After reading Jeremy's tweet, I feel that it did not get to the point. The key focus of USDC should not be liquidity; mainstream stablecoins should not focus on liquidity either. If there are still concerns over liquidity, they are not qualified to be mainstream stablecoins. The focus should be on application scenarios and acceptance.

Payments are also an application scenario. Currently, in the cryptocurrency space, USDC has achieved the top ranking in trading net flow. However, the world is vast and cryptocurrency is just a small part of it. What has USDC accomplished in terms of application? What barriers has it broken through in the real world?

More importantly, Europe and the U.S. are countries with a credit system. I have previously written about why stablecoins cannot challenge credit cards, because there is no credit mechanism and no mechanism for usage first and payment later, which is a natural shortcoming. However, if it is a bank-issued stablecoin, it can compensate for this. Launching a credit card backed by the credit of a bank's stablecoin is feasible.

Especially in terms of acceptance, currently USDC can rarely be exchanged directly for fiat currency at banks, whereas stablecoins issued by banks can likely support acceptance at banks. Therefore, Open USD can be viewed as a digital dollar, and not just a stablecoin.

The greatest use of a digital dollar is cross-border settlement, where both inflows and outflows can be settled in seconds, especially in cases with bank guarantees where institutions and enterprises can utilize it. This is something that Circle and USDC find difficult to achieve.

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。