After reading Jeremy's tweet, I feel like he missed the point. The focus of USDC shouldn't be on liquidity. In fact, the focus of any mainstream stablecoin shouldn't be on liquidity. If you're still worried about liquidity, then you're not qualified to be a mainstream stablecoin. The focus should be on use cases and redemption. Payments are also a type of use case. Currently, in the crypto space, USDC has already achieved the top spot in net transaction flow. But the world is vast, and crypto is just a small part of it. What has USDC done on the application layer? What barriers has it broken in the real world? More importantly, the U.S. and Europe are inherently credit-based economies. I've written before about why stablecoins can't challenge credit cards—because they lack a credit mechanism, the "use first, pay later" model. This is a natural disadvantage. However, if a bank issues a stablecoin, it could fill this gap. Launching a credit card backed by a bank-issued stablecoin is entirely feasible. Especially when it comes to redemption, USDC currently has very limited options for direct conversion into fiat currency at banks. On the other hand, a stablecoin issued by a bank would most likely support bank-backed redemption. So, Open USD can be seen as a digital dollar, not just a stablecoin. The biggest use case for a digital dollar is cross-border settlement. Transfers in and out can be settled in seconds, especially with bank guarantees, making it accessible for institutions and enterprises. This is something Circle and USDC find very difficult to achieve.