Who will apologize to the Blockchain?

The stablecoin revolution is not a sudden attack, but rather a result of ten years of planning, with regulatory agencies in multiple countries responding slowly.

Written by: Meng Yan's Thoughts on Blockchain

After the U.S. Congress passed the GENIUS Act, President Trump signed it into law on July 18, 2025, local time.

The United States passes many laws every year, but this time the stablecoin legislation will certainly be regarded as one of the most important milestones in the history of modern currency, on par with the Bretton Woods Conference and the Nixon Shock.

So far, discussions in the Chinese community about the US dollar stablecoin have mainly focused on the innovative opportunities and wealth dividends it brings, while the attention given to the challenges it presents is far from sufficient. Even fewer people are willing to clearly point out that China has already fallen seriously behind in this field and is in a very passive position.

In fact, it is not just China; every non-US dollar economy is now facing severe challenges.

Due to the technical penetration of blockchain, the near 100% dominance of the US dollar stablecoin, and the sudden flip of the United States on stablecoin legislation, taking a preemptive offensive, a battle to defend monetary sovereignty has become unavoidable for nearly all countries outside the United States. Some countries in Latin America and Africa, whether actively or passively, have opened their doors wide, and the US dollar stablecoin has begun to advance rapidly, sinking into the daily economic activities of the populace. In Brazil and Argentina, US dollar stablecoin payments have deeply integrated into life and are extremely common. In Nigeria, reports suggest that up to one-third of economic activities are conducted using USDT. At this stage, these countries have no capacity to regulate this part of the economic activity, let alone impose taxes. This means that this portion of their economic activity has effectively detached from national control at the management and fiscal levels, and has effectively been incorporated into the broader US dollar economy.

Most countries cannot sit idly by and watch the spread of this digital economic colonization, but what should be done? Should they close the doors and create their own systems, or simply guard against it strictly and ban stablecoins? Many countries have done this in the past few years, and it has proven that this approach not only is difficult to work but also has a more serious potential problem: falling behind in the long-term competition in finance, the internet, AI, and other technological fields. In a sense, the challenges faced by many countries today are a direct consequence of past negative attitudes.

Simple copy-pasting is also hard to work. Recently, a large number of financial institutions and enterprises from multiple countries have announced ambitious stablecoin issuance plans. However, I must say that the idea of obtaining a stablecoin issuance license, then holding a grand launch event, and thinking that one can ride the rocket of the stablecoin economy to success, or even secure a place for the national currency in the on-chain economy, is rather naive. Issuing a stablecoin is simple; the problem is how to distribute it, spill out of your own ecosystem, and convince tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of users to ditch their dollar stablecoins for yours? How can you attract thousands of innovators to develop wallets, custody, payment, exchange, lending, and other applications around your stablecoin? How can you get mainstream internet applications like e-commerce, gaming, live streaming, and social media to adopt your stablecoin? If competing with the dollar in traditional finance is already extremely challenging, then competing with the dollar in the stablecoin space is at least ten times more difficult. To achieve even a little progress, one must invest unimaginably huge costs and long-term efforts, and maintain an extremely clear judgment.

What to do?

Before discussing countermeasures, I fear we should first ask a question: How did things come to this point?

Blockchain is not a suddenly emerging new technology, and the US dollar stablecoin did not reach 260 billion dollars and a 99% market share overnight. The stablecoin revolution is not a surprise attack, nor is it a stealthy move; it is a grand march that has been announced in advance. Over the past decade, countless experts in the blockchain field have repeatedly reminded us that blockchain and digital currency technology have a dimensionality-reducing advantage over the traditional financial system. It is a strategic technology that requires early planning, early layout, and seizing opportunities. If not actively addressed, the future will be in a very passive position. However, regulatory authorities and industry players in many countries have turned a blind eye to this, insisting on dragging the situation into the passive state it is in today. In contrast, why is there such heightened sensitivity and strong awareness of the need to catch up with the progress of AI technology, which also has disruptive and enormous risks? Why can mainstream public opinion display such exuberant enthusiasm and such an optimistic and naive attitude? If we could apply half of the proactive approach we take towards AI to blockchain and stablecoins, then today there would not be a situation where the US dollar dominates the stablecoin field, and other currencies can be ignored. If today there are two or three non-US dollar stablecoins that can stand up to the dollar, then in the coming years, the competition surrounding stablecoins will certainly have more variables and excitement.

Such a pity! What a lament!

What exactly went wrong?

Was it not timely raised for attention? No. Since 2014, the research and discussions around blockchain and digital assets in China have gone through multiple ups and downs. Whether it is the forward-looking exploration in academia, the technical experiments in the industry, or even the periodic research conducted by regulatory agencies, relevant voices and efforts have never ceased. Various think tanks, research institutes, and university laboratories have released in-depth analytical reports, and the financial industry has organized several closed-door meetings and sandbox exercises to a certain extent. It can be said that at least on the knowledge level, we are not unprepared, and even the depth and foresight of certain viewpoints are leading internationally.

Is it that the reasoning was not made clear? No, it wasn't. When Facebook announced the Libra stablecoin plan in 2019, discussions within the industry regarding blockchain and stablecoins had already been very in-depth. If someone were to go back and review some of the leading research institutions at that time, such as the series of reports compiled by the Digital Asset Research Institute, it should be said that all the questions that can be seen and thought of today were already seen and considered back then. In fact, the discussions on many issues at that time were much more comprehensive and profound than those of today’s stablecoin experts who have only been in the field for three months in short videos.

Is it unprofessional to express this? Not really. Many professionals in the financial industry have been vocal about it for a long time. For example, Dr. Xiao Feng, a Ph.D. in finance, has been discussing the technical superiority of blockchain in very professional terms since 2016, repeatedly emphasizing its characteristics of integrated payment, clearing, and settlement in distributed ledger technology. He clearly pointed out that just this one aspect could bring about a hundredfold increase in efficiency and cost advantages, ultimately leading to an upgrade of financial infrastructure, an unstoppable trend. This logic is undeniably clear, the argument is undeniably professional, and it has gained widespread dissemination.

Is it because of the chaotic situation in the coin circle that people make misjudgments? For the general public, perhaps so, but for true professionals, such excuses are not valid. As early as 2016, in domestic blockchain discussions, the speculative digital currencies were clearly distinguished from blockchain technology. After 2019, as discussions on "industrial blockchain" deepened, the industry had already researched the application boundaries and management principles for using blockchain for proof, rights confirmation, and value transfer. If these studies could gain attention, there would be no issue of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So what is the reason?

A few days ago, I heard a statement that at a high-level closed meeting, a financial official acknowledged that several years ago they already had a full understanding of the disruptive potential of stablecoins and blockchain technology, but due to the Biden administration's rejection of blockchain, they judged at that time that the technology had no future. Unexpectedly, after Trump took office, the attitude changed so quickly, and the promotion of stablecoin legislation caught people off guard, leading to a very passive situation now. He concluded that it seems we should adopt a more proactive attitude towards technological innovation in the future.

Coincidentally, I have recently been frequently discussing stablecoin-related topics with traditional finance experts and showcasing the solutions we developed for stablecoin smart payments and digital invoices. One Wall Street financial expert told me after reviewing them that if these applications were rolled out on a large scale, they would inevitably have a disruptive impact on traditional banking-related businesses, re-establishing the relationships between customers, funds, and businesses. However, Wall Street is not unaware of this; in fact, many large banks have been using blockchain internally for years and are very clear about its advantages and disruptive potential. But they believe that precisely because blockchain is highly disruptive, regulatory bodies will inevitably suppress its development temporarily, based on the standpoint of maintaining stability, 'to preserve the stability of the financial industry.' During the Biden administration, the authorities indeed maintained this kind of tacit understanding with Wall Street. If it weren't for someone like Trump, who likes to overturn the table, and if the relationship between the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and the White House hadn't undergone unexpected changes, it is hard to imagine that the U.S. government would unleash the tiger of stablecoins at this time.

The situation in other countries is similar. In Australia, we participated in the trial of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by the Reserve Bank of Australia at the beginning of 2023 and achieved a winning position. The Reserve Bank of Australia highly praised the technological advantages demonstrated by CBDC and stablecoins during this trial, but after the evaluation, it decided to keep the plans for CBDC and stablecoins indefinitely postponed. In private conversations with central bank officials, they told me that CBDC and stablecoins are collectively resisted by Australian commercial banks, and the entire trial project was destined from the beginning to be just an innovation show without any groundbreaking impact. In Singapore, after years of a tolerant and supportive attitude towards the blockchain and digital asset industry, some changes have also occurred after this year's elections. Analysts believe that the new government is concerned about the disruptive impact that stablecoins and digital assets may have on the financial industry.

As can be seen, everyone actually already knows the technological advantages of blockchain and stablecoins, and even agrees that this is the trend of the times. However, due to concerns about the risks it brings and the impact on existing interests and institutional frameworks, they have made a deliberate choice to remain numb and slow after careful consideration. Or to put it simply, everyone is consciously pretending to be asleep in order to prolong the sweet dream a little longer.

Comparing with AI, this point is clearer. Seriously speaking, the disruptive nature of AI surpasses that of stablecoins and blockchain, with more comprehensive risks, deeper levels, greater potential destructiveness, and more unpredictable consequences. If suppressing the development of blockchain is to control risks and maintain stability, the same should apply to AI. However, in the competition of AI, Silicon Valley naturally fired the first shot, so no one hesitated, no one lingered, no one pondered deeply; everyone immediately armed themselves to compete and jumped in quickly. In contrast, in the blockchain field, people have long formed a strange consensus that the first shot to shatter the dream should certainly not be fired by me.

Well, now Trump has fired this shot without hesitation, and he knows very well that during this period when everyone is watching, shirking responsibility, and pretending to be asleep, the US dollar stablecoin has quietly completed its dominant deployment in the global on-chain space, covering users, scenarios, liquidity, and developer networks. It can be said that the chessboard has been set, just waiting for the pieces to be placed. What Trump has done is merely to ride the wave and play this ace that has been poised for action. With a piece of legislation, he has brazenly brought a "supra-sovereign dollar network" onto the historical stage, throwing down a blatant challenge to every non-dollar economy. Externally, it declares that the restructuring of the global monetary landscape has entered a substantive phase; internally, it redefines the collaborative model between the American state machinery and technology, finance, and capital markets. For the world, from now on, this will no longer be a topic that can be delayed, blurred, or "piloted while observing." It will become an urgent priority on the desks of the central banks, finance ministries, and regulators of most countries, a reality challenge that cannot be sidestepped or escaped.

How to cope with this challenge is probably a question that will take many years to answer. But before we tackle the problem, we must first have the courage to face reality and dare to admit: we missed opportunities, we misjudged the situation, and we blinded ourselves with our obsession and luck for short-term stability, turning a blind eye to the ironclad technological logic.

At the starting point of this new global financial order reconstruction, we may need to set aside arrogance and prejudice and say sorry to blockchain. Not for emotional release, but to re-establish a starting point for understanding. We must re-recognize the innovation of production relations that this technology represents, re-embrace the institutional experiments driven by this generation of developers, and re-plan our position in the global digital value network. Perhaps only in this way can we have the opportunity to win our place in this digital economy competition that concerns the future global landscape.