fiat currencies, integrating with business payment systems, offering dependable liquidity across jurisdictions, and managing the legal and operational responsibilities attached to moving money.
OUSD’s proposed structure attempts to fund those functions from reserve income rather than charging enterprises directly. Its progress will depend on whether that income-sharing mechanism produces durable payment flows rather than short-lived incentive activity. The clearest indicators will be outstanding balances, redemption performance, independently observable payment use, market-making depth, and the extent to which named partners deploy OUSD in customer-facing or settlement operations.
To see how regulation could reshape OpenUSD-style models, read this stablecoin regulation deep-dive next.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
