Swift's inconsistent alliance chain and tokenized deposits with over a dozen banks around the world are a testament to why many large companies feel powerless when faced with disruptive innovation, as if they can only watch the wheels of history crush them. Firstly, the money you keep in the bank no longer belongs to you legally. Your deposit has become a debt owed to you by the bank, and the bank can use your money to lend and invest. So the foundation of a bank's survival is that it can legally use your money to do other things. Why are banks so resistant to stablecoins? If your money is deposited into a bank, then you are a creditor of the bank and the bank can use your money for other purposes. But if you change your money into stable currency, your creditors will become Circle and Tether. They can use your money to buy treasury bond and gold, so the issuer of stable currency replaces the role of bank. Even if you can deposit your stablecoin back into the bank, the creditor relationship remains unchanged and will not be transferred, and the bank still has no right to use your stablecoin for other purposes. So compared to the traditional banking system, stablecoins have obvious advantages in 24-hour instant transfers. However, the various risks of compliance, money laundering, and KYC that banks pose are just excuses. The real core is that even though stablecoins have 100 advantages, they only have one disadvantage for banks, which is that they cannot use users' money for other things. This directly touches the foundation of banks' survival and overturns their business models. So the bank is in a very awkward situation. If it continues to be conservative, the advantages of stablecoins are obvious, and it will eventually be eliminated by this technology. But if one actively follows innovation and accepts stablecoins, it will directly change their own life. So whether it's conservatism or innovation, the ultimate outcome is death, just the difference between dying slowly and dying immediately. So Swift pulled the bank to create a consortium chain and only tokenized their own deposits, meaning that the money that users deposit in the bank is tokenized by the bank, but only circulated within this consortium chain system. At least in terms of transfers, it can keep up with the performance of stablecoins and still maintain the nature of deposits rather than stablecoins, so that banks can use it for other purposes. But this plan, as we mentioned at the beginning, is a mixed bag, a compromise solution that wants to keep up with the times and innovate without being overturned, while also protecting its business model. However, looking at it over time, this is just delaying its own death. So this is the state where many companies face innovation that seems to happen right under their noses, but remain indifferent and watch their competitors rise rapidly, devouring themselves. Kodak, which made money by selling film, watched helplessly as digital cameras rose, but remained indifferent, not because they were too rigid and did not realize how powerful this innovation was, but because if they also followed suit and made digital cameras, their film would not be sold. Banks are also in such a state now.