2026-01-02 09:26:59

Mentioning StandX, many people's initial interest in it is quite interesting — not because of its astonishing price increase, but rather because of DUSD's "unpretentious" tone.

In the current stablecoin landscape, most projects focus on high volatility and high narrative, layering complex yield mechanisms and conceptual packaging. But StandX seems to take a different path, appearing particularly "calm." It doesn't try to grab attention with complicated structural designs but instead focuses on more pragmatic aspects — sustainable capital utilization efficiency and genuine trading demand.

This relatively restrained strategy makes it stand out among a sea of aggressive stablecoin experiments. However, this precisely reflects the product logic behind DUSD: the core value of stablecoins ultimately comes down to use cases and long-term sustainability. Those flashy mechanism designs may attract attention, but the projects that truly stand the test of time are often those that solidify their fundamentals.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropAutomaton

· 01-04 23:21

Honestly, I'm a bit tired. Another stablecoin. But this low-key approach is quite refreshing, much more comfortable than projects that hype concepts every day. Truly viable projects should focus on user experience rather than flashy narratives. In this regard, DUSD is indeed somewhat interesting. In the end, stablecoins compete on liquidity and real-world application. Projects offering high APY to harvest retail investors will eventually fade away. Wait, does the word "plain and unpretentious" seem particularly popular lately? Is it just my illusion? By the way, how has DUSD performed in trading pairs? Has anyone seen the actual trading volume data? It's another case of restraint strategy and fundamentals. I've heard this kind of explanation on many projects, but in the end, they all rug pulled. Doing things solidly is correct, but in the big casino of the crypto world, the stablecoin track is already saturated. Why would DUSD be able to survive?

View OriginalReply0

MagicBean

· 01-02 09:54

Ah, another project narrative of "We Are Different." Tired of it Simple and unadorned? Or is it just because there's no appeal that they have to "restrain" themselves I've heard the "genuine trading demand" explanation too many times, and in the end, it still dies from lack of interest Solid fundamentals can only ensure longevity? Come on, these days, story-tellers live much better than honest folks By the way, does anyone really use StandX, or are they all just hyping expectations

View OriginalReply0

CompoundPersonality

· 01-02 09:52

Plain and unadorned? That's a good phrase, but how many in the circle truly buy into it? It still depends on whether it can stabilize in the future. There are so many stablecoins; frankly, it all comes down to who has sufficient liquidity and who truly has application scenarios. Sounds good, but I'm afraid it's just another project running under the banner of "sustainability." Practicality is indeed scarce, but in this market, restraint often means no one is paying attention. A solid fundamental is a prerequisite, but how can a coin without a narrative attract new users? Striking this balance is really difficult. It seems that StandX's tone and mainstream aesthetics are not quite the same. It’s niche, but at least the sincerity is there. The ones that truly last long are mostly not because of an impressive mechanism, but because they are used by many people.

View OriginalReply0

0xSleepDeprived

· 01-02 09:33

Plain and unpretentious is actually the most touching to me. These days, there are too many projects constantly packaging narratives, and I'm tired of it. The ones that can truly survive need to be pragmatic. I still agree with the tone of DUSD. However, ultimately, stablecoins depend on trading depth and liquidity; logic alone isn't enough. I quite favor this low-key approach, but it has to be successful. Here we go again, another "return to essence" argument... The key is whether the market buys into it or not.

View OriginalReply0