#稳定币生态发展 When Libra was announced in 2019, I witnessed something close to an existential panic across the entire financial system. The mainstream narrative had a singular refrain: stablecoins were coming to drain bank deposits. I too was trapped by this question — if billions of people could hold instantly transferable digital dollars in their phones, who would keep money in zero-interest, fee-laden demand deposit accounts?

But the data from these years has humbled me and taught me what it truly means to calmly examine history.

A research paper from Cornell University completely transformed my cognitive framework. It revealed a counterintuitive truth: despite the explosive growth in stablecoin market capitalization, empirical evidence shows virtually no clear correlation between bank deposit outflows and the emergence of stablecoins. Why? Because deposit stickiness is far more powerful than we imagined. Mortgages, credit cards, direct salary deposits — the bundling effect of these services locks users in tight, and a few basis points of yield simply cannot pry them loose.

The real change happened in another dimension. The very existence of stablecoins became a disciplinary constraint, forcing banks to raise deposit rates and optimize operational efficiency. This is not a force that kills banks; it is a catalyst that compels them to evolve. Like how the music industry was forced to move from CDs to streaming — initially resistant, but ultimately discovering it was a goldmine.

The emergence of the GENIUS Act is even more interesting. It does not suppress stablecoins; rather, it converts offshore shadow finance into transparent, robust domestic infrastructure. This gives the dollar a chance to upgrade, and gives banks an opportunity to rebuild that aging settlement system. Atomic-level settlement, instant cross-border transfers, liquidity liberation — if banks learn to charge for "speed" rather than "delay," these efficiency dividends will completely rewrite the rules of the game.

Looking at this cycle, I finally feel I understand — genuine competitive threats are often the best catalysts for reform.