#链上支付 After analyzing this wave of stablecoins, it reminded me of the past. Back then, I was also captivated by the grand narrative of "decentralized financial democratization," believing that blockchain could break the monopoly of banks. But what is the reality? Bitcoin's volatility became too fierce, turning it into a speculative asset, and stablecoins emerged, yet they are now tied to central banks and large corporations.

Ironically, stablecoins do solve real problems—making cross-border payments cheaper and more efficient. But at the same time, they reveal a deeper paradox: to achieve stability, they rely on centralized trust. Isn't this just shifting power from traditional banks to giants like Amazon and Meta? Local currencies of small countries are marginalized by USD-pegged stablecoins, and big banks further strengthen their monopolies by issuing their own stablecoins.

The most painful part is DeFi. Besides the genuine need for payments, most of it is just financial engineering shows. Those "hundreds of percent annualized" mining, lending, and derivatives are mainly targeting inexperienced retail investors. I've seen too many people lured in by high returns, only to lose their principal in the end.

So now, I am particularly cautious about on-chain payments. Are stablecoins useful? Yes, but don’t imagine them as some financial savior. They are just tools—great for transfers, but don’t pour your life savings into them. Remember one principle: whenever you see on-chain products promising high returns, ask yourself—where is this money coming from, and why do I get to benefit?