Circle's biggest weakness right now is that its revenue mainly relies on U.S. Treasury bonds. In Q1 2026, Circle's total revenue and reserve income amounted to $694 million, of which reserve income was $653 million—meaning about 94% still comes from USDC reserve asset yields. Moreover, the reserve return rate for the quarter has already dropped by 66 basis points. This structure looks great during a high-interest-rate period, but once U.S. dollar interest rates decline (Fed rate cuts), Circle will face the awkward situation of not having a second growth curve. The solution isn’t easy. What I’m saying now is just brainstorming, but you can see that even Tether, another stablecoin, hasn’t found a stable source of revenue. Tether has tried investments, corporate bonds, buying Bitcoin and gold, but based on their financial reports, they still don’t have a very strong second growth curve. However, USDT’s biggest strength is its acceptance in regions like Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Acceptance generates profits, but USDC’s acceptance is much weaker compared to USDT. If there’s a choice, CPN is definitely the area that should be accelerated the most. CPN directly targets banks, PSPs, VASPs, enterprises, and cross-border payment scenarios, addressing the issue of who will use USDC for real payments and settlements. (Though I think this will be hard to solve.) As for Arc, I think it’s just about saving transaction fees. Unless CPN is fully implemented and has a large user base, Arc doesn’t hold much significance. Right now, Circle’s biggest issue is still solving the settlement problem, and it hasn’t found a way to address the issue of non-crypto users using USDC. Actually, Circle could issue its own credit card, but the biggest problem is that USDC reserves can’t be used for lending. In other words, the main source of income for the banking system—lending—is something Circle, or stablecoins in general, can’t do.