Google has seemingly entered the web3 and blockchain space with a proposition: the Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL), which is described as a Layer 1 blockchain designed as a “credibly neutral” platform for regulated institutions, particularly banks, to settle payments.
The tech firm’s aim is to provide an alternative to dominant stablecoins like Tether (USDT) and Circle’s USDC, arguing that banks will avoid using Tether’s or Circle’s blockchains due to their competing interests.
Instead, Google positions GCUL as a neutral ground for financial institutions. While this sounds promising on paper, a deeper look at the stablecoin market and its dynamics reveals why Google’s initiative may struggle to gain traction against established players like Tether and Circle, according to blockchain industry professional Anton Golub.
Stablecoins, with a market exceeding $260 billion, are primarily USD-denominated and serve as critical infrastructure for professional traders, including proprietary trading firms, market makers, crypto hedge funds, and arbitrage bots.
Contrary to Google’s focus on enabling bank-driven payment systems, the stablecoin market is not about retail transactions like buying coffee.
It’s about facilitating high-speed, high-volume trading where latency, liquidity, and cost are paramount.
This is where Tether and Circle have excelled, and Google’s GCUL appears to misjudge the market’s priorities.
The majority of stablecoin transactions occur on Tron, not Tether or Circle’s proprietary chains.
Tron’s dominance stems from its fast transaction finality, low fees, robust exchange integrations, and 24/7 uptime—features tailored to the needs of professional traders.
These market participants prioritize efficiency over branding, and Tron delivers.
Google’s assumption that banks will flock to GCUL overlooks a critical reality: banks are unlikely to issue stablecoins at all.
Stablecoins, with their real-time settlement capabilities, threaten the traditional banking model, which relies on multi-day settlement processes to generate fees.
Instead, banks are more likely to issue tokenized deposits—closed-loop IOUs backed by their own balance sheets, designed for internal use rather than as interoperable liquidity rails.
GCUL, as a private, permissioned system, is essentially a backend upgrade for siloed banking workflows, not a decentralized Layer 1 blockchain capable of competing in the global crypto liquidity market.
Tether and Circle, on the other hand, have thrived by embracing open infrastructure.
Their stablecoins are integrated across multiple blockchains like Tron, Ethereum, and Solana, as well as exchanges and wallets, creating borderless liquidity.
Banks, with their preference for control over interoperability, are unlikely to replicate this network effect, possibly limiting GCUL’s appeal.
Looking ahead, the stablecoin market is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2030, driven primarily by institutional trading rather than retail payments or consumer applications.
The so-called winners in this space will be those who prioritize deep exchange liquidity, cater to professional trading firms, and optimize for cost, speed, and reliability.
Tether’s dominance on Tron exemplifies this, while Circle’s strategic focus on regulatory alignment seemingly positions USDC for long-term adoption.
Google’s GCUL, while potentially useful for banks, is unlikely to capture significant stablecoin flows because it misunderstands the market’s core driver: liquidity, not payments.
Anton Golub, a blockchain professional claiming to have a decade of experience building exchanges and market-making operations, remains skeptical of GCUL’s hype.
He argues that Google’s blockchain may serve specific banking needs but will most likely not disrupt the stablecoin ecosystem.
Instead, Tether and Circle are expected to maintain their lead by continuing to cater to the high-stakes, high-speed ecosystem of institutional crypto trading.
In a market defined by liquidity and efficiency, Google’s so-called neutral ledger may struggle to find its place, potentially leaving Tether and Circle to dominate the stablecoin adoption movement.