Jeremy Allaire, George Kurtz, Adam Goldstein: The Future of Everything: What CEOs of Circle, CrowdStrike & More See Coming in 2026

The conversation is framed as part of All In's coverage from the World Economic Forum in Davos, with stablecoins, AI and a crypto resurgence presented as the themes heading into 2026. Coinbase's Brian Armstrong and the CEO and co-founder of Circle are introduced as guests, and the host and the Circle co-founder are said to have known each other for 30 years. Earlier Davos visits are traced to 2008 and 2009, during a previous company, Brightcove, when the financial crisis was spreading. The same week is also linked to the minting of the first Bitcoin block, which carried the 'chancellor on the brink' bailout headline.

Both sides of the discussion list the shocks they have lived through: the dot-com bust, the great financial crisis and COVID. They frame these moments as times to build. One speaker says constraints strongly shape what entrepreneurs do, says Circle's history has included 'endogenous shocks' and 'exogenous shocks', and recalls that 2009 was the year the earlier company became profitable, with its IPO following soon after.

The case for stablecoins starts from work begun 'almost 13 years ago', after Bitcoin appeared. From an internet technologist's point of view, it looked like a missing infrastructure layer. The internet could represent data, media, audio, video and software, but it had no native form of money.

there was no notion of money on the internet and there was no protocol for money on the internet

The argument rejects the idea that everyone would adopt a new commodity money like Bitcoin. It calls instead for a bridge between the existing fiat system and crypto networks. Early labels such as 'fiat digital currency' and 'fiat tokens' gave way to the term stablecoin. The claimed benefits are digital dollars that move like other internet content, peer-to-peer transactions, and programmable money made possible by blockchains. Volatility is described as the barrier for consumers: nobody wants to buy a coffee with an asset whose value is uncertain. Circle's answer, as described, is a fully reserved model backed by 'ultra-safe assets', overseen by regulators and auditors.

build like what we called like an HTTP for dollars on the internet

The host contrasts Circle with the 'easier decision' many crypto firms made: base themselves in Zug, Zurich or possibly Dubai and ignore regulators and audits. The host jokes that some crypto figures are watching from San Quentin. The reply is that a financial system the whole world actually uses, for business, consumer use and lending, has to integrate with existing institutions.

you have to work with policymakers to figure that out. There's just no other way.

Testimony to the Senate in November 2013 is said to have made the same arguments that are made today, but it 'was received slightly differently' and drew 'a lot of hate'. That reaction is placed in the long-running split between hard libertarian and statist views of the internet. The speaker says they lean libertarian. They note that early web infrastructure, such as ISP regulation, SSL and decisions about which sites were valid, was also controversial with more anarchist-leaning groups, and that cryptography and crypto grew out of that culture. Circle is presented as taking a middle way: open public networks, permissionless innovation and open-source infrastructure, combined with the structure that institutions like BlackRock, large tech companies or ordinary wallet holders need in order to trust that a token really is a dollar. The host adds that 'in code we trust' is easier for developers to accept than for a civilian who wants to know how the dollar is backed.

The regulated path is described as harder and more capital-intensive. The first executive hire was a general counsel and chief compliance officer. Before Jim Breyer and General Catalyst would invest, they wanted assurance that the business was not illegal. The founder used personal funds to hire a top regulatory advisory firm, which consulted the U.S. Treasury Department and others. That review found a legal path based on Treasury guidance on virtual currency in the banking system issued in March 2013.

The discussion separates regulators from incumbents. Building the business is described as a series of 'huge uphill battles' with both. Policymakers are said to be fairly open when approached candidly about a new technology and its risks, while incumbents showed 'a lot more skepticism'. The speaker says this has changed and that stablecoins have gone 'from a threat to an opportunity'.

There are real risks. Like, let's not pretend there aren't risks.

The host suggests that some major banks remain hesitant because Circle may be too far ahead. The answer grants 'some truth in that' and compares the situation with earlier internet eras. Media companies, advertisers and retailers eventually adapted, but software-driven entrants built utilities with different unit economics; Craigslist versus classifieds, Google's ad network versus New York Times advertising, and Amazon Marketplace are the examples given. Incumbents are said to take five to ten years and 'three times longer' than innovators to make such transitions. Walmart and Target are credited with doing an exceptional job, and the United Airlines app is described half-jokingly as 'not terrible'. Circle is described as fundamentally a software company that will therefore move faster.

The host names the sticking point with banks: whether stablecoins can generate points, incentives or interest. The Genius Act, as summarized, allows rewards but not interest. The background given is that bank regulators met through the Financial Stability Board and called for stablecoin regulation around the time Meta attempted its Libra project. The host offers a second-hand, unverified account from 'insiders' that Meta dropped Libra because Zuckerberg did not want more scrutiny over the company's power. The other speaker does not confirm this, saying only that they have 'a variety of insights about it'.

Stablecoin laws are described as appearing first in Japan, then in Europe, the UAE and Hong Kong, and then in the U.S. through the Genius Act. These laws are said to treat stablecoins consistently as cash-like payment instruments. As a result, Circle, as a payment stablecoin issuer, is prohibited from paying interest directly to holders, and the same rule applies in Europe and Japan. Distribution partners such as Robinhood, Revolut, Coinbase and Visa, however, want to offer rewards, loyalty programs or incentives funded by their commercial relationship with Circle. The speaker says the Genius Act captured this and calls it 'a very solid model'. They acknowledge that how prescriptive the law should be about qualifying rewards is 'getting relitigated a little bit'.

The host asks whether some banks want to kill the rewards provision. The reply is that banks see stablecoins as 'both a threat and an opportunity', and that Circle is engaging with more global, regional and other banks than ever before. Uses mentioned include payments, capital markets, posting collateral on exchanges, trading and wealth management. The host describes stablecoin transfers as faster and cheaper, 'instant and it's free, essentially'.

Concrete examples follow. A global money-center bank, with JP Morgan or Citi offered as examples of the type, is said to integrate with over 200 different payment networks with different standards, so a stablecoin network looks to such banks like one more network with internet-like features. An unnamed global systemically important bank is said to move its own money between its global branches using USDC because it is faster than correspondent banking. The speaker expects the rewards question to be resolved. The host compares it with Amex points and video-game items, where questions about whether they counted as currencies were eventually set aside.

The host estimates that Tether, an offshore competitor, is 'three, four, five times' larger in assets. USDC is described as the second-largest stablecoin, growing faster for two years straight, and 'by far the largest regulated stable coin network', with transaction volume also growing faster. The intended users include a remote software engineer in Pakistan, a small business in Brazil importing from Vietnam, and a U.S. hedge fund trading derivatives. All of them are said to need something safe, fully reserved, audited, compliant and liquid.

Market size is put at about $120 trillion of legal electronic money. Physical cash and non-interest-bearing demand deposits are estimated at about $60 trillion, though the transcript is garbled at that point. Stablecoins are said to be able to grow into that working-capital pool. The host describes the business model as earning on the float, claims Tether makes over $10 billion a year from its float, and guesses Circle makes billions. The response notes that Circle is a public company, reports this figure as 'reserve income', and confirms only that it is 'billions' and 'a significant amount'.

Asked whether a zero-rate environment would hurt the business, the speaker argues the reverse. When rates were very low, USDC saw thousand-percent year-over-year growth for two years straight; when rates rose, circulation declined. The explanation is the opportunity cost of holding money. From December 2023, as the forward curve began to fall, USDC grew again. The figures are given as approximate: a drop from a peak of 'five, and a quarter or five and a half' to around 'three and a half', or 'call it a 35, 40 percent decline', alongside a 'multi-100 percent increase' in USDC in circulation. The speaker adds that they do not know the exact percentage.

And so there's an inverse correlation there.

The speaker says they have argued publicly for lower rates, saying lower rates would increase the velocity of money, grow the pie and encourage investment in technology. They raise the question of the neutral rate when inflation persists around 2.5%. The host tells the story that the 2% inflation target came from a New Zealand central bank official's instinct, and says America has been at 2.8. The host argues that the 4% unemployment and 2% benchmarks will be challenged by technology, job displacement and globalization. They also point to falling labor participation, now 61 or 62 percent against a peak of 68 or 69 percent, which they describe as 'like 15 percent higher'.

The host raises claims, reports and concerns from politicians, the press and regulators about Tether. These include alleged ties to the 'dark economy', bans in multiple jurisdictions, worries about a run if it was not fully backed, possible Chinese paper among its reserves, and attestations from little-known firms in the BVI. The host calls these reports and concerns rather than established facts, and they are not independently verified in the conversation. The host also cites rumors that Tether will launch a U.S. version.