There is a high level of global attention on stablecoins, but beneath the hype, a large amount of cognitive confusion, information distortion, and even misleading viewpoints have emerged.
On July 18, the GENIUS Act was officially signed into law by President Trump, triggering significant global interest in stablecoins. After a decade of calls from some pioneers in the blockchain industry and fluctuating mainstream opinions on this field, discussions finally broke out of their previous confines. Suddenly, stablecoins became the hottest topic across the internet industry, traditional finance, and macro policy discussions. People began to rethink the impact and shock that the large-scale application of digital currencies would bring to the internet, artificial intelligence, finance, and even geopolitical economic situations. However, beneath this excitement, a plethora of cognitive confusion, information distortion, and even misleading viewpoints have emerged and spread widely through social media, leading to some cognitive misconceptions. The root cause lies in the fact that these discussions are overly generalized, failing to consider that stablecoins are one of the products of blockchain technology innovation, and not discussing the nature and application of stablecoins from a technical logic perspective. Therefore, I once again had a conversation with Dr. Xiao Feng to discuss this issue.
Meng Yan: Dr. Xiao, since our last conversation, the situation has progressed rapidly as expected. Now that the GENIUS Act has passed, I’ve observed a rapid increase in interest in stablecoins within the Chinese community, almost to the point of nationwide discussion. A friend of mine just returned from Hong Kong and told me that everyone there is talking about stablecoins, saying it’s a situation “like never before.” You are in Hong Kong, so you must feel this even more deeply.
Xiao Feng: Indeed, it’s a situation we haven’t seen in many years. Not only is there discussion, but actions are also very proactive. Hundreds of companies and institutions are lining up to participate in stablecoins, and news related to RWA actions is updated daily. We receive many cooperation intentions every day. The significance of the GENIUS Act is not only that it clearly establishes the legality and sovereign attributes of “dollar stablecoins” within the U.S. legal system but also conveys a clear signal that blockchain and crypto assets are beginning to move from the gray area into the mainstream financial system, marking the start of a new revolution in financial infrastructure. Hong Kong, as a global financial center, reflecting this sensitivity to the new trend is not surprising.
Seeing this situation, I do feel a bit emotional. Historically, being proactive and bold in the face of new technologies has almost always yielded great rewards. History tends to favor those who are optimistic and proactive about new technologies.
Meng Yan: However, I also see some hidden concerns—this wave of stablecoin opportunities has come very suddenly, and many people were completely unprepared, with cognitive gaps. Many people only heard about stablecoins three months ago, and with a superficial understanding, they began to present themselves as experts on social media, amplifying many viewpoints, some of which I believe may be misleading.
Xiao Feng: I have recently seen a lot of content from social media and share the same feeling. Of course, I am first and foremost pleased with the current discussion atmosphere. Isn’t it what we have been seeking for so many years, to have society as a whole discussing stablecoins? Looking at it now, the industry is entering a great era. In the coming years, stablecoins, RWA, token economies, coin-stock linkage, and the integration of crypto and AI will be very lively and exciting.
However, at such a time, we need to be a bit calmer and consolidate our understanding. Based on past experiences, when spring arrives and temperatures rise, various seemingly plausible cognitions and concepts can easily proliferate, and some sensational erroneous viewpoints can spread quickly, planting seeds of risk in the market. Cognition and concepts are very important. The ups and downs of previous crypto markets, the industry going astray, and the fluctuations of people's emotions are actually results of erroneous concepts.
First, we need to have a proper estimation of the environment. Many people think that since U.S. legislation has passed, the crypto industry in Hong Kong or even China will soon be fully opened up, and they even start to plan based on this premise. This is certainly unrealistic. There are still many regulatory issues to resolve, which will take time. The final solutions will inevitably be governed by rules; it cannot be a hands-off approach. For example, will stablecoins, when removed from the banking system, lead to easier money laundering? Therefore, any responsible regulator will certainly impose very strict anti-money laundering requirements on stablecoins.
Additionally, there are significant misunderstandings, even errors, in understanding stablecoins, RWA, and blockchain. This sudden event has indeed led many people to “enter the industry and stand at the wind outlet,” full of enthusiasm and traffic, but with cognitive deficits, lacking time to catch up, leading to rough judgments. We also have a responsibility to point this out.
Discussions about stablecoins cannot detach from their technical attributes
Meng Yan: I see that most discussions about stablecoins currently only talk about the financial narrative of stablecoins and rarely touch on technology. Do people really think that the technology of stablecoins and blockchain has matured to the point of being overlooked? In my conversations with many traditional finance professionals, I found that most of them have little or no experience using blockchain products, are unfamiliar with DeFi, and have no experience with losing keys or being hacked. Yet when it comes to building applications and systems for stablecoins, they express an overwhelming confidence, as if blockchain is a tool they can manipulate at will. Many people enter a completely unfamiliar dark forest with a sense of “regular army” arrogance, filled with familiar processes, models, and regulatory frameworks from traditional finance, mistakenly believing they can “translate” them onto the blockchain. But they overlook a fact: blockchain is a completely new computational paradigm, and its operational logic, system boundaries, risk structures, and user behaviors are entirely different from traditional finance. They seem completely unaware that blockchain is far from mature in terms of technology, facing numerous challenges in user experience, security, and compliance support. The blockchain is fraught with crises, from private key management, smart contract vulnerabilities, phishing attacks, cross-chain bridge attacks, Oracle manipulation, to regulatory arbitrage and gray capital flows; any one of these links could become a trigger point for systemic risk. If one does not understand these technical details and does not grasp the real operational logic on the chain, those beautiful business strategies and imagined ecological closed loops may very well be crushed by a tide of user complaints, compliance incidents, and security events once put into practice.
More importantly, blockchain technology itself is still in a rapid evolution phase. Today’s leading protocols and products may be overturned by a new generation of architectures tomorrow. Modular blockchains, zero-knowledge proofs, account abstraction, on-chain governance, re-staking economies, MEV management… these key technological routes and mechanism designs are continuously refreshing existing cognitions. For those of us who have been working in the industry for over a decade, if we do not learn regularly, our knowledge may become outdated, and the solutions we design may fall behind. Without a thorough understanding and tracking of technological progress, it is impossible to win in such an intense global competition.
Xiao Feng: Your reminder is very important. Recently, I have seen many biased or fundamentally incorrect comments regarding stablecoins and RWA tokenization, and the root cause lies in detaching from the underlying technical logic. Everyone needs to clarify that blockchain technology, distributed ledgers, and new financial infrastructure came first, followed by various tokens, including stablecoins, and then RWA and DeFi.
I consider myself a typical finance person, an economics PhD trained after China’s reform and opening up, and I have worked in the finance industry since I started my career. Therefore, I can sincerely advise my finance colleagues to pay attention to the study of technology; discussions about stablecoins cannot detach from their technical attributes, or they easily become castles in the air.
I first encountered blockchain in 2013. What truly attracted me was the discovery, after in-depth research, of the extremely subtle yet powerful fit between the innovations in the underlying technical architecture of blockchain and the deep structure of the financial system. In the past decade of practice, I have come to deeply realize that this industry is currently a technology-led industry. You can have financial intuition, but if you do not understand technology, you will quickly hit a wall in practice. Therefore, over the past decade, I have spent a lot of time learning the underlying principles and cutting-edge technologies of blockchain.
I am still learning today. I constantly remind the entrepreneurs around me that you may not need to write code, but you must have technical judgment. Especially in the DeFi field, future competition will not be between licenses or brands, but between protocols, architectures, and system efficiencies. Whoever can continuously iterate in areas such as account systems, cross-chain capabilities, clearing and settlement efficiency, privacy protection, on-chain compliance, and risk control modules will occupy a stronger market position. Conversely, if you do not understand blockchain technology and do not keep up with the pace of technological evolution, your strategy may be a castle in the air. This is not an exaggeration but a true reflection of today’s industry competition. In this context, technology is not just a competitive advantage; it is a lifeline. If you cannot see this underlying logic, you may seriously misallocate resources in business practice. Your seemingly beautiful ideas will inevitably stumble and hit walls in practice.
Meng Yan: Yes, the nature of stablecoins is determined by their technical attributes.
Xiao Feng: In fact, the nature of every type of currency in history has been strongly influenced by its technical attributes. There have been three crucial attribute transformations in the history of currency development. The first is natural attribute currency, which has a history of thousands of years, whether it is shells, silver, or gold, its value is based on its physical existence's scarcity and natural endowment. The second is legal attribute currency, which has a history of over a hundred years, its value is endowed with coercive power by national legislation, relying on national credit backing. The third, which is currently on the rise, is digital currency, represented by Bitcoin and stablecoins, which is a technology attribute currency, whose value is guaranteed and backed by cryptography, blockchain (distributed ledger), digital wallets, smart contracts, and other digital technology systems.
Therefore, when we study stablecoins, we must always remember their origins and not confuse cause and effect. First is the innovation of blockchain technology, second is the innovation of distributed ledger methods, and third is the emergence of new financial market infrastructure based on blockchain and distributed ledgers, and only then do we have stablecoins, RWA, and token economics. This is not subject to human will. The U.S. has merely seen this trend and is acting accordingly; U.S. legislation provides legitimacy and compliance backing for crypto, and next year will be the year when traditional financial institutions, traditional funds (including pensions), and traditional investors begin to enter the crypto market through legitimate channels.
Not understanding blockchain while doing stablecoins will lead to “walking an old path in new shoes”
Meng Yan: Precisely because of such a clear trend, many traditional institutions are now very enthusiastic. However, I have recently participated in many discussions about stablecoin payments and RWA projects and feel that many people underestimate the disruptive impact that stablecoins and blockchain will bring to financial models. Their designs basically do not consider the characteristics of this new infrastructure of blockchain; I can bluntly say it is “walking an old path in new shoes.” In their minds, stablecoins are just a tool. The people are still the same, the matters are still the same, the models are still the same, the processes are still the same, and the entire system is still doing the same things in the original way, just using stablecoins or blockchain in a specific link to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
This reminds me of the early days of internet e-commerce. In the late 1990s, when the internet was just emerging, the biggest skepticism about it was the lack of a "business model," and e-commerce was one of the few internet business models that people could grasp at the time, so many companies wanted to engage in e-commerce. However, their understanding of e-commerce was merely treating the internet as a tool, a new sales channel, an improved version of telemarketing, simply adding a "mall" channel to their portal website and establishing an e-commerce department, thinking that this constituted e-commerce. They did not change their business processes, organizational structures, or ways of thinking. It wasn't until platforms like Amazon and Taobao emerged that people realized the internet is not just a tool, and e-commerce is not just a tool; they came to understand that the entire consumer behavior, inventory logic, fulfillment system, and traffic distribution had changed. Over the following decade, traditional retail models were pressured and gradually disrupted by e-commerce, with almost no ability to fight back. I remember in 2013 and 2014, many business owners lamented and regretted not understanding e-commerce back then.
Today is no different; stablecoins initially may just be tools, but they are certainly not that simple. Once a billion users install digital wallets and start using stablecoins, they will gradually discover that stablecoins are not just for payments; they are connected to a whole on-chain financial system and economic structure. This structure does not require a complex account system; the user entry point is a "wallet," not an "account"; the interaction method is through smart contracts, not manual approvals; the connection method is through on-chain protocols, not intermediary matchmaking. Under this model, much of the "intermediary power" that traditional institutions hold within their existing systems will become ineffective, and new entry points and hubs will rapidly emerge. The stablecoin economy is not just about using new tools to transform old systems; it is about using new systems to eliminate old systems, absorb old systems, and ultimately reconstruct the operational logic of the entire financial industry. This is the deep change we need to truly pay attention to.
I feel that many people seriously underestimate this point. Many overestimate the short-term impact of AI; for example, some companies hurriedly laid off employees last year, replacing jobs with AI, and even made a big splash in the media about it. As a result, a few months later, they had to call employees back. However, when faced with stablecoins, they easily underestimate their disruptive potential. They see stablecoins and think, I can use stablecoins in this process, I can increase support for stablecoins in that business, but they find it hard to recognize that after the deep application of stablecoins, their processes, their businesses, and even their departments and personal roles may become redundant.
Xiao Feng: The situation you described, in my view, still stems from an inadequate understanding of blockchain, or what we call distributed ledger technology. Because distributed ledger technology fundamentally changes the underlying infrastructure of our financial system. Many people seriously underestimate the impact of this; they think that no matter how things change underneath, they can continue doing what they were doing above. But blockchain is not a "painless upgrade" technology; it is a transformative technology that affects everything—this is what we call disruption.
To truly understand stablecoins, we need to first clarify their development background. Stablecoins are built on the foundation of distributed ledger technology. Distributed ledger technology represents the third iteration of human accounting methods over thousands of years.
The first was single-entry bookkeeping. From the clay tablets discovered in the Sumerian region, we see that single-entry bookkeeping was used, recording only income and expenses.
By around 1300 AD, double-entry bookkeeping emerged in Italy, which not only recorded income and expenses but also assets and liabilities. For the next 700 years, the calculation methods were only optimized, with no new iterations.
It wasn't until the emergence of the Bitcoin blockchain in 2009 that a new calculation method appeared, namely distributed ledger technology. The biggest difference between distributed ledger technology and previous accounting methods is that previous methods involved each party keeping their own records, which were private ledgers. For example, a remittance from Beijing to New York involving multiple institutions would require aligning all the information from these institutions' private ledgers, which takes time and incurs costs. However, a distributed ledger is a public ledger where both global institutions and individuals record transactions on the same ledger, eliminating the need for multiple institutions to align information; the two parties can complete payments directly through a peer-to-peer method. This is the most significant difference between the two calculation methods.
After the emergence of the Bitcoin blockchain, stablecoins began to appear in 2014. As distributed ledger technology underwent continuous engineering experiments, maturation, and optimization, two trends emerged: on one hand, since 2009, people have "created from nothing" Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others on the blockchain, referred to as "digital natives." On the other hand, since 2014, stablecoins represented by USDT have emerged, marking the rise of another trend, namely "digital twins." A digital twin refers to an asset that already exists in the real world, such as the U.S. dollar, being brought onto the blockchain and tokenized, mapping existing assets onto the chain in a digital manner.
At the same time, with the approval of Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. and Hong Kong last year, a new phenomenon emerged: digital native assets are transitioning from on-chain to off-chain, meaning the asset itself remains on-chain, but its financial expression, such as ETF shares, has entered the trading system of traditional finance. Bitcoin ETFs are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), allowing investors to invest and trade them according to stock trading mechanisms. Bitcoin itself exists on-chain, while Bitcoin ETFs exist off-chain. Therefore, this process involves the conversion between on-chain and off-chain, as well as the interaction between digital twins and digital natives.
In the past decade of practice with distributed ledger technology, if we view it as a social engineering experiment, we can see the changes and gradually prove the value of these technologies.
Based on distributed ledger technology, significant changes have also occurred in financial market infrastructure since 2009, which are derived from the transformation of distributed bookkeeping methods. Financial market infrastructure mainly includes a series of mechanisms such as payments, trading, clearing, and settlement. So what is new about the new mechanisms compared to the old ones? What characteristics do the old and new mechanisms each have?
Currently, the financial infrastructure assets we rely on adopt a model of central registration, central custody, central counterparty trading, and central settlement, requiring at least three institutions to collaborate to complete the clearing and settlement of a transaction. However, on a distributed ledger, since all participants record transactions on the same ledger, the trading model shifts to peer-to-peer transactions, allowing any two individuals to complete transactions directly without the need for intermediaries.
The existing financial market infrastructure uses a net settlement model, while the settlement model on a distributed ledger is a gross settlement model. This means that once a transaction is confirmed, the settlement is completed immediately, with both cash and assets exchanged. From the perspective of the stock market, the NYSE will introduce a 5×23 hour trading model by the end of this year, reserving one hour after trading hours for clearing; meanwhile, Nasdaq plans to launch a 5×24 hour trading model in the future. However, Nasdaq will not be able to achieve this goal within this year due to the need for a pause during the trading process for clearing under the old financial infrastructure. In contrast, Hong Kong's virtual currency exchanges have already achieved 7×24 hour trading without holidays, precisely because their ledger types differ, leading to different financial market infrastructures. This is also one of the backgrounds for stablecoins, as they are built on a new financial market infrastructure.
Since the mainnet of the Bitcoin blockchain went live in January 2009, this distributed ledger-based system has been running stably and continuously for over sixteen years. Even from the perspective of large engineering practices, it can be regarded as a new generation of financial market infrastructure (Financial Market Infrastructure, FMI) that has undergone countless rigorous "destructive tests" and is fully equipped for production environment conditions.
Many people think that whether you are a new FMI or an old FMI, you still have to support efficient, secure, and trustworthy rules, systems, architectures, and regulatory frameworks for payments, trading, clearing, and settlement, right? What impact does it have on my business model?
The impact is significant! The reason why the FMI based on distributed ledger technology is called "next-generation" is that it disruptively reconstructs three core rules.
First, decentralized trading eliminates the central counterparty (CCP), achieving true peer-to-peer (P2P) trading.
Second, full gross settlement replaces netting, adopting a gross settlement model.
Third, delivery versus payment (DvP) no longer relies on netting clearing; it achieves atomic-level synchronous transfer of assets (such as tokens) and funds (such as stablecoins) through smart contracts, ensuring the finality of transactions is achieved instantaneously.
This architectural revolution brings significant advantages, greatly streamlining processes, significantly reducing costs, and geometrically enhancing efficiency. Reality confirms this efficiency gap: currently, the trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq accounts for less than 50% of the total trading volume of U.S. stocks. After-hours trading, dark pool trading, and other emerging channels continue to erode the market share of traditional exchanges. Although both exchanges have announced extended trading hours to respond to challenges, they are constrained by the traditional FMI's clearing and settlement system (such as the current T+2 clearing system in the U.S.), meaning that no matter how optimized, NYSE's share clearing can only approach 5×23 hours (still requiring about one hour for a clearing window each day), or else the system will fall into chaos. In contrast, crypto asset exchanges, relying on the next-generation FMI, have already achieved 7×24 hour trading capabilities globally without breaks. This vividly illustrates the stark difference between the old and new financial market infrastructures.
But it doesn't stop there; what blockchain brings to the financial industry is similar to what the internet brought to publishing, media, communications, film, education, and retail industries. It is not a simple efficiency tool; it will change the way users access financial services, alter business processes, reconnect the relationships among various roles in the market and industry, and transform the value chain of the financial industry, leading to significant changes in how we conduct finance. The stablecoin economy is no longer just about "replacing a link in the old system"; it is about constructing a new system, a new market, a new industry network. This structural change will cause some institutions to completely lose value while nurturing a new batch of platform-level organizations and new financial applications. At present, at least four have already emerged:
First, Bitcoin, as a new asset allocation tool, is expanding its application scenarios from household wealth management to corporate cash management, and even rising to national strategic reserves.
Second, stablecoins, as revolutionary payment and settlement tools, have been legalized. In 2024, the on-chain transaction volume is expected to exceed $16 trillion and is still growing rapidly. China's cross-border e-commerce is a significant beneficiary of the stablecoin cross-border payment dividend, with the proportion of overseas buyers using stablecoins for payment continuously climbing, and the amount of stablecoins received by Chinese merchants also surging.
Third, DeFi (decentralized finance), an efficient financial investment tool. By the end of 2024, the total value locked (TVL) in DeFi protocols is expected to reach approximately $190 billion. The DeFi lending market is active, with the on-chain lending annualized interest rate for USDT remaining stable at around 8%. Its revolutionary aspect lies in the fact that lending activities on the blockchain are executed automatically by smart contracts, eliminating the intermediary links of traditional finance. This not only significantly reduces trust costs and operational risks but also enhances capital turnover efficiency to more than ten times that of traditional lending models, with clearing and settlement efficiency achieving a qualitative leap.
Fourth, asset tokenization (RWA), which refers to the recent market enthusiasm for "real-world asset tokenization," aims to map traditional financial assets and even physical assets onto the blockchain.
I believe that regardless of who it is or what kind of stablecoin system they design, if they detach from these perspectives, it is very likely that what they produce will be outdated or even completely unfeasible.
The programmability of stablecoins brings immense complexity
Meng Yan: Those who have just joined the discussion on stablecoins in recent months may not have had the time to understand the already rich on-chain ecosystem, the concept of DeFi, the so-called "composability," the token economy, or the exceptionally complex and perilous security environment on-chain. Therefore, they may find it difficult to comprehend how many possibilities will be immediately opened up—both positive and negative—once stablecoins and RWA assets are on-chain.
Xiao Feng: Regarding the issues you mentioned, the key is to start from the technology and place extra emphasis on understanding the opportunities and challenges brought by the openness and programmability of stablecoins. This is because stablecoins, like other tokens, including future RWAs, possess both openness and programmability.
Many people currently discuss stablecoins and RWAs as if they are on an "island," as if stablecoins are merely a more efficient payment tool and RWAs are just a registration system for putting offline assets onto the chain. They seem to think that as long as it is technically feasible and compliant, everything can continue as usual. However, they may not realize that these assets are programmable. Once these assets and currencies are on-chain, they do not exist statically; instead, they will immediately become deeply coupled with the entire on-chain ecosystem, entangled in a highly automated dynamic system that is far more complex than traditional finance.
From the perspective of DeFi, once stablecoins are on-chain, they will almost immediately be used for lending, market making, re-staking, liquidity mining, leveraged operations, and even complex derivatives design. If a stablecoin lacks a sufficient risk model, does not establish reasonable boundary conditions with DeFi protocols, and does not have contingency plans for extreme events like flash loans, it may be manipulated and exploited in a short time, potentially triggering systemic risks. Similarly, once RWAs are used as collateral on-chain, they may also become part of the on-chain financial game. If the underlying data is opaque, valuations unclear, ownership disputed, and compliance problematic, then such "sick assets" will not only fail to create liquidity but will also pollute the entire ecosystem, becoming a potential source of risk.
From the perspective of the token economy, stablecoins and RWAs are not neutral; they will generate complex dynamic couplings with functional tokens, governance tokens, incentive tokens, and others. Over the past few years, on-chain projects have developed a complete set of operational logic based on token design, including liquidity incentives, user growth, governance incentives, and so on. Many newcomers to the discussion are completely unaware of this model and have not witnessed the amplifying effects of incentive mechanisms in the market—it can rapidly ignite an application or quickly collapse a system. If RWAs and stablecoins are poorly designed, a trust crisis in such a system can cause the entire value chain to break at an astonishing speed, resulting in significant losses for participants.
From the perspective of the security environment, the on-chain security environment can be described as extremely harsh. The founder of SlowMist, Yu Xian, compared the world on public chains to a dark forest. I believe that everyone who has suffered asset losses due to attacks can deeply relate to this, but many traditional finance professionals do not have firsthand experience. Some of them have experience with consortium chains or private chains over the past few years, but they lack an understanding of the complexity of public chain systems. In fact, their stablecoins, RWA assets, and smart contracts, once they are on a public chain, will face various attacks, including smart contract attacks, cross-chain bridge vulnerabilities, oracle manipulation, wallet phishing, MEV extraction, and other attack methods. This is not a theoretical possibility; it is a reality that occurs every day. On-chain security is not just about code audits; it involves the operational logic of the entire protocol, data interactions with external systems, and the unexpected feedback from all user behaviors. Once a risk event occurs, there is no customer service, no stop-loss, no rollback; the only guarantee is that it was designed robustly enough in advance, as every security vulnerability may come at an unbearable cost to discover and remedy.
From a compliance perspective, the programmability of stablecoins and RWAs presents both significant opportunities and new challenges. Compliance in traditional financial systems mainly relies on post-audit, manual processes, and centralized control. However, when assets and transactions are fully on-chain, these methods struggle to adapt to the highly automated, cross-chain collaborative, and globally circulating on-chain ecosystem. Programmable assets can complete complex actions like on-chain lending, re-staking, and leveraged operations in seconds, making traditional compliance processes unable to respond in time. Moreover, different jurisdictions have inconsistent compliance requirements, which means that globally circulating stablecoins and RWAs must face multiple regulatory conflicts. Yet, within these challenges lie opportunities for transformation. The concept of "Programmable Compliance" refers to embedding compliance requirements into smart contracts through code, enabling rule pre-setting, real-time verification, and automatic execution. This provides the possibility of designing a new regulatory framework compatible with the on-chain ecosystem in the future. As long as the regulatory logic is clear and data is available on-chain, a "code as regulation" model can be achieved, laying the foundation for the safe, efficient, and compliant global circulation of stablecoins and RWAs. Future regulation is likely to shift from "the visible hand" to "rules that can be written into code."
Therefore, I want to say that once stablecoins truly connect with the on-chain ecosystem, things will become very complex, far beyond simply discussing a few application scenarios on paper. The aspects we discussed today are merely scratching the surface. In the future, new problems and challenges will continuously arise around the technology, security, economic incentives, and compliance adaptation of stablecoins. This will undoubtedly be an ongoing exploratory process that requires the entire industry to learn together, continuously experiment, and evolve.
Cognitive upgrades must be driven by innovation
Meng Yan: I think your summary of the cognitive issues surrounding stablecoins and blockchain from a technical perspective captures the key point. However, I also have a concern. The large-scale application of stablecoins is rapidly unfolding, and during this process, many new problems and phenomena that we did not anticipate will emerge, exceeding our current cognitive scope. Relying solely on existing theoretical preparations may not be sufficient.
Xiao Feng: I completely agree. Cognition is never achieved overnight, especially in a complex and rapidly evolving new system like blockchain, where many issues only become apparent in real environments. We cannot exhaust all variables through discussion in advance; we must rely on a practical cycle of "cognition—innovation—cognitive feedback—re-innovation" to continuously refresh our understanding. For Chinese entrepreneurs, this is actually a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have sufficient technical accumulation and a global perspective. As long as we seize this paradigm shift opportunity with stablecoins, organize ourselves, and collaborate in entrepreneurship and practice, it is entirely possible to carve out our voice and leadership in the global stablecoin economic system. Cognition can only take root and deepen through practice, truly becoming the driving force for the evolution of the new financial system.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
