#稳定币生态发展 When Libra was announced in 2019, I witnessed what looked like an existential panic sweeping through the entire financial system. The mainstream narrative was simple: stablecoins were coming to drain bank deposits. I too was caught up in this question—if billions of people could hold instantly transferable digital dollars on their phones, who would keep money in zero-interest, fee-laden checking accounts?
But the data from these years has humbled me, and it's taught me what it really means to calmly examine history.
A Cornell University study completely transformed my analytical framework. It revealed a counterintuitive truth: despite the explosive growth in stablecoin market capitalization, there's been virtually no observable correlation between bank deposit outflows and stablecoin adoption. Why? Because deposit stickiness is far more powerful than we imagined. Mortgages, credit cards, direct deposit—the bundling effects of these services lock users in tightly, and a few basis points of yield won't move the needle.
The real change happened on another dimension. The very existence of stablecoins became a disciplinary constraint, forcing banks to raise deposit rates and optimize operational efficiency. This isn't a force that kills banks—it's a catalyst that pushes them to evolve. Like how the music industry was forced to go from CDs to streaming—initially resistant, but eventually discovering it was a goldmine.
The GENIUS Act is even more interesting. It's not about suppressing stablecoins; it's about converting offshore shadow finance into transparent, robust domestic infrastructure. This gives the dollar a chance to upgrade, gives banks an opportunity to rebuild that aging settlement system. Atomic settlement, instant cross-border transfers, liquidity liberation—if banks learn to charge for "speed" rather than "delay," the entire game gets rewritten.
Looking at this cycle, I finally feel I understand—real competitive threats are often the best catalysts for reform.
#稳定币生态发展 When Libra was announced in 2019, I witnessed what looked like an existential panic sweeping through the entire financial system. The mainstream narrative was simple: stablecoins were coming to drain bank deposits. I too was caught up in this question—if billions of people could hold instantly transferable digital dollars on their phones, who would keep money in zero-interest, fee-laden checking accounts?
But the data from these years has humbled me, and it's taught me what it really means to calmly examine history.
A Cornell University study completely transformed my analytical framework. It revealed a counterintuitive truth: despite the explosive growth in stablecoin market capitalization, there's been virtually no observable correlation between bank deposit outflows and stablecoin adoption. Why? Because deposit stickiness is far more powerful than we imagined. Mortgages, credit cards, direct deposit—the bundling effects of these services lock users in tightly, and a few basis points of yield won't move the needle.
The real change happened on another dimension. The very existence of stablecoins became a disciplinary constraint, forcing banks to raise deposit rates and optimize operational efficiency. This isn't a force that kills banks—it's a catalyst that pushes them to evolve. Like how the music industry was forced to go from CDs to streaming—initially resistant, but eventually discovering it was a goldmine.
The GENIUS Act is even more interesting. It's not about suppressing stablecoins; it's about converting offshore shadow finance into transparent, robust domestic infrastructure. This gives the dollar a chance to upgrade, gives banks an opportunity to rebuild that aging settlement system. Atomic settlement, instant cross-border transfers, liquidity liberation—if banks learn to charge for "speed" rather than "delay," the entire game gets rewritten.
Looking at this cycle, I finally feel I understand—real competitive threats are often the best catalysts for reform.