I'm not too optimistic about the long-term potential of stablecoin models like Circle. In the future, stablecoins will likely split into two main paths: 1. The non-regulated route to the end. Take USDT, for example. It addresses real, rigid demands in areas like global gray funds, cross-border settlements, and weak financial systems. Many people don’t use it because it’s 'compliant,' but because it’s convenient, highly liquid, and widely accepted. 2. The compliance route. If we’re talking about compliant stablecoins, the core issue is: who ultimately gets the yield from the underlying U.S. Treasury bonds? Right now, many stablecoins essentially rely on users contributing AUM, while the project team uses it to buy short-term bonds and keeps the 3%-4% risk-free yield for themselves. Users bear the migration costs, liquidity costs, and opportunity costs, but in the end, they’re just helping the project team grow its balance sheet. USD1 operates on a similar logic: the underlying yield most likely still goes to the team, and they use tokens like WLFI to give users a 'yield narrative.' This design is clever, but it also highlights that the most valuable part of stablecoins has never been the coin itself—it’s the yield rights of the underlying assets. So Circle’s issue isn’t whether it can make money today, but rather: As the market matures, why would users and channels continue to give away tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasury yields to you for free over the long term? If you can’t share the yield and don’t have an irreplaceable payment network or channel monopoly, then I think it’s hard to justify the long-term valuation of this model. As for those who blindly hype Circle every day (like 'Lunch'), all I can say is: pure idiots. They’re focused on the compliance narrative without realizing that yield rights are the real core.