温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/ja/61089.html
点击访问原文链接

The Undercurrents Amid the Stablecoin Crisis: How to Safeguard Risk Boundaries Behind Decentralized Innovation? | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
The Undercurrents Amid the Stablecoin Crisis: How to Safeguard Risk Boundaries Behind Decentralized Innovation? | Bee Network Login トレンドニュース ミーム・ローンチパッド AIエージェント デサイ トップチェーンエクスプローラー 初心者向け 100x コイン ビーゲーム 重要なウェブサイト 必須のアプリ クリプトセレブリティ デピン ルーキーズ・エッセンシャル トラップディテクタ 基本的なツール 高度な Web サイト 交換 NFTツール こんにちは、 サインアウト Web3 ユニバース ゲーム ダップ ミツバチの巣 成長するプラットフォーム 広告 検索 英語 コインをリチャージする ログイン ダウンロード Web3 ユニ ゲーム ダップ ミツバチの巣 広告 ホーム-分析-本文 The Undercurrents Amid the Stablecoin Crisis: How to Safeguard Risk Boundaries Behind Decentralized Innovation?分析3ヶ月前更新ワイアット 15,253 3 The stablecoin market has been turbulent for the past month.

From xUSD to USDX, then to deUSD, and then to the bad debt propagation of protocols such as Euler, Stream, Compound, and Aave, the stablecoin world and even the entire on-chain protocol are undergoing a systemic stress test.

The core issue behind this is the potential risks exposed in the stablecoin mechanism, which to some extent confirms the essence that “stablecoins are not inherently stable, but rather maintain a fragile balance under different mechanisms. ” This article will also explore this wave of “de-anchoring” and the important warnings it provides from multiple perspectives of the Web3 ecosystem and TradeFi.

I. Stablecoins Fail: Continuous Growth, Continuous Risk Exposure
As one of the “holy grails” sought by the 暗号 world, stablecoins have always been the most promising sector in the crypto market.

Especially after the DeFi Summer in 2020, the surge in native DeFi scenarios has provided a large amount of real demand (collateralization, strategies, lending, yield pools), making stablecoins a key infrastructure for on-chain balance sheet expansion. The mechanisms have also become more diversified, from the initial overcollateralized type (DAI), to the algorithmic stablecoin (UST) which has experienced ups and downs, and now to the Delta-neutral mechanism (USDe, XUSD) which is increasingly biased towards complex structured financial products.

After years of expansion, CoinGecko data shows that as of November 14, the total circulating supply of stablecoins on the network has exceeded $300 billion. USDT ranks first with $183.9 billion and USDC ranks second with $75.7 billion. The combined volume of the two is close to $260 billion, still holding an absolute advantage.

Source: CoinGecko

To be frank, with a market capitalization exceeding $300 billion and still growing rapidly, stablecoins, coupled with the massive demand for collateral and their impact on traditional financial and payment systems, inevitably face regulatory scrutiny. Especially as stablecoins gradually penetrate various scenarios such as global payments, DeFi, and safe-haven assets, they are no longer a concept that can be デフィned by a single narrative.

It can be a primary tool for cross-border transfers, a core component of on-chain revenue, an on-chain financial management tool that provides returns, or a collateral asset in DeFi protocols.

From a broader perspective, it has even begun to assume the roles of “digital deposit” and “on-chain settlement unit,” which means that its use cases vary from person to person and arise from need. Moreover, each mechanism is trying to find a difficult balance between decentralization, capital utilization efficiency, and credit endorsement, and the risk profiles of different stablecoins are also vastly different .

In other words, “stablecoins” have essentially become systemic financial intermediaries on the blockchain. Once they are breached, the impact will be far wider than imagined. This is why events such as xUSD, USDX, and deUSD have attracted widespread attention in the past month.

Against this backdrop, understanding stablecoin mechanisms, sources of risk, and regulatory perspectives is no longer just an industry issue, but a public topic that all stakeholders should promote.

II. From Computational Stability to Delta Neutrality: The Myth of Decentralized Stablecoins
It can be said that, based on the current situation, centralized stablecoins such as USDT/USDC are still within the scope of regulatory oversight, while the development speed and complexity of various “mechanism innovation” decentralized stablecoins have actually far exceeded the effective coverage of the current regulatory framework.

例えば , most recent cases of stablecoins de-pegging are concentrated on highly structured financial designs such as synthetic collateral and Delta neutrality. After all, while pursuing capital efficiency and innovative returns, these products also bear more flexible non-linear risks.

When discussing the de-pegging of innovative decentralized stablecoins and the potential secondary disaster risks they may bring, Terra/UST is undoubtedly an unavoidable topic. If UST, with its 20% annualized return, was once the most dangerous high-yield trap in the Web3 world, then the protagonist of this wave of events is the more complex “structured stablecoin”.

The most representative examples are xUSD and USDX. Their core mechanism is often a combination of “Delta-neutral strategy + liquidity pool + derivatives hedging”, which at first glance sounds like a rational, professional, and highly financially engineered mechanism.

However, the reality is that regardless of whether it’s algorithmic stability, synthetic stability, or Delta neutral stability, the core risk points to the same thing: complex mechanisms can mask real risks. Of course, objectively speaking, the first half of USDe’s stablecoin generation/stabilization mechanism is significantly different from Terra’s approach and does not belong to the “ladder to the clouds” approach. On the contrary, because it is reaping profits from all traders who went long in the bull market and paid for their funds, the high yield is supported, which is also the biggest difference between it and Terra.

What’s truly noteworthy is the latter part of Ethena’s trajectory. When faced with the challenge of de-pegging, it could genuinely follow a negative spiral similar to LUNA/USDe, potentially leading to a run on the platform and accelerated collapse—funding rates would continue to be negative and widen, discussions about Fud would begin, USDe yields would plummet due to the de-pegging discount, and ultimately, market capitalization would crash (due to user redemptions).

For example, if the value drops from $10 billion to $5 billion, Ethena would have to close out its short positions and redeem the collateral (such as ETH or BTC). If any problems arise during the redemption process (such as liquidity issues caused by extreme market conditions or large market fluctuations), the peg of USDe will be further affected.

Source: Coin市場Cap

This is precisely one of the core factors exposed by the recent USDX risk events. Although the 10/11 incident itself was a CEX issue and the on-chain price was not directly affected, if the positions of Delta-neutral stablecoins like USDX are mainly held on large CEXs, they may be indirectly affected.

Transmission of losses to underlying assets: If the underlying assets on the CEX side suffer losses for any reason (including pricing issues, security incidents, or clearing system failures), it will theoretically affect the value of the short positions used by the stablecoin issuer for hedging or the ability to liquidate the collateral. Liquidation chain: This can also cause the issuer to experience delays or setbacks in the liquidation process of the CEX when redeeming stablecoins, ultimately causing the stablecoins to become de-pegged on the chain; Objectively speaking, whether it’s USDe or USDX, these so-called stablecoin products with “Delta neutrality” as their core are essentially more like structured financial products. They require a more detailed regulatory framework and transparent disclosure requirements, as well as more flexible risk reserves.

To put it bluntly, no matter how the underlying mechanism changes, all stablecoins should start from the same point regarding fundamental requirements such as transparency, underlying asset support, and custody mechanisms. So-called “mechanism innovation” should not be used as an excuse to evade regulation and risk disclosure.

III. Prudent Considerations Behind the Evolution of Stablecoins
Looking at the bigger picture, the stablecoin sector has always been a highly profitable and massive market. Its profit model and potential size pose a direct challenge to traditional finance (TradFi), which is the core motivation for regulatory intervention.

According to Tether’s Q2 2025 attestation report, Tether’s total holdings of U.S. Treasury securities exceeded $127 billion (an increase of approximately $8 billion from the first quarter), with total net profit of approximately $4.9 billion in the second quarter and a total net profit of $5.7 billion for the first half of the year.

It’s worth noting that Tether only has about 100 employees, yet its profit margins and operational efficiency are astonishingly high, almost an order of magnitude lower than that of crypto trading platforms and traditional Web2 financial giants! (Further reading: ” USDe Soars? Deconstructing the ‘Satoshi Dollar’ Practice Behind its $14 Billion Size “)

This unchecked financial power and super-monopoly profits will inevitably trigger deep vigilance from regulators regarding the transmission of systemic risks and financial sovereignty. Moreover, at the level of ordinary users, stablecoins are also becoming a mass wealth management tool that is siphoning off the incremental users of traditional financial institutions.

Whether you’re familiar with Web3 or not, you’ve probably seen similar promotions recently, such as “USDC offers 12% annualized flexible deposit yield.” This isn’t just a gimmick; although it’s just a short-term activity by Circle to subsidize interest, it reflects how the logic of making money on the blockchain is permeating a wider range of financial management scenarios.

Objectively speaking, this is an emerging “Web2 & Web3” trend. However, the great simplification of user experience does not mean a great reduction in risk.

Conversely, when ordinary users purchase DeFi structured products—which lack the protection of the Deposit Insurance Ordinance, have complex underlying mechanisms, and may face liquidation and depletion at any time—through the user interface of a bank’s app, the misalignment of risks reaches its peak.

There’s nothing new under the sun.

Whether it’s LUNA/UST, USDe, xUSD, or USDX, the development of stablecoins has long since shifted from “technological innovation” to “financial structural challenges.” In the pursuit of efficiency and decentralization, they have continuously exposed the fragility of their mechanisms.

In essence, stablecoins are not inherently safe; their safety is determined by their mechanisms, collateral, transparency, and governance.

The de-pegging of xUSD to USDX is just the latest reminder that, under the lure of huge profits and the cover of complex mechanisms, users need to remain vigilant at all times: any digital financial instrument that promises “high returns and zero risk” deserves to be examined with the utmost caution and skepticism regarding its underlying structure and risk boundaries.

Stablecoins can only achieve a truly sustainable future when innovation is combined with responsible transparency and an increasingly stringent global regulatory framework.

この記事はインターネットから得たものです。 The Undercurrents Amid the Stablecoin Crisis: How to Safeguard Risk Boundaries Behind Decentralized Innovation?Recommended Articles

Related: From trustless BTC to tokenized gold, which one is the real “digital gold”? Yes, I’m talking about gold in the physical sense. With increasing geopolitical risks and global macroeconomic uncertainty, the total market value of gold (at one point) reached $30 trillion, firmly holding the top spot among global assets. Meanwhile, something quite interesting is happening in the Crypto world: in addition to Bitcoin, which is widely regarded as “digital gold,” physical gold is being rapidly on-chained: tokenized gold, represented by Tether Gold (XAUT), has gained new capabilities such as divisibility, programmability, and even interest generation through the RWA wave. It is challenging a narrative that has long been almost entirely dominated by Bitcoin: “Who is the real digital gold?” BTC: A Decade of Narrative Evolution Is Bitcoin (BTC) a currency or an asset? Is its core function payment or a store of…

#分析#暗号# デフィ# マーケット# ツール#ウェブ3© 版权声明配列 上一篇 Tiger Research: Will Bitcoin be hacked by quantum computers? 下一篇 Preconfs Evolution: From “Patches” to “Infrastructure”—How Does UniFi AVS Impact the Rules of the Game for Based Rollups? 相关文章 Cardano redefines itself with a $71 million governance reform experimentRecommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 25,131 How did a fake zoom link successfully steal 1M funds? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 36,721 3 ゲートリサーチ2025年 世界の暗号プライベート・ウェルス・マネジメント業界ホワイトペーパー 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,382 B² Launches U2 Stablecoin System: Transforming Bitcoin from “Digital Gold” to “Global Payment Unit”Recommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 22,420 1 Circle and Tether may not be competing with the same species, the stablecoin value realization hierarchy model says 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 28,845 2 Musks push for AI companion set off a market boom, with ANI tokens soaring to a market value of $20 million 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 25,531 6 コメントはありません コメントを残すにはログインが必要です！ すぐにログイン コメントはありません... Bee.com 世界最大の Web3 ポータル パートナー コインカープ バイナンス コインマーケットキャップ CoinGecko コインライブ 鎧 Bee Network APP をダウンロードして、Web3 の旅を始めましょう 白書 役割 よくある質問 © 2021-2026.無断複写・転載を禁じます。. プライバシーポリシー | 利用規約 Bee Networkアプリをダウンロード そしてWeb3の旅を始めましょう 世界最大のWeb3ポータル パートナー CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors 白書 役割 よくある質問 © 2021-2026.無断複写・転載を禁じます。. プライバシーポリシー | 利用規約 検索 検索インサイトオンチェーン社交ニュース 热门推荐： エアドロップハンター データ分析 クリプトセレブリティ トラップディテクタ 日本語 English 繁體中文 简体中文 Tiếng Việt العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia हिन्दी اردو Русский 日本語

智能索引记录