This article is reprinted with authorization from Automatic Insight, author: Rhythm Editorial Department, copyright belongs to the original author.

Zhou Wei's career trajectory reflects, in a certain sense, the dramatic fluctuations of the cryptocurrency industry over the past seven years.

In 2018, he joined Binance as the first professional manager without a cryptocurrency background, leading investment mergers and acquisitions, fiat business, and global compliance expansion, experiencing the frenzied era of exchange expansion.

After leaving Binance in 2021, he took over the Philippines' local payment and cryptocurrency platform Coins.ph, turning his attention to a more specific yet challenging field—stablecoins.

In three years, the global landscape of stablecoins has undergone profound changes. The U.S. Congress is advancing stablecoin legislation, and Circle has successfully gone public; Hong Kong has officially implemented a regulatory framework for stablecoins, attempting to leverage stablecoins for cross-border settlement and financial innovation. Stablecoins are transitioning from "tools of exchanges" to "infrastructure of the financial system," and a new competitive cycle has begun.

In Southeast Asia, the Philippines has become a unique testing ground. It is not only the fourth largest remittance market globally, with approximately $40 billion in remittances from overseas workers flowing in each year.

At the same time, the Central Bank of the Philippines approved Coins.ph to issue a local peso-pegged stablecoin, PHPC, in 2024, and in the summer of 2025, it will officially exit the regulatory sandbox, becoming one of the first compliant stablecoin projects to enter the full implementation phase globally.

This means that stablecoins have institutionalized their presence for the first time in a "high remittance, high reliance on the U.S. dollar" market. It is not only a regional financial experiment but also a window to observe the future direction of global stablecoins: Can stablecoins truly enter cross-border payments and foreign exchange settlements? Can they challenge the traditional banking system within a compliant framework?

Therefore, we chose to interview Zhou Wei, former CFO of Binance and current CEO of Coins.ph, at this point in time. His professional identity spans traditional finance and crypto-native institutions, and his personal transformation alongside the launch of PHPC may help us answer a more macro question: In the new cycle of global stablecoin competition, who will define the future rules?

Insight: At Binance, were the investments and acquisitions you made primarily targeting compliance and fiat exchange companies?

Zhou Wei: Since joining Binance, I have led or spearheaded almost all major merger and acquisition cases within the company. At that time, although the company already had compliance and legal teams, there were mainly four paths for launching new businesses: building a team to do it directly, internal incubation, investment, or acquisition.

Considering that we always prioritized "speed" as the primary criterion, acquisitions were often the fastest way. Compared to applying for a license from scratch (which usually takes one to two years, and many countries at that time did not even have a cryptocurrency licensing system), acquiring companies with existing qualifications allowed us to immediately obtain the channels needed to conduct business.

Especially between 2017 and 2020, there were very few financial institutions willing to provide services to cryptocurrency companies. If a local company already had banking channels or payment pathways, entering through investment or acquisition was often much faster than setting up a company, applying for a license, and then opening a bank account.

For example, when we found partners that could connect euro, peso, or yen fiat channels, it effectively provided Binance with more windows for user funds to flow in and out.

Thus, we tried various methods: directly establishing fiat exchanges in the U.S., Singapore, South Korea, the EU, and the UK; connecting compliance and payment channels through partners in some markets; and in regions like Latin America and Africa, directly collaborating with local subsidiaries and financial institutions to obtain permissions for fund inflows and outflows.

Whether it was establishing, investing, acquiring, or cooperating, we always chose the fastest and most effective path.

Looking back, this broad and diverse strategy allowed Binance to be at the forefront among Chinese and American exchanges at that time. Even today, Binance's coverage of fiat channels and the breadth of countries involved remain among the most comprehensive in the industry.

Insight: What licenses were primarily obtained at that time?

Zhou Wei: The methods for obtaining exchange licenses and payment licenses vary globally. Taking the U.S. as an example, there is still no unified licensing system for cryptocurrency exchanges, and many businesses are covered by payment licenses (MTL).

As of 2025, apart from the 34 countries under the unified regulation of the EU, there are only about twenty countries that have genuinely issued licenses for cryptocurrency exchanges.

In some markets, trading services can be conducted relying on broker licenses; in others, entry is through payment licenses.

Each jurisdiction has a different legal framework, which also means that if you want to serve over a hundred fiat currencies globally, you must adopt different methods and localized user experiences to ensure users can deposit funds into exchanges as quickly as possible.

When I joined Binance in 2018, my first responsibility was this type of fiat business. I was the company's first full-time employee dedicated to this area. At that time, I was still unfamiliar with the processes, which seemed not too complicated, but as we delved deeper, I realized how complex it was, and even today, many people have not truly sorted it out.

During that phase, USDT was the primary tool for deposits and withdrawals at exchanges globally. As long as you obtained USDT, you could complete transactions on exchanges, and the channels for obtaining it were diverse. For example, in the U.S., it could be purchased compliantly through Coinbase; from 2018 to 2019, Chinese users mainly relied on Huobi and OK's P2P markets for upstream supply.

Other countries accessed through compliant channels based on local conditions; for instance, European users often traded through Coinbase and Kraken at that time, with these platforms backed by banking systems.

Therefore, we began exploring whether we could directly obtain licenses locally and open bank accounts to establish official deposit channels for major fiat currencies like euros and dollars. This was not only an important step for compliance expansion but also a core strategy for enhancing user experience and fund flow efficiency.

Insight: What are the costs and challenges in the process of converting stablecoins to fiat? What pitfalls are many companies unaware of?

Zhou Wei: I believe there are many pitfalls in this industry, especially for those from traditional financial institutions or "novice" users from various countries. The user experience and difficulty of using stablecoins vary significantly across different countries and regions.

For example, in Asian markets like Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, and South Korea, there are relatively complete regulatory systems and financial institutions that can serve the cryptocurrency industry. In Japan, for instance, a licensing system for the cryptocurrency industry was introduced as early as 2017, allowing users to deposit yen directly into exchange accounts regulated by the Japanese Financial Services Agency (JFSA) to purchase Bitcoin through banks, payment institutions, or wallets.

However, Japan's regulation on stablecoins is relatively strict, with limited channels for obtaining USDT, while USDC can generally be used.

Thailand is a similar case. Our business in Thailand began serving local users as early as 2016 and 2017, initially allowing the purchase of Bitcoin with Thai baht (THB), and it is still possible to directly buy USDT with THB today.

Each country has different anti-money laundering laws, with specific management requirements for fiat deposit amounts, purchase limits, and withdrawal destinations. But overall, as long as one is a legal resident or business, opening an account on these regulated exchanges and purchasing USDT or USDC with local currency (such as Hong Kong's HKD/USD or Singapore's SGD/USD) is not particularly difficult.

In the Philippines, our exchange also provides services for Chinese individuals holding local work visas; the same applies in Singapore and the U.S. In the U.S., there are compliant channels like Coinbase, and European users can also complete USD and EUR deposits through Coinbase or Kraken.

For institutions, there are two ways to convert stablecoins to fiat: first, they can directly open an institutional account with Circle and use its Minting Program to convert dollars to USDC or redeem USDC for dollars (with daily limits).

The second, and more common method, is through exchanges. Not only do exchanges facilitate the conversion between fiat and stablecoins, but they also handle cross-chain conversions (switching the same stablecoin between different blockchains) and cross-stablecoin conversions (like swapping USDT and USDC).

Reflecting on my early experiences with the USDT fiat channel at Binance, the stablecoin ecosystem at that time was relatively simple—there were few types and participants. USDC only entered mainstream circulation in 2019.

From 2014 to 2018, the core stablecoin for most exchanges was USDT. The channels for obtaining it included compliant paths and non-compliant OTC channels, and the feasibility at that time was relatively high. Back then, the circulation scale of USDT was only $1-2 billion, while its current scale is incomparable.

During my time at Binance, we also issued our own stablecoin, BUSD, which was launched in late 2019 and early 2020 in collaboration with the U.S. compliant trust company Paxos, starting from scratch as well.

In contrast, today's stablecoin market is more complex, due to the increased number of participants, currencies, chains, exchanges, and licensed companies.

Many people associate USDT with the gray industry, partly due to its reserve transparency issues: initially, the outside world could not confirm whether its reserves were sufficient or where the funds were specifically held.

However, at that time, USDT and Bitfinex belonged to the same group, and they briefly attempted to make their bank accounts public, only to have them closed within a month. This was also a common dilemma in the early cryptocurrency industry—navigating a cat-and-mouse game with banks; Binance's relationship with regulators at that time was similar.

The reason USDT was able to survive in its early days largely depended on this "barbaric growth" model. Although there were external doubts about its transparency and gray operations, its vitality was extremely strong.

In such an environment, the team's survival philosophy was simple: staying alive is more important than anything else. The anonymity characteristic of the cryptocurrency industry lowers the cost of wrongdoing and increases opportunity gains, so gray and legitimate operations coexisted in the early market.

As time goes on, this industry will inevitably move towards compliance, transparency, and institutionalization, and the future development direction of the stablecoin market will gradually become clearer under this trend.

Insight: Why didn't Binance invest in Coins.ph at that time, but you chose to?

Zhou Wei: In 2021, I almost reviewed all compliant exchanges globally and participated in multiple mergers and acquisitions and investment projects during this process. As for the company's final decision, I was no longer informed after I left.

But from my perspective, the reasons that made me optimistic about certain targets included market potential, licensing barriers, brand influence, and historical accumulation, among other factors.

Taking Coins.ph as an example, this company was established in 2014, possessing both the business background of a payment company and the operational experience of a cryptocurrency exchange.

In the early Philippine market, it could provide local payment scenarios similar to Alipay while also offering a cryptocurrency trading experience akin to Coinbase, thus having a very broad user base and usage scenarios. I focus on it not just as an exchange but as a company that embodies both payment and trading genes.

Choosing the Philippine market also has an important opportunity related to the explosion of Axie Infinity in 2021. At that time, the Philippines became one of the countries with the highest adoption of cryptocurrency applications globally.

Almost the entire population was participating in this "play-to-earn" game, first by directly purchasing crypto assets and then "mining" coins through gameplay. This phenomenal craze lasted for two to three years, driving a high level of acceptance of cryptocurrency among local users from 2021 to 2023.

Another attraction of the Philippine market is its status as the fourth largest cross-border remittance market globally, following China, India, and Mexico. Approximately $40 billion in foreign exchange is remitted back to the country each year by overseas workers.

This vast and stable payment market has also made the Philippines one of the first countries to attempt to use cryptocurrencies and stablecoins to optimize cross-border settlements. In the early days, local users utilized on-chain stablecoins like Stellar (XLM) for payments, replacing traditional dollar wire transfers.

Compared to banks' service cycles of five days a week and eight hours a day, the 24/7 settlement capability of exchanges significantly enhances the efficiency of completing payments and exchanges using stablecoins.

Therefore, in my view, this company has three major advantages: first, the scarcity of licenses and compliance qualifications; second, a solid user base in cryptocurrency; and third, the capability to directly enter the cross-border payment and B2B settlement market.

Over the past year and a half to two years, we have gradually transformed from a pure exchange into a licensed crypto platform capable of serving global payments and cross-border remittances. This is not only an extension of our business model but also the beginning of a new growth curve.

Insight: The Philippine government only began implementing stablecoin-related policies at the end of 2024. Does this have a significant relationship with the development of Coins.ph's business?

Zhou Wei: I believe that the impact of this policy on our business is not direct; the more core reason is the increase in use cases. From my observation, one of the largest single markets globally is the foreign exchange market, where the Philippines has a daily trading volume of about 15 to 20 billion pesos against the dollar.

If this portion of foreign exchange trading can be replaced by the conversion of dollar stablecoins (like USDT, USDC) to Philippine pesos, it creates a whole new alternative market.

However, this trading must occur within compliant exchanges. First, the exchange needs to have customer demand: on one side are sellers, mostly local or cross-border payment companies.

On the other side are buyers, including investors trading cryptocurrencies and those needing to transfer funds across borders using stablecoins, such as e-commerce companies expanding from China. Our job is to gather these demand parties in one "market" to facilitate transactions, making the exchange their meeting point.

In the Philippines, our exchange has always provided compliant trading for USDT and USDC, which is a basic configuration for compliant exchanges. We also adopt the same model in markets like Thailand.

Changes have occurred recently—following Hong Kong's formal inclusion of stablecoins into a legal compliance framework, U.S. stablecoin issuers (like Circle) have successfully gone public and gained clearer regulatory pathways after the new U.S. government took office, allowing mainstream financial institutions in the U.S. to legally use stablecoins.

At the same time, cross-border enterprises, e-commerce companies, and payment institutions in Hong Kong can now legitimately use stablecoins for settlements.

As a result, the cross-border circulation network for stablecoins has been further opened up, with the Philippines acting as a "port": funds from abroad may arrive in the form of USDC, "unloaded" here and exchanged for pesos.

Local funds may also be exchanged for USDT through the port and sent back overseas. As the demand for cross-border stablecoin settlements grows, our "port" business volume is also rapidly increasing.

Insight: Some people question the high costs of stablecoins in foreign exchange and cross-border payment settlements. For example, the founder of Airwallex believes that the costs of stablecoins cannot be lower than traditional foreign exchange. What do you think?

Zhou Wei: I have always felt that this type of business essentially involves each party selling the "goods" they have. Traditional banks have foreign exchange pools and traditional settlement capabilities, while my "goods" are stablecoin trading and digital settlement capabilities—these two attributes are completely different.

To use a metaphor, traditional banks are "ocean freight," stablecoins are "air freight," and some localized payment methods are like "land freight." Ocean freight has the lowest cost but is slow and time-restricted; air freight, while more expensive, is available around the clock and is flexible and convenient—even if the bank is closed, I can still complete fund transfers.

Currently, the cost of stablecoins is higher than traditional foreign exchange, mainly because the pool size is not large enough. For example, in the Philippines, banks can handle 1 to 2 billion pesos in foreign exchange conversions daily, and the liquidity and depth of the foreign exchange market far exceed that of the stablecoin trading market.

Therefore, at this stage, banks have a clear advantage in foreign exchange costs. However, as the liquidity pool for stablecoin and peso trading gradually expands, the cost gap will continue to narrow, and in the future, it may even equal that of traditional foreign exchange, at which point the use cases for stablecoins will become more widespread.

The key factor is liquidity—this includes both the cross-border settlement liquidity of stablecoins against stablecoins and the liquidity of stablecoins against fiat currencies. Taking the U.S. dollar as an example, there is almost no cost between the dollar and dollar stablecoins, while any non-dollar fiat currency exchanged for dollars will incur a spread.

Currently, the foreign exchange spread between the U.S. dollar and the Hong Kong dollar is very small, but the spread of USDT against the Hong Kong dollar is relatively larger because the scale of the traditional foreign exchange pool is much larger than that of the stablecoin trading pool. However, as the trading volume of stablecoins against the Hong Kong dollar gradually increases, the spread will also narrow.

The same logic applies in markets like Thailand and the Philippines: the foreign exchange pool size of the dollar against local currencies is enormous, while the pool for USDT against local currencies is relatively small, resulting in higher trading costs.

However, once the stablecoin pool expands and liquidity improves, it can accommodate more trading volume, and the spread will naturally decrease. This is the change currently happening in the market and is a key pathway for enhancing the competitiveness of stablecoin payment networks.

Insight: Can the stablecoin foreign exchange market operate 24/7?

Zhou Wei: Every country has a 24/7 payment system, such as PESONet and InstaPay in the Philippines, and ACH (partially 24/7) in the U.S. What we need to do is connect the 24/7 crypto systems with local 24/7 fiat payment systems.

Insight: What are the differences between issuing stablecoins and issuing them in Hong Kong?

Zhou Wei: There are fundamental differences in the regulatory pathways for stablecoins between Hong Kong and the Philippines. Hong Kong has introduced a complete stablecoin management bill, establishing a clear regulatory framework and entry requirements, attracting a large number of market participants to enter; whereas the Philippines has not enacted similar legislation but has adopted a more flexible approach, with the central bank granting pilot licenses to certain institutions.

In the Philippines, our stablecoin business initially entered the central bank's "regulatory sandbox" after applying for a license in 2023, operating within it for a year. After completing all KPIs, we officially exited the sandbox this year and obtained the qualification to issue in the market. The central bank has regarded us as a pilot project mainly because we are the largest exchange under its supervision.

The issuance and redemption (Mint and Redeem) of stablecoins are completed through the exchange: users can deposit pesos on the platform and directly exchange them for PHPC at a 1:1 ratio without any fees; during redemption, only a 0.01% fee is charged.

Once users obtain PHPC, they can circulate it freely on-chain. We initially deployed it on the Ronin public chain, and many gamers convert their game earnings into PHPC, which can then be off-ramped to fiat accounts through the platform.

In the future, we will focus more on cross-border payment scenarios, especially the remittance needs of overseas Filipino workers. The Philippines is the fourth largest recipient of foreign exchange globally, with approximately $40 billion in cross-border remittances each year, primarily from overseas workers. If they can use PHPC to remit money back home, the cost would be almost just the blockchain gas fee, and the arrival time could be reduced to seconds.

For example, if Filipinos working in the U.S. can directly purchase PHPC on Coinbase and then transfer it to the Philippines, the local recipient can instantly exchange it for pesos.

Similarly, if Hong Kong opens up licensing, we plan to register PHPC in Hong Kong, allowing the tens of thousands of Filipino workers there to purchase PHPC with Hong Kong dollars and send it back home, achieving zero spread and low-cost settlements.

This model is also expected to extend to markets like Singapore and integrate with our existing global fiat channel network. If PHPC can enter more exchanges (including global platforms like Binance), its cross-border settlement capabilities and market acceptance will significantly improve.

Insight: Does PHPC's profit model differ from traditional stablecoins like USDT and USDC?

Zhou Wei: Earning interest or asset management fees is clearly a direct revenue model for stablecoin businesses. However, from a longer-term perspective, we hope to provide localized financial services for overseas workers who do not reside in the Philippines through this product.

Essentially, stablecoins are a tool for "financial inclusion." They allow people around the world to access services that were previously only available to those with U.S. dollar bank accounts—such as deposit interest, investment opportunities, and loans.

In the past, without a dollar account, these rights were almost unattainable; the emergence of dollar stablecoins has broken through the limitations of geography and banking systems.

The same logic can be fully applied to the financial system in the Philippines. Many overseas Filipino workers—whether in Hong Kong, Singapore, or the Middle East—wish to purchase property, consume, or invest in their home country.

However, due to restrictions on cross-border fund transfers and the opening of local bank accounts, this has been extremely difficult in the past. Stablecoins, especially PHPC, have the opportunity to open this channel for them, allowing them to participate in domestic economic activities like local residents.

Currently, there are about 10 million overseas Filipino workers globally. Their financial needs ultimately point back to their "hometowns," but they have previously lacked suitable tools to meet these needs. PHPC can become such a tool, enabling them to directly access the local financial service system in the Philippines, achieving cross-border, low-cost, and instant financial participation.

Insight: You just mentioned that the foreign exchange market in the Philippines has a scale of $40 billion annually, is that correct?

Zhou Wei: Yes, annually, the main component is personal remittances, which are the money sent home by overseas workers, amounting to about $40 billion each year.

Insight: Looking ahead to 2030, what share do you think stablecoins could occupy in such a market over the next five years?

Zhou Wei: I believe that possibly half of the cross-border funds will be settled through stablecoins, approximately $20 billion.

Insight: How much of that will flow through Coins.ph?

Zhou Wei: I think we cannot only look at PHPC, as PHPC is a trading volume indicator. Its trading volume will always be greater than its active user count (AU). Although the AU may not be that high, the trading volume will be significant. Overseas workers are just one use case; in fact, many more use cases will emerge.

Insight: In addition to native game token exchanges like Axie Infinity, there are many digital solutions for paying living bills in the Philippines, and using stablecoins may actually increase costs. What percentage of users currently use PHPC for paying living bills?

Zhou Wei: Currently, it's almost none, because the product has been in the sandbox and hasn't been launched on-chain yet. The initial chain we issued wasn't placed on mainstream chains because it was still in testing at that time. We just completed the sandbox testing this year, and we will start promoting it in September.

Insight: What are your expectations?

Zhou Wei: There are two major usage scenarios: on-chain scenarios and foreign exchange settlements. Only after that might we enter the domestic payment phase—such as using stablecoins as a domestic payment product for food delivery, utility payments, or local payment platforms.

However, I believe this step is the most challenging because it requires replacing an already mature service system. The current local payment systems can meet most basic needs, and user habits have already formed, so I predict that more future application scenarios will still focus on the previously mentioned on-chain scenarios and foreign exchange settlements.

Insight: How can stablecoins intervene in the payment scenario for living bills?

Zhou Wei: Actually, there's no need to intervene; traditional payments can already solve these issues well, and there's no need to forcibly replace them with stablecoins.

Insight: Are these scenarios globally applicable or only suitable for the Philippines?

Zhou Wei: Stablecoins have value in any market with cross-border demand. However, for domestic peer-to-peer transactions, the use cases are quite limited.

Insight: This viewpoint differs from many people's thoughts; many believe stablecoins are more suitable for payments within the same fiat currency system, especially for domestic B2B or C2C transactions.

Zhou Wei: In my view, stablecoins have little role in the domestic payment market, especially in countries or regions where the payment system is already highly mature. In most Asian markets, user payment habits have long been established, digital wallets are widely adopted, and settlement speed and costs have been optimized to a very low level.

Although not all transactions can achieve "T+0" instant settlement, at least they can be settled within a day or on the same day, and transaction fees have been driven down to very low levels. In such an environment, introducing stablecoins would actually increase complexity rather than enhance efficiency.

Unless in regions where the payment system is still underdeveloped, such as some African countries, stablecoins may have a chance to enter domestic payment scenarios. Conversely, in countries like India, with mature local payment infrastructure, they can already provide a highly efficient domestic transfer experience, making the added value of stablecoins almost zero.

Interestingly, the situation in the U.S. is quite the opposite. Despite being a global financial center, the U.S. payment system is not as advanced as Asia in some aspects, still relying heavily on checks, interbank settlements, and credit card networks.

Therefore, stablecoins may have greater application space in the U.S., especially in payment scenarios, where they can bring more significant efficiency improvements compared to the Asia-Pacific market.

Thus, the real opportunity for stablecoins still lies in cross-border payments—where the pain points are more significant, barriers are higher, and costs are heavier, especially with substantial optimization potential in settlement cycles and compliance processes.

Insight: So in regions like Asia, where digital payments are highly developed, stablecoins have almost no competitive advantage in domestic payments?

Zhou Wei: Yes, there is no competitive advantage; it may even complicate the process. Cross-border, on the other hand, presents greater opportunities because there are more obstacles involved, and costs are higher, especially regarding compliance and settlement times.

Insight: Can you give an example? For instance, what is the cost structure of exchanging 1 million pesos for dollars through traditional channels versus stablecoin channels?

Zhou Wei: Banks are closed on weekends, so you cannot remit through traditional channels. However, stablecoins are available 24/7. The foreign exchange controls in the Philippines are relatively loose, but in countries like Thailand, Brazil, and Indonesia, where foreign exchange controls are strict, traditional currency exchange requires approval and takes a long time. If the amount is small, you can directly exchange it for USDT and remit it immediately.

Insight: Are stablecoins currently serving the To C or To B market more?

Zhou Wei: In the Philippines, our business covers both To C and To B scenarios. For example, in the To B space, there are many Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers—especially those participating in platforms like TikTok Commerce—selling products in markets like the Philippines, Thailand, and Brazil. However, these merchants often lack local legal entities or bank accounts, making cross-border fund repatriation a challenge.

We can provide a complete "collection + stablecoin settlement" solution: the income from sales (like pesos) can be collected by us and directly exchanged for USDT or USDC within the settlement cycle, which can then be remitted to the merchant's company account in Hong Kong.

Merchants in Hong Kong can quickly convert stablecoins into Hong Kong dollars or other fiat currencies for payment. This way, companies do not need to register in multiple countries or open bank accounts to smoothly complete cross-border settlements.

This model is particularly suitable for small and medium-sized Chinese enterprises going overseas—they can save time and compliance costs while leveraging the 24/7 instant settlement advantage of stablecoins, avoiding the high fees and delays of traditional cross-border transfers.

Insight: For large companies, can they use traditional channels during the week and stablecoins on weekends?

Zhou Wei: Yes, some global companies now require a "weekend trading account," using dollars to pesos from Monday to Friday and USDC to pesos on weekends.

Insight: The Central Bank of the Philippines and the Central Bank of Brazil are also developing their own stablecoins. In this case, will there be a competitive relationship between state-issued and privately issued stablecoins?

Zhou Wei: In my view, central bank digital currencies and market-oriented stablecoins are not in competition; they each have their roles and complement each other. Central banks are regulators responsible for setting rules, managing the banking system, and overall money supply; while market-oriented institutions like ours build application scenarios and service systems under established rules.

This division of labor is common globally. Whether in traditional payments or digital currencies, their essence is the digital representation of trust accounts—the difference lies in that central bank electronic currencies operate within a closed banking system and private ledgers, while stablecoins are issued and circulated in an open public blockchain network.

For those familiar with payment or electronic currency businesses, the logic of stablecoins is not complex: it simply migrates value that was originally confined within the financial system to a globally accessible, programmable blockchain environment, thereby unlocking broader use cases and cross-border settlement potential.

Insight: Many people believe that issuing stablecoins in small sovereign countries seems to have little significance. Do you think there is still an opportunity for stablecoins in such small countries?

Zhou Wei: I believe that some very small economies lacking monetary influence will find it difficult to have opportunities in the stablecoin space, such as some island nations, where their self-issued stablecoins often lack a market foundation and are not as effective as directly adopting dollar stablecoins. However, for medium-sized countries, especially those that have faced high inflation shocks, there are still opportunities.

Currency issuance and management are important components of national sovereignty. If a country relinquishes control over its currency, it is equivalent to ceding part of its economic sovereignty.

For example, Argentina has faced severe inflation for many years, leading the public to use dollar stablecoins to avoid currency depreciation. However, after a change in government, the new administration strengthened currency management and gradually controlled inflation, allowing the peso to regain its market function.

In such countries, even with the widespread use of dollar stablecoins, there remains motivation and capability to maintain the dominance of their local currency.

Therefore, I do not agree with the absolute assertion that "dollar stablecoins will replace all local currencies." As long as the concept of a nation exists, the vast majority of governments will strive to maintain the issuance and usage rights of their local currency, which is not only related to economic operation but also a symbol and bottom line of sovereignty.

Insight: Are there significant opportunities for stablecoins in Hong Kong?

Zhou Wei: I believe the opportunities for stablecoins in Hong Kong are very noteworthy. The reason is that a considerable proportion of the core user base of USDT comes from the global Chinese community.

In my judgment, perhaps half of the global USDT holders are related to the Chinese community, and Hong Kong is a key node in this capital network. If Hong Kong can attract and accommodate this portion of capital flow, the scale and activity of its stablecoin market will see significant improvement.

In my view, the biggest opportunity in Hong Kong is to issue dollar stablecoins. After all, the cross-border demand for the Hong Kong dollar in international and regional markets is relatively limited, unless it is used to promote local financial products, such as Hong Kong stocks or bonds and funds denominated in Hong Kong dollars, and circulate these products on-chain in the form of Hong Kong dollar stablecoins; otherwise, demand is unlikely to expand rapidly.

In contrast, the global applicability of dollar stablecoins in cross-border settlements, investments, and value storage makes it almost a necessary direction for Hong Kong to pursue.

Insight: What motivates these USDT users to convert to Hong Kong dollar stablecoin users?

Zhou Wei: From current observations, the institutions entering Hong Kong to apply for licenses are generally not typical high-frequency users of USDT; their capital structures and trading habits differ from traditional crypto-native players.

While I do not have specific profiles for each institution, trends can be gleaned from public data—for example, in HashKey's trading records, the trading volume of USDT against USD has consistently remained between approximately $50 million and $100 million daily, indicating stable cross-currency exchange demand.

Insight: Besides Coins.ph, what other directions do you want to promote the development of stablecoins? Or what opportunities do you think still exist?

Zhou Wei: In my view, the current U.S. government is undergoing a self-revolution. What it is promoting is not just a fine-tuning of the financial system but directly replacing traditional cross-border settlement systems like SWIFT with dollar stablecoins. This action reveals a rare stance—actively embracing technology and innovation.

Whether it is the policy direction from the White House or regulatory adjustments from the SEC, they are continuously sending the same signal: the U.S. is paving the way for the digital asset industry.

Just today, the president signed an executive order stating that if banks repeatedly refuse to provide services to the digital currency industry, those banks will face sanctions. This is undoubtedly a shocking shift.

In the past, we were unable to open bank accounts in many places because local banks feared that providing services to crypto enterprises would result in losing dollar accounts. Now, the U.S. is addressing this barrier at its source, effectively loosening restrictions for the entire industry.

This is not just a boon for the payment and foreign exchange markets. As channels and liquidity pools are established, the application scenarios for stablecoins will expand from cross-border payments to broader fields such as investment, wealth management, and loans.

For emerging markets, once efficient exchanges with dollar stablecoins can be achieved through compliant channels, local users will have the opportunity to directly access more dollar-denominated investment products.

What I am currently working on is establishing dollar stablecoin exchange pools and channels in emerging countries, so that locals can purchase more dollar investment products through us.

Insight: Visa and Stripe are also promoting stablecoins in emerging markets. Where do you see the opportunities?

Zhou Wei: First, it is essential to establish clean exchange operations. Only on this foundation can we attract international payment networks like Visa and Stripe for cooperative integration.

Compliance integration brings greater trading volume, and the increase in trading volume, in turn, reduces exchange costs, further attracting more users and capital.

This is a typical virtuous cycle: compliance leads to access, access leads to scale, scale reduces costs, and cost advantages feed back into scale. In the Philippines, our platform has entered such a positive cycle, and market growth has begun to drive itself, no longer relying on a single external stimulus.

Insight: If dollar stablecoins replace SWIFT, will Visa be replaced?

Zhou Wei: No. Visa's merchant network is too large to iterate quickly. Moreover, Visa does not want to deal with hundreds or thousands of banks; if using USDC can replace the settlement of 500 bank accounts, it would be willing to do so. In the Philippines, we act as a stablecoin port, where all stablecoins must be exchanged here because we have the largest liquidity pool.

Insight: How can this be achieved?

Zhou Wei: Regardless of the settlement process, they are essentially the same: funds are accessed through APIs, secondary applications and transactions are completed, and then funds are distributed to any account based on demand. Relying on our payment license, we can not only make fiat payments to any recipient's account but also achieve instant buying, selling, withdrawing, and converting of funds.

This means that as long as the "first mile" and "last mile" fiat channels are opened in one market, combined with exchanges, various stablecoins, and multi-chain support, the entire process of cross-border capital flow can be fully covered. In this system, exchanges play a key role in the "last mile," directly connecting local users with the global financial network.

In fact, if stablecoins can complete API integration with international payment companies like Visa, the entire payment and settlement process would no longer have technical barriers—and this is not limited to Visa; any global payment network that can connect and recognize transactions can achieve seamless cross-border capital flow.

Related: Circle strategically invests in Hyperliquid stablecoin ecosystem, simultaneously launching native USDC.

Original article: “Former Binance CFO to Issue Stablecoin in the Philippines”

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。