There are some differences in opinion compared to Mr. Mai.

First of all, what Mr. Mai said is correct; previously, stablecoins that were either supported by exchanges or cooperated with exchanges, apart from USDT and USDC, did not develop well. However, I personally feel that the main reason for the lack of development is due to acceptance.

From a compliance perspective, the compliance of USDT is somewhat worse than that of USDC, especially in terms of asset backing, where over 20% of the assets are highly volatile, including Bitcoin, and even current gold, as well as some opaque corporate bonds. But this does not hinder USDT from still being the most usable stablecoin in Africa and Asia.

The main reason is the acceptance of the US dollar; in contrast, Europe and the US have stronger acceptance for USDC, better compliance, and looser currency controls, which is why USDC has better liquidity.

For Africa and Asia, USDT is essentially the US dollar; USDT does not pursue compliance, so it can replace local fiat currency in countries with currency controls or a demand for US dollar circulation.

In fact, relatively speaking, the application of stablecoins in the purely cryptocurrency sphere has been decreasing, as the assets that can be purchased in the cryptocurrency domain are very limited. Even when buying US stocks, the existing scale is far too small compared to that of Europe and the US.

Therefore, if the development of stablecoins relies solely on the promotion of cryptocurrencies, USDC might just be the ceiling.

But the reason I say I have a different opinion is because of the involvement of banks.

As I mentioned earlier, the main promotion of stablecoins is not cryptocurrencies, but stable acceptance; rather, the backing is not that important in some regions, because stable acceptance, in a sense, is indeed backing. In fact, Huiwang is a very good example; of course, if it is stable acceptance combined with quality backing, that would naturally be better.

The stablecoins issued by banks, such as deposit stablecoins from entities like JPMorgan.

Banks hold corporate accounts, cross-border settlements, payment networks, institutional clients, and real-world USD inflow and outflow channels. The USD stablecoins or deposit tokens issued by banks are inherently not meant for retail investors to trade, but are designed to enable businesses, institutions, brokerages, funds, and trading platforms to complete USD settlements on-chain.

The key point is that banks solve the hardest part of stablecoins, which is acceptance.

Even now, it is inconvenient for users to directly settle with stablecoins at banks, but if it is a stablecoin issued by a bank, it is different; the larger the multinational bank, the easier it is to perform acceptance across regions, so the logic of bank stablecoins inherently corresponds to US dollar liabilities within the banking system.

This is completely not a level of competition.

As I mentioned earlier, the focus of USDT is on the circulation of gray dollars, USDC is strong in regulatory compliance in the US and within the Coinbase ecosystem, while bank stablecoins excel in traditional financial accounts and institutional settlement networks.

Therefore, I do not believe that the future of stablecoins will be limited to only USDT and USDC. In the short term, USDT and USDC are indeed mainstream, but in the long term, bank stablecoins may gradually carve out their own fields in institutional settlement, cross-border payments, tokenized assets, on-chain funds, on-chain US stocks, and real-world asset settlement.

For example, BlackRock.

Moreover, the focus of stablecoins will not always be on retail investors; currently, there is no pressing need for businesses and institutions to use them exclusively.

For instance, if a multinational corporation needs to allocate USD between different countries, a fund needs to subscribe to tokenized US treasuries on-chain, a brokerage needs to handle 24-hour US stock and stablecoin settlements, or an exchange needs to facilitate USD inflow and outflow and on-chain asset clearing, the appeal of bank stablecoins will only grow stronger in these scenarios.

Because for institutions, the return from stablecoins is not the most important factor; rather, issues like funds not being able to enter or exit, redemption instability, and unclear compliance explanations are critical. This is also why the US is eagerly awaiting the passage of a clear bill; once stablecoins have comprehensive legal backing, I believe that not only banks but even large institutions will seize the opportunity to launch their own stablecoins.

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。