88.2K @SMQKEDQG Yes, stablecoins are the Trojan horse for U.S. dollar dominance.🔑
This is the United States’ strategy to organically strengthen the dollar’s prominent global position.🙇♂️
“Embrace stablecoins, regulate them to keep them within the U.S framework, and let the free market do the rest.”✅
Documented.📝👇
1.1M @coinbureau 🚨CENTRAL BANKS WARN STABLECOINS ARE HELPING THE DOLLAR WIN
The BIS warns dollar-pegged stablecoins are not acting as an alternative to fiat, but as a faster way for people to move into the US dollar.
During inflation or financial stress, households often flee weak local currencies for dollars. Stablecoins now make that switch almost instant through USDT or USDC.
Since most stablecoins are tied to the dollar, this keeps the dollar at the center of the system instead of replacing fiat.
The BIS warns that once dollar dependence takes hold, it can last for years.
167
9
16.1K
393.6K @PhyrexNi I have a slightly different opinion from Mr. Mai.
First, Mr. Mai is correct: previously, both exchange‑backed stablecoins and those partnered with exchanges that are not USDT or USDC have indeed struggled to grow, but I personally think the main reason they haven’t taken off is the lack of acceptance.
From a compliance standpoint, USDT is less compliant than USDC, especially regarding asset backing: more than 20% of its assets are highly volatile, including Bitcoin, even some gold now, and a portion of opaque corporate bonds. Nevertheless, this does not prevent USDT from being the most useful stablecoin in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.
The key factor is dollar acceptance. In contrast, Europe and the United States benefit from USDC’s stronger acceptance, higher compliance, and looser monetary controls, which give USDC better liquidity.
For Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, USDT is essentially the dollar. USDT does not pursue strict compliance, so in jurisdictions with monetary controls or a need for dollar circulation, it can replace the local fiat.
In reality, the use of stablecoins within the pure crypto space is decreasing. The range of assets that can be purchased with crypto is very limited; even buying US stocks, the current volume is far behind that of domestic markets in Europe and the US.
Therefore, if stablecoin development relies solely on crypto promotion, USDC may become the ceiling.
The reason I claim a different view is because banks are entering the space.
As I mentioned earlier, the main driver of stablecoins is not crypto adoption but stable acceptance. In some regions, backing is less important because stable acceptance itself acts as backing. Huìwàng (a payment service) is a good example. Of course, when you have both stable acceptance and high‑quality backing, it is even better.
Bank‑issued stablecoins, such as JPMorgan’s deposit‑linked stablecoin, are a case in point.
Banks already have corporate accounts, cross‑border settlement capabilities, payment networks, institutional clients, and real‑world USD inflow/outflow channels. A bank‑issued USD stablecoin or deposit token is not designed for retail speculation; it is meant for enterprises, institutions, brokers, funds, and trading platforms to settle USD on‑chain.
The crucial point is that banks solve the hardest part of stablecoins: acceptance.
Even today, using a stablecoin to settle directly with a bank is inconvenient, but a bank‑issued stablecoin changes that. The larger the multinational bank, the easier it is to provide acceptance across many regions, so bank stablecoins naturally align with the bank’s USD liabilities.
This is no longer a competition on the same tier.
As I said before, USDT focuses on gray‑market dollar circulation, USDC excels in U.S. compliance and the Coinbase ecosystem, and bank stablecoins leverage traditional financial accounts and institutional settlement networks.
Thus I do not believe the future will be limited to only USDT and USDC. In the short term, they are indeed the mainstream, but in the long term, bank stablecoins may carve out their own niches in institutional settlement, cross‑border payments, tokenized assets, on‑chain funds, on‑chain equities, and real‑world asset settlement.
Think of BlackRock, for example.
Moreover, the focus of stablecoins will not forever be retail users; corporations and institutions currently do not have a mandatory need for them.
Consider a multinational corporation moving dollars between countries, a fund subscribing to tokenized US Treasury bonds on‑chain, a broker handling 24‑hour US equity and stablecoin settlement, or an exchange linking USD deposits/withdrawals with on‑chain asset clearing. In these scenarios, bank stablecoins become increasingly attractive.
For institutions, the yield of a stablecoin is not the primary concern; the issues are liquidity in, liquidity out, unstable redemption, and unclear regulatory explanations. That is why the U.S. is eager for clear legislation. Once stablecoins have a solid legal framework, I believe not only banks but also large institutions will launch their own stablecoins.
80.9K @Michael_Liu93 Recently, a friend asked me what I think about the big banks entering the stablecoin market themselves and whether they will disrupt Circle’s business. Here’s my answer.
The moat of the stablecoin business is second only to Bitcoin; it requires building distribution channels, winning user trust, and meeting regulatory requirements. First‑movers have a huge advantage because users have almost no reason to switch.
Over the years, only two players have emerged: USDT, which leveraged the early crypto boom, and USDC, which grew on the back of the U.S. compliance framework and on‑chain DeFi.
- Binance supported three new stablecoins—BUSD, FDUSD, TUSD—but none succeeded.
- Hyperliquid launched USDH, which failed.
- Huobi issued HUSD, which failed.
- OKX earlier tried USDK via OKLink, which failed.
- Gemini created GUSD, which failed.
- Kraken issued USDG, which failed.
- Tron launched USDD, which failed.
- Other stablecoins either collapsed or have been continuously shrinking.
The biggest exchanges and public chains—those with the most liquidity, the largest distribution networks, and the most trading scenarios—have attempted these projects countless times and failed. Do you think JPMorgan can succeed where they did not? These legacy financial institutions have, in previous cycles, talked about building crypto exchanges. Do you understand the point now?
14
11
12.0K
52.4K @Airdrop_Guard Started seriously on Monday, topped up 50k U, did 15M volume in two days, still very restrained
Continuing tomorrow, I want to see how many points my small account gets this Friday
Goal: 1,000 points in a single week @variational_io https://t.co/dhXOXUJxyz
27
32
4.8K
