Circle IPO Controversy Sparks Industry Reflection

Recently, the USDC stablecoin issuer Circle completed its initial public offering (IPO), sparking widespread discussion within the cryptocurrency industry. As an important milestone for the industry, this IPO was supposed to be a symbolic event marking the cryptocurrency industry's move towards mainstream finance, yet it unexpectedly sparked controversy.

Industry insiders have pointed out that Circle leaned towards traditional financial institutions during the IPO allocation process, neglecting long-term supportive crypto-native participants. This move contradicts the "alignment of interests" concept emphasized by the crypto industry.

Circle's IPO is priced at $31 per share, higher than expected. The closing price on the first day reached $84, and a week later it broke through $107. This shows Wall Street's high enthusiasm for crypto assets, especially stablecoins.

Reasons to be optimistic about Circle stock (CRCL) include:

• As the first listed investment target focused on stablecoin growth
• The stablecoin market is expected to grow to a trillion-dollar scale.
• USDC currently manages $60 billion in assets, with an annual growth rate of 91%.

However, there are also some potential risks:

• Highly dependent on interest rate business models
• Rely on Coinbase as the issuance agent
• Revenue and profit growth has been slow over the past 3 years.
• Current valuation is relatively high

Some seasoned professionals in the cryptocurrency industry have indicated that Circle's preference for traditional financial institutions over native crypto funds in the IPO allocation is a significant mistake. They believe that early users and promoters who have long supported and used USDC should rightfully receive a larger share of the IPO allocation.

This individual emphasized that their criticism of Circle is not based on emotions, but on principles. He stated: "When it comes to properly promoting the development of the crypto industry and adhering to principles of integrity, we must express our position."

He pointed out that for many years, many crypto companies and funds have been supporting Circle and USDC, providing assistance in product testing, optimization suggestions, and more. However, in the IPO, these long-term partners only received extremely low allocations.

"Circle did not express gratitude to users or achieve long-term win-win through a certain interest-binding mechanism this time, but generously allocated IPO shares to those traditional financial institutions. These institutions may not have even finished reading the prospectus, do not have digital wallets, and certainly will not truly use Circle's products. They only want to make a quick buck." said the person.

In response to some critical voices, this individual also made a reply:

• IPO is different from airdrop; they are willing to buy stocks at the same price rather than getting them for free.
• The final allocation decision for the IPO is with the issuer Circle, not the underwriter.
• The so-called "25 times oversubscription" may just be a "cosmetic" change in the final data and cannot reflect actual fairness.

It is still unclear whether Circle's IPO allocation will affect its future development and the adoption of USDC. Industry insiders have stated that they will closely monitor the upcoming institutional holding report to see which investors Circle ultimately chooses to share in the growth dividends.

This controversy has also sparked in-depth reflection within the industry on issues such as the IPO mechanism and profit distribution. Finding a balance between traditional finance and crypto innovation will be an important topic that the industry needs to face in the future.