In the ever-bubbling cauldron of cryptocurrency innovation, few projects arrive with as much fanfare as Stable (STABLE). Billed as the world’s first “Stablechain” – a Layer-1 blockchain optimized for stablecoin payments with USDT as its native gas token – Stable promised to revolutionize global finance. Backed by heavyweights like Bitfinex, PayPal Ventures, and Tether, it raised $28 million in funding and lured billions in user deposits during its pre-launch campaign. Mainnet went live on December 8, 2025, with visions of zero-fee USDT transfers, sub-second finality, and seamless institutional settlement. Yet, within days, the project unraveled into chaos: users trapped with illiquid assets, a token price cratering 70% from its all-time high, and a chorus of accusations labeling it a “disaster,” “scam,” and outright “rug pull.” This investigation uncovers the red flags – from insider manipulations and flawed tokenomics to a team with questionable baggage – revealing how Stable may exemplify the predatory underbelly of VC-backed crypto launches.
The Chaotic Launch: Billions Deposited, Zero Withdrawals
Stable’s pre-deposit phase was a masterclass in hype. Users funneled over $2 billion in USDT and USDC into the protocol, enticed by promises of airdropped STABLE tokens and ecosystem rewards. But when mainnet activated, reality hit like a flash crash. Depositors received iUSDT (an interest-bearing wrapper) but found themselves unable to withdraw due to a glaring oversight: no native gas for transactions on the new chain. Forced to bridge funds via third-party tools like Stargate – incurring fees and delays – many users dumped their hastily claimed STABLE tokens on decentralized exchanges, tanking the price from $0.045 to a low of $0.01268 within 48 hours.
Worse, on-chain sleuths spotted anomalies: 10 wallets, allegedly tied to insiders or “rat bags,” pre-filled the $825 million deposit cap minutes before public announcement, pocketing disproportionate airdrops before retail users could participate. This reeks of front-running, a form of insider trading that’s rampant in crypto but illegal in regulated markets. Community forums erupted with frustration: “Users are now not able to withdraw their iUSDT… Complete and utter implosion,” one X user vented, echoing sentiments from hundreds of trapped depositors. As of December 12, 2025, the chain shows “empty blocks” and negligible activity, with daily transactions hovering under 1,000 – far below even nascent competitors like Plasma.
Tokenomics Under Scrutiny: A 100 Billion Supply Dilution Machine?
At first glance, STABLE’s economics seem tailored for a payments-focused chain: a fixed 100 billion token supply, with no inflationary minting. The token powers staking for validators, governance votes, and ecosystem incentives, while USDT handles all fees – ostensibly keeping STABLE’s utility “pure.” But dig deeper, and the allocations raise eyebrows.
- Team: 25% (25B tokens) – Locked for one year, then vesting over four years. Critics argue this empowers founders to dump gradually post-cliff, especially with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) starting at $4.5B and now languishing around $1.37B.
- Investors & Advisors: 25% (25B tokens) – Same vesting schedule, benefiting VCs like Hack VC and Nascent who poured in $28M at premiums.
- Ecosystem & Community: 40% (40B tokens) – Includes liquidity mining and grants, but 8% unlocked immediately at launch, fueling the initial pump-and-dump.
- Genesis Distribution: 10% (10B tokens) – Airdrops and early liquidity, which insiders allegedly gamed.
With 50% of supply funneled to insiders (team + investors), skeptics on X decry it as “BS tokenomics” designed for extraction, not utility. The 500% APR staking promo on BTSE – live until December 18 – only amplifies ponzi vibes, promising yields that scream unsustainable incentives over genuine growth. As one analyst noted, “STABLE is not essential for transactions since USDT covers gas,” leaving the token as a speculative governance play vulnerable to dumps.
The Team: Proven Innovators or Serial Grifters?
Stable’s leadership boasts pedigrees: CEO Brian Mehler (strategic growth), CTO Sam Kazemian (blockchain infra), and COO Thibault Reichlt (operations and compliance). Partnerships with Anchorage Digital for custody and over 50 integrations (PayPal, Fireblocks, Morpho) lend credibility. Yet, shadows loom. Kazemian, the CTO, co-founded Frax Finance, whose “Genius” stablecoin OS flopped amid adoption failures and depegging scares – prompting whispers he “jumped ship” for Stable. Community detectives tie the project to Blast’s “original team,” infamous for vaporware and rugs. X sleuths label it a “VC-incubated trash scam” potentially run by “North Korean devs,” echoing Blast’s scandals. CEO Mehler’s radio silence during the launch meltdown hasn’t helped, with users begging for clarity on withdrawals and airdrop claims.
Community Backlash and the Echoes of Past Scams
The X ecosystem is ablaze with outrage. “Stable rug pull confirmed,” one user proclaimed after the FDV plunged below $2B. Threads detail the “greed, blind confidence, stinginess, and misaligned cognition” of the “old guard” behind it, from outsourced dev teams to unfulfilled Binance listings. Comparisons to Terra/Luna’s $40B implosion abound, with Stable’s “stable” branding ironically fueling the fire: “If stability needs hype, it’s not stable.” Sentiment polls show 83% bullish pre-launch, but post-crash, bearish calls dominate, with Polymarket bets on further FDV erosion. Even Korean exchanges snubbed it, dooming hopes for broader liquidity.
Counterarguments: A Bumpy Start or Legitimate Innovation?
Defenders point to Stable’s tech merits: USDT-gas eliminates volatility in fees, and EVM compatibility enables quick dApp migrations. Listings on Bitget and BTSE, plus Launchpool rewards, signal institutional buy-in. The team insists the launch “glitches” are teething pains for a $170B USDT economy play, not malice. With vesting cliffs, insiders can’t dump en masse yet, and community allocations could bootstrap real adoption if execution improves.
Conclusion: Proceed with Extreme Caution
Stable (STABLE) entered as a beacon for stablecoin scalability but exited its launch as a cautionary tale of hype over substance. Trapped funds, insider games, and a plummeting token price have eroded trust, turning billions in deposits into a liquidity nightmare. While backed by blue-chips, the project’s DNA – flawed incentives, opaque ops, and a team dodging accountability – mirrors too many rugs that preceded it. For now, STABLE isn’t stabilizing finance; it’s destabilizing portfolios. Investors: DYOR isn’t enough – bridge out if you’re in, and watch from afar. In crypto’s wild west, what glitters as “stable” often crumbles fastest.
Leave a Reply