The issue of stablecoin integration has long been a point of contention within the Cardano (ADA) community. Despite the growing influence of USDC and USDT on other blockchains, Cardano has yet to secure major partnerships with these stablecoins.
For many ADA enthusiasts, the absence of USDC by Circle and USDT by Tether casts doubt on the blockchain’s potential and its ability to attract investment. This ongoing frustration resurfaced recently, thanks to a post by Cardano contributor Mateusz Czeladka, which reignited the debate.
Czeladka voiced his concerns about the Cardano Foundation’s reluctance to engage with prominent stablecoin issuers. He suggested that the Foundation’s leadership, particularly Charles Hoskinson, has failed to prioritize these opportunities, even when the community has made its demands clear.
USDC to ADA: Failed
Hoskinson, however, responded directly to the claims, offering a different perspective. He explained that the Cardano Foundation had been presented with the opportunity to integrate USDC as far back as 2021, for just $3 million — when Circle’s holdings were valued at nearly $2 billion.
According to Hoskinson, the Foundation rejected the deal at that time, an action that has now been downplayed by some members of the community. He expressed disappointment over what he saw as an attempt to rewrite history, attributing blame to others for what he considered a missed opportunity.
The CF could have integrated circle back in 2021 for 3 million dollars. This was when their holdings were worth almost 2 billion dollars. They turned down the deal according to their own employee.
Then you rewrite history to eschew any of their responsibility and make it into…
— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) January 12, 2025
On the other hand, according to Czeladka, the foundation’s unwillingness to act, combined with internal power dynamics, has hindered Cardano’s growth potential, especially in comparison to other blockchains that have embraced USDC and USDT.
The contributor alluded to a perceived lack of political will and criticized the Foundation’s spending priorities, claiming it could have secured major deals if the leadership was willing to allocate sufficient resources.
