#稳定币 After listening to CZ explain the evolution of stablecoins, I realized how risky this wave of opportunities really is.

Stablecoin 1.0 is just a simple arbitrage tool—your USD sleeps in the bank, project teams earn interest, and users gain no returns. This model has fueled Tether’s growth but also hidden risks. Starting from version 1.5, offering yields sounds appealing, but the risk I see is: most exchanges haven't integrated it yet, which causes friction in usage, and adoption is inherently limited.

The true 2.0 stablecoin should achieve a trifecta of yield + liquidity + compliance. CZ frankly said it sounds simple but is very difficult to accomplish. Why? Convincing a bunch of exchanges to list the token, ensuring sustainable sources of yield, and passing compliance hurdles—all these mean that what we see now as "new stablecoins" are mostly still in the trial-and-error stage.

My straightforward advice: don’t be blinded by high yields. Projects claiming to be the "ultimate stablecoin" are mostly still fumbling around in the 1.5 phase. The three criteria for choosing are—look at exchange integration, sustainability of yields, and whether the team is genuinely solving liquidity issues. Tether may be annoying, but its ecosystem is well-established, which is why it’s still around today. If a new project wants to challenge it, they need to produce real differentiation.

Beware of stablecoin projects that promise quick results and rapid iterations—this is not an advantage; it’s a sign they haven't fully figured out their business model.