Author: Zhang Feng
In the world of cryptocurrency, stablecoins appear to be an unbreakable anchor. They have risen amidst the market's massive tremors and the extreme thirst for "stability," growing into a key bridge connecting traditional finance and the digital world. However, a question concerning their fate has emerged: how much longer can the business dividend period of stablecoins, this seemingly solid gold mine, be mined? This is not merely a question of time but a grand narrative about technology, regulation, monetary sovereignty, and the future forms of finance.
I. Background and Mission of Stablecoins
The emergence of stablecoins is no coincidence; they are a lifeline extended from the native ecosystem of cryptocurrencies to the traditional world in desperation.
Born from the survival needs in a volatile market. The dream of Bitcoin is a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system," but its price volatility severely undermines its core monetary functions as a measure of value and medium of exchange. The frenzy of 2017 and the winter of 2018 made the market acutely aware that a financial system lacking inherent stability is like a ship sailing in turbulent waters without ballast, at risk of capsizing at any moment. Whether traders seek a temporary safe haven or decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols require a reliable unit of account, the market urgently calls for a tool that possesses the globality and immediacy of cryptocurrencies while maintaining price stability. Thus, stablecoins were born.
The core functions of stablecoins can be summarized in three points.
First, as a medium of exchange and settlement tool. They are the "blood" circulating within cryptocurrency exchanges, significantly reducing the friction and complexity of trading between different cryptocurrencies. In the realm of cross-border payments and remittances, they demonstrate the potential to challenge the traditional SWIFT system, achieving near real-time, low-cost global value transfer.
Second, as a store of value and hedging tool. When the market crashes, traders can quickly convert volatile assets into stablecoins to "park" their principal and wait for new opportunities. This is a crucial safety valve in a purely crypto ecosystem lacking traditional safe-haven assets (such as direct access to fiat currencies).
Third, as a cornerstone asset in the DeFi world. In the entire DeFi ecosystem, stablecoins are the core raw materials for almost all building blocks. They serve as collateral for lending protocols, are a major component of liquidity pools in decentralized exchanges (DEX), and are the yield-generating assets in yield farming.
It is these essential needs that have driven the explosive growth of stablecoins from non-existence to a massive market worth hundreds of billions today, marking their first and most glorious dividend period.
II. Analysis of the Similarities and Differences Between Stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)
However, as stablecoins surge forward, another force is quietly rising at the national level—sovereign digital currencies (CBDCs). Both share a similar form as digital tokens, but their genes are vastly different, akin to flourishing wildflowers in a field versus a towering tree carefully cultivated by the state.
The similarities lie in their digital form and pursuit of efficiency. Both are based on blockchain or similar distributed ledger technology (DLT), aiming to enhance payment efficiency, reduce transaction costs, and adapt to an increasingly digital economy. They both attempt to address some pain points in the traditional financial system, such as the delays and high costs of cross-border payments.
However, their differences are fundamental, determining their distinct development paths and fates.
Decentralized trust vs. state sovereign credit. This is the most core distinction. Fiat-collateralized stablecoins, represented by USDT/USDC, derive their credit ultimately from the dollar reserves held by custodial banks (despite frequent transparency concerns), which is a "chain mapping" of traditional credit. In contrast, the credit of CBDCs directly stems from the central bank's balance sheet, representing a digital extension of state sovereign credit, with legal tender status that no private institution can match.
Market-driven vs. top-down design and legal enforcement. Stablecoins are issued and operated by private enterprises, with their rules shaped by the market and the tech community, always exploring and negotiating within the gray areas of global regulation. CBDCs, on the other hand, are designed, issued, and regulated by central banks, embedded from inception within existing legal and regulatory frameworks, and carry a mandatory nature.
The trade-off between anonymity and transparency. Stablecoins (especially those based on public chains) offer a degree of pseudonymity; while transaction records are publicly accessible, identities can be separated from addresses. CBDCs, by design, inevitably face the challenge of "controllable anonymity"—central banks need to balance protecting public privacy with meeting regulatory demands for anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, and monetary policy implementation, which may lead to a more centralized and controllable financial monitoring capability.
"Taps" outside the system vs. policy tools within the system. The issuance of stablecoins is primarily determined by market demand; they act like a "tap" floating outside traditional monetary policy, with large-scale flows potentially impacting the financial stability and monetary policy transmission of smaller economies. In contrast, CBDCs are direct carriers of monetary policy tools, allowing central banks to implement interest rate policies or structural adjustments more precisely and efficiently.
III. In-Depth Analysis of the Stablecoin Handling Models in China and the U.S.
In response to the new proposition of stablecoins and CBDCs, the two major powers, China and the U.S., exhibit distinctly different coping models based on their financial systems, regulatory philosophies, and global strategies.
The U.S. model can be summarized as "market first, regulatory incorporation, dual-track parallel." As a country with a strong financial market and technological innovation capabilities, the U.S. shows remarkable inclusivity towards stablecoins. Compliant stablecoins like USDC have received preliminary recognition from regulators, and Congress is actively promoting legislation aimed at incorporating stablecoin issuance into the federal regulatory framework to "legitimize" them.
At the same time, the U.S. has passed anti-CBDC legislation, making the trend clear in the short term. While the development of a digital dollar is underway, the approach is cautious, focusing more on studying its long-term impacts on the financial system, privacy, and international monetary status. The U.S. strategy may likely allow private stablecoins to coexist and compete with a future digital dollar, forming a more vibrant digital currency ecosystem anchored by dollar assets, thereby further consolidating the global hegemony of the dollar.
China's model, on the other hand, is "sovereign leadership, gradual development, ecological closed loop." China has taken a clear and resolute path: firmly prohibiting any private institution from issuing stablecoins in mainland China, viewing them as a potential threat to financial security and monetary sovereignty. Meanwhile, China is vigorously promoting the research and pilot programs of the digital yuan (e-CNY), positioning it as a global leader in CBDCs. The strategic positioning of e-CNY is very clear: primarily serving domestic retail payment scenarios, enhancing payment efficiency, strengthening the effectiveness of monetary policy, and providing a new technological foothold for the internationalization of the yuan. China is building a digital financial ecosystem centered around the digital yuan, with various financial institutions as nodes, all under sovereign control. China remains highly vigilant towards foreign stablecoins, strictly limiting their circulation and use in the domestic market. In September 2025, the People's Bank of China launched the international operation center for the digital yuan, which includes a cross-border payment platform, a blockchain service platform, and a digital asset platform, covering almost all functions of stablecoins.
These two models reflect the intense collision of "market-driven innovation" and "state-led security" philosophies in the era of digital currency, also foreshadowing the potential differentiation in the future global digital currency landscape.
IV. The Role of Stablecoins and CBDCs in the Future Blockchain Economy
Even in the face of competition from CBDCs, stablecoins will still play a key role in the blockchain economic system for a considerable time, but their functions will evolve and deepen.
In a typical token economy ecosystem, the payment circulation function is akin to the circulatory system, crucial for its operation. Service tokens and equity tokens serve the functions of resource access and governance decentralization within the ecosystem, while payment tokens focus on value measurement and exchange medium. In this domain, stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) constitute two distinct technological paths, each with its advantages.
Stablecoins, especially mainstream compliant varieties, inherit the openness and globality of the blockchain. They operate on permissionless public chains, seamlessly integrating into various decentralized finance (DeFi) applications and global trade scenarios, providing excellent value anchoring and trading pairs for service and equity tokens, significantly enhancing capital flow efficiency. However, their credit relies on the reserve management of commercial institutions, posing potential credit risks and regulatory uncertainties.
Central bank digital currencies represent a digital extension of state credit. Their greatest advantage lies in legal tender status and absolute legal protection, providing the highest stability and payment finality. In domestic payments with clear legal frameworks and scenarios interfacing with traditional financial systems, CBDCs possess unparalleled credibility. However, their design is often more centralized, which may impose limitations on cross-border flows and compatibility with certain decentralized protocols.
In summary, the relationship between the two is not simply one of substitution but rather forms a complementary structure. Stablecoins excel in driving an open, innovative global crypto-economic network, while central bank digital currencies aim to solidify state-led digital financial infrastructure. In the future's complex multi-chain, multi-economic world, they are likely to coexist and develop synergistically based on different application scenarios and regulatory requirements, jointly supporting a prosperous and diversified token economic ecosystem.
V. Perhaps Stablecoins Are Not Irreplaceable
Returning to the initial question: how long will the business dividend period of stablecoins last? Perhaps we are standing at a historical turning point, dependent on the evolution speed of three key variables.
The speed and rigor of global regulatory implementation. Once major economies (especially the U.S.) establish strict regulatory frameworks, the "wild growth" dividend of stablecoins will come to an end, entering a mature competitive phase characterized by compliance and profit dilution.
The maturity and promotion level of CBDCs in major economies. If mainstream CBDCs like the digital dollar and digital euro are officially launched and opened for use by non-residents in the future, they will leverage their unparalleled credit advantages to directly and significantly replace stablecoins in numerous scenarios, such as cross-border payments.
The evolution of blockchain technology itself and cross-chain interoperability. If superior decentralized value measurement solutions emerge in the future that do not rely on price-stable assets as collateral, the foundational status of stablecoins will also be shaken.
Stablecoins are a historical product of the failure of the old system and the absence of a new one. They have successfully fulfilled their initial mission as a "bridge" and "catalyst," enlightening the market's demand for digital stable value. As sovereign digital forces enter the scene and technology iterates, the "necessity" halo of stablecoins may gradually fade, ultimately evolving into an important option within the future diversified digital asset landscape, rather than the sole core.
Their dividend period is a window granted by the times. This window will not suddenly close but will gradually narrow as the tide of sovereign digital currencies approaches. Perhaps we need to lift our heads from the shortsighted pursuit of dividends and consider how to build deeper value, better compliance, and more sustainable ecological models, as the saying goes, "In the vast world, only change is constant."
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。
