On the surface, Circle’s success looks like a textbook case of regulatory adaptation. The company obtained a license in France, allowing it to legally offer services across Europe. While competitors - especially local European projects - struggle with lack of funding and bureaucracy, USDC and EURC are becoming the de facto standard.
However, many experts are far from pleased. Analyst Ignas called the situation a “European failure.” In his view, Circle’s dominance is not a result of market merit, but rather of powerful lobbying and missed technological waves. Europe, which aspires to digital sovereignty, has once again found itself playing catch-up, allowing the American Circle to occupy a key niche in its financial infrastructure.
Critics point out that the ECB is moving too slowly. The planned digital euro, despite all its promises, will likely come with strict limits on holdings and usage, making it less attractive for traders and DeFi protocols. These very restrictions are paradoxically fueling the growth of private instruments like EURC.
If market dominance is a matter of business and politics, questions of security and centralization are no less contentious. The recent hack of Drift Protocol, in which attackers withdrew $71 million in USDC, placed Circle in an ambiguous position.
The hackers actively used Circle’s tools to move stolen funds across different blockchains (e.g., from Solana to Ethereum). This sparked a wave of criticism toward the stablecoin issuer: users demanded to know why suspicious activity wasn’t blocked more quickly.
On the other hand, counter-concerns have also emerged. The crypto community is asking: "Is Circle gaining too much power?" The company has already demonstrated its ability to freeze assets at the request of law enforcement (for example, after the Harmony Bridge hack). In the case of Drift Protocol, Circle’s speed in responding to suspicious activity could have minimized losses. However, the fact that hackers successfully used the company’s infrastructure points to gaps in monitoring.
Europe now faces a dilemma. On one hand, stablecoins like EURC comply with new laws and provide the liquidity needed for market growth. On the other hand, reliance on a private American company that can freeze funds at its own discretion contradicts the ideals of decentralization.
While regulators and banks deliberate, Circle is seizing the moment. Yet the Drift Protocol hack has exposed the vulnerability of this model: the more centralization there is in “decentralized money,” the harder it becomes to distinguish between protecting against hackers and imposing censorship. The question of who should control European stablecoins - the market, the regulator, or a private US corporation - remains open.