The cryptocurrency industry has long been praised for its promise of decentralization, transparency, and financial inclusion. Yet, beneath the surface, certain segments operate under a pay-to-play model—one that prioritizes commercial interests over objectivity, undermines consumer trust, and introduces dangerous opacity into regulated financial ecosystems.
This issue has now surfaced in the intersection of stablecoins and regulated custodianship, where credibility and accuracy are not just best practices—they’re prerequisites for market integrity.
👉 Discover how transparent financial infrastructure is reshaping digital asset trust
The Pay-to-Play Pattern in Crypto Services
Last week, a senior executive from @Anchorage reached out to me offering their “Genius Bill-as-a-Service” product. I declined. Agora has been engaged in deep licensing discussions, operates with full compliance since inception, and brings decades of institutional expertise—bolstered by strategic relationships with State Street and VanEck—into the regulated digital asset space.
Shortly after our conversation, Anchorage published an article titled “Anchorage Digital Releases Stablecoin Security Matrix, Enabling Automatic Conversion for Secure Stablecoins.” In it, they announced the delisting of USDC and AUSD due to alleged security concerns. More troubling than the delistings themselves were the factual inaccuracies embedded in their report—claims that had already been corrected by VanEck representatives prior to publication.
One key assertion: “We identify centralization risks related to the issuer structure—risks institutions should carefully evaluate.” This statement is not only misleading but ironic. VanEck has served hundreds of institutional clients for far longer than Anchorage has existed. At the time of writing, VanEck manages more in assets than the combined total value of all stablecoins—except Tether.
Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest
What Anchorage failed to disclose in its report was its economic relationship with Paxos, the issuer behind three of the four highest-rated stablecoins in their matrix. Paxos partners with Anchorage, which earns revenue shares and basis point fees from the minting of these stablecoins. Moreover, there’s a preferential agreement: if those stablecoins are held on the Anchorage platform, they capture all associated revenue.
This is not a minor detail—it’s a fundamental conflict of interest.
That same Anchorage executive confirmed two firms were planning to use their “Genius Bill-as-a-Service” solution. I suspect these will be labeled as “secure” stablecoins under their framework. When a custodian both rates assets and profits from promoting specific ones, the line between analysis and marketing blurs dangerously.
Had Anchorage simply delisted USDC and AUSD to favor stablecoins in which they have a financial stake, I’d classify it as a business decision. Private companies are entitled to act in their self-interest.
But cloaking those decisions in false security concerns—while publishing known inaccuracies—is neither credible nor ethical.
Correcting the Record on AUSD
Let’s clarify the facts about AUSD:
- State Street serves as the cash custodian and fund administrator for the Agora Reserve Fund.
- VanEck, an asset manager with over $100 billion in AUM, acts as the investment manager.
Anchorage was aware of this structure from day one. VanEck formally corrected the record before the report went live. Yet, the inaccuracies remain uncorrected.
Under Anchorage’s own matrix—if applied uniformly—AUSD should score equal to or better than USDG.
Similarly, claims that USDC is less secure than USDT, USDG, PYUSD, or USDP defy reality. Circle, issuer of USDC, is a publicly traded company on the NYSE with years of audited financials and transparent reporting. To rank it lower without substantiated evidence undermines the entire framework’s legitimacy.
👉 See how next-gen custody solutions are building trust through transparency
Why This Matters for the Broader Market
Stablecoins are meant to be anchors of stability in a volatile ecosystem. Custodians are trusted with safeguarding billions in digital assets. When either entity compromises transparency for profit, the entire foundation of trust erodes.
The pay-to-play model risks turning objective assessments into paid placements. It incentivizes fear-based narratives to push products while discrediting competitors through selective or false information.
This isn’t just a reputational issue—it’s systemic risk.
Core Keywords:
- Pay-to-play crypto
- Stablecoin security
- Custody transparency
- Conflict of interest in crypto
- Regulated digital assets
- AUSD
- USDC
- Anchorage Digital
Building a Better Framework
At Agora, we’re committed to being the most transparent, client-driven programmable currency provider for a global audience. We don’t pay for placement. We don’t manipulate narratives. We believe in fair competition based on merit—not backroom deals.
We welcome scrutiny—but it must be honest, accurate, and free from hidden incentives.
As we expand our open partnership framework, we’re reinforcing networks built on integrity, not influence. We’re the underdogs who thrive in the fight because we know the stakes: nothing less than the future of trustworthy digital finance.
We will never pay to play.
👉 Explore platforms prioritizing transparency over profit in digital finance
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the "pay-to-play" model in crypto?
A: The pay-to-play model refers to practices where companies gain favorable treatment—such as platform listing, positive ratings, or promotional placement—by paying fees or entering exclusive revenue-sharing agreements. In crypto custody and stablecoin ecosystems, this can distort objective assessments and mislead institutional and retail users.
Q: Why is transparency important in stablecoin custody?
A: Stablecoins are widely used as low-volatility assets in trading, lending, and payments. If custodians lack transparency about their affiliations or security standards, users cannot accurately assess risk. Full disclosure ensures market integrity and protects investors.
Q: How do conflicts of interest affect stablecoin rankings?
A: When a firm both evaluates stablecoins and earns revenue from promoting certain issuers (e.g., through minting fees or platform incentives), their rankings may reflect commercial goals rather than genuine security assessments. This compromises trust in their analytical frameworks.
Q: Is USDC really less secure than other major stablecoins?
A: No credible evidence supports that claim. USDC is issued by Circle, a NYSE-listed company with regular audits, transparent reserves, and regulatory compliance. Comparisons suggesting otherwise—especially without verifiable data—should be critically evaluated for bias or commercial motive.
Q: What makes AUSD different from other stablecoins?
A: AUSD is backed by the Agora Reserve Fund, administered by State Street and managed by VanEck—a combination of world-class financial institutions with proven track records in asset management and custody. Its structure emphasizes decentralization, transparency, and institutional-grade oversight.
Q: Can crypto custody ever be truly unbiased?
A: While complete neutrality is challenging, custody providers can uphold integrity by disclosing partnerships, avoiding revenue-linked endorsements, and applying consistent evaluation criteria. Independent audits and third-party validations further enhance credibility.