Stablecoins, as we have talked about, seem to be the first cryptocurrency use case that has achieved product-market fit. According to this recent piece by Chris Dixon in the Financial Times (which was later republished here), stablecoins moved over $12 trillion in value last year, even after filtering out stuff like bot activity. This is closing in on the $17 trillion in transactions that Visa processed last year; but crucially, stablecoin transactions are made at a fraction of the cost.
It also doesn't matter if people recognize that they're using crypto or not. The backend is continuing to be abstracted:
People all over the world will barely recognise when they’re using stablecoins when making transactions supported by them. Most people will assume they’re just using dollars. And they will be, because the differences between a stablecoin and a dollar are becoming an abstraction for the end user.
And the great promise is the following:
This isn’t just about payments. It’s a realignment of global finance. The internet gave us borderless communication. Stablecoins give us borderless value transfer. With clear rules and market structure in place, they can become both the pipes and the pillars of a new financial system.
What's also interesting, though, is that this shift seems to be strengthening US dollar dominance, as opposed to undermining it:
Stablecoin adoption also has an underappreciated second-order effect: The tokens reinforce dollar dominance in a multipolar world, creating a strong new source of demand for US debt. Leading stablecoin issuers like Circle and Tether already have nearly $140bn in direct holdings of short-term government debt, making them a top 20 holder of US debt today.
If you're looking to invest alongside this shift — and, oh boy, this is definitely not investment advice! — well, then, buying some Ether (ETH) may not be the worst idea. The majority of stablecoin transactions settle on Ethereum or on an Ethereum Layer 2, meaning that every time a transaction is completed, some amount of ETH is burned or destroyed. (Here's a Coinbase referral link that will give you C$30 in Bitcoin (BTC) when you sign up and trade.)
The bull case for ETH is that it will simultaneously become (1) the mandatory collateral and fuel for a new financial system, and (2) a deflationary asset, where more ETH is generally getting burned than is being created to reward network validators. Whether this will happen and boost the price of ETH, of course, remains to be seen. But in my view, the writing is very obviously all over the wall. Stablecoins have become part of the mainstream. The question is: where will all the value accrue in this new world?
Cover photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash
Development density used to have significant value here in Toronto. Every square meter mattered. In fact, as many of you know, entire development businesses were centered around assembling sites, rezoning for the maximum amount of area, and then selling to another developer who would then build out the final project. The process of rezoning a site often takes years, and sometimes much longer, so there's a logic to splitting up these efforts.
But then demand waned and, all of a sudden, development density had much less value, if it was even liquid at all. This business model no longer works. On top of this, the City of Toronto is now in the process of updating its zoning by-laws to allow greater heights and densities across 120 major transit station areas and protected major transit station areas across the city. These updates are expected to be brought to City Council in the spring of this year.
The result is that these areas will have minimum heights and densities that may take a site's zoning from 4 storeys to 30 storeys. And the great irony will be that sites that spent years, and sometimes decades, battling for taller buildings, may soon receive as-of-right permissions that exceed their hard-fought zoning approvals. This is how much the planning and development landscape has changed in Toronto over the years.
And it further reinforces the point I made back in 2024 when I wrote that development value has shifted from land to the build. Density is now widely available. Execution is what matters most today.
In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Stablecoins, as we have talked about, seem to be the first cryptocurrency use case that has achieved product-market fit. According to this recent piece by Chris Dixon in the Financial Times (which was later republished here), stablecoins moved over $12 trillion in value last year, even after filtering out stuff like bot activity. This is closing in on the $17 trillion in transactions that Visa processed last year; but crucially, stablecoin transactions are made at a fraction of the cost.
It also doesn't matter if people recognize that they're using crypto or not. The backend is continuing to be abstracted:
People all over the world will barely recognise when they’re using stablecoins when making transactions supported by them. Most people will assume they’re just using dollars. And they will be, because the differences between a stablecoin and a dollar are becoming an abstraction for the end user.
And the great promise is the following:
This isn’t just about payments. It’s a realignment of global finance. The internet gave us borderless communication. Stablecoins give us borderless value transfer. With clear rules and market structure in place, they can become both the pipes and the pillars of a new financial system.
What's also interesting, though, is that this shift seems to be strengthening US dollar dominance, as opposed to undermining it:
Stablecoin adoption also has an underappreciated second-order effect: The tokens reinforce dollar dominance in a multipolar world, creating a strong new source of demand for US debt. Leading stablecoin issuers like Circle and Tether already have nearly $140bn in direct holdings of short-term government debt, making them a top 20 holder of US debt today.
If you're looking to invest alongside this shift — and, oh boy, this is definitely not investment advice! — well, then, buying some Ether (ETH) may not be the worst idea. The majority of stablecoin transactions settle on Ethereum or on an Ethereum Layer 2, meaning that every time a transaction is completed, some amount of ETH is burned or destroyed. (Here's a Coinbase referral link that will give you C$30 in Bitcoin (BTC) when you sign up and trade.)
The bull case for ETH is that it will simultaneously become (1) the mandatory collateral and fuel for a new financial system, and (2) a deflationary asset, where more ETH is generally getting burned than is being created to reward network validators. Whether this will happen and boost the price of ETH, of course, remains to be seen. But in my view, the writing is very obviously all over the wall. Stablecoins have become part of the mainstream. The question is: where will all the value accrue in this new world?
Cover photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash
Development density used to have significant value here in Toronto. Every square meter mattered. In fact, as many of you know, entire development businesses were centered around assembling sites, rezoning for the maximum amount of area, and then selling to another developer who would then build out the final project. The process of rezoning a site often takes years, and sometimes much longer, so there's a logic to splitting up these efforts.
But then demand waned and, all of a sudden, development density had much less value, if it was even liquid at all. This business model no longer works. On top of this, the City of Toronto is now in the process of updating its zoning by-laws to allow greater heights and densities across 120 major transit station areas and protected major transit station areas across the city. These updates are expected to be brought to City Council in the spring of this year.
The result is that these areas will have minimum heights and densities that may take a site's zoning from 4 storeys to 30 storeys. And the great irony will be that sites that spent years, and sometimes decades, battling for taller buildings, may soon receive as-of-right permissions that exceed their hard-fought zoning approvals. This is how much the planning and development landscape has changed in Toronto over the years.
And it further reinforces the point I made back in 2024 when I wrote that development value has shifted from land to the build. Density is now widely available. Execution is what matters most today.
In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
