The Mistake of Valuing New Things with Old Frameworks — A Discussion with @Rocky_Bitcoin about $CRCL
I really enjoy and need to see different voices regarding CRCL; there are many benefits, but some viewpoints need discussion and clarification.
Among the points mentioned by Rocky, the idea that the banking system is "being drained" could objectively happen when the scale of stablecoins reaches trillions or even tens of trillions, but the subsequent reasoning and logic are incorrect.
This assumes a flawed premise: that bank deposits and interest rate spreads are the most important aspects of the U.S. monetary system — this was true in the past, is no longer true now, and will not be true in the future.
For the U.S., it is not about "bank profits first," but rather about the smooth absorption of U.S. Treasury bonds globally + the dollar continuing to serve as the global pricing/settlement currency + domestic financial stability!
Understanding the strategic premise of the U.S. is crucial!
Returning to the details, consider the following aspects:
- CIRCLE is very likely to directly enter the banking clearing system. The inference that past application failures will lead to future failures is incorrect, as it does not take into account changes in the external environment. From my research, it is possible that approval could come as early as 2026.
However, it is likely not the old-fashioned bank license but rather a clearer central bank channel given to CRCL based on the stablecoin legislation, treating it as a "controllable on-chain dollar front" — this point is already quite clear.
The claim that 100 yuan entering USDC to buy U.S. Treasury bonds "dies" is incorrect; it was just that banks were the intermediaries in the past, lending out the money. Now it is the Treasury! Previously it was private, now it is official; the money is still flowing, just with different entities. Whether banks can still earn interest spreads is not a significant issue for the U.S., the dollar, or U.S. Treasury bonds — if banks can't do it, then they can just go bankrupt…
Regarding "stablecoins withdrawing deposits → collapse of the money multiplier → failure of central bank control"
Funds do not "die in stablecoins," but rather flow directly into official asset sides like T-bills / RRP through reserve assets, remaining within the entire dollar system, just moving from commercial banks to the central bank/Treasury side.
After 2008, the U.S. monetary policy framework has shifted from the textbook "fixed reserve ratio × multiplier" to the "excess reserves + IOER + RRP framework's interest rate corridor," and the money multiplier is no longer that single, stable core control lever.
The central bank can still impose constraints on the yields of all short-term dollar assets through short-end interest rates, RRP rates, and regulatory tools.
- Regarding "stablecoins threatening bank business → banks + central banks will definitely work together to suppress"
It is completely correct that banks are unhappy; deposits are being siphoned off, and fees are decreasing. However, with the arrival of the new era, when has the old era's tears ever mattered?
With the rise of e-commerce, offline stores' rights protection is meaningless; they either embrace it or get eliminated. Now, CRCL's USDCX and other bank-level compliant privacy stablecoins are meant to provide changes for banks.
At the national level, there has never been a "protection of a single industry's old model," but for the U.S., the highest goals in finance are "maintaining the dollar's dominance & the financing ability of U.S. Treasury bonds."
Banks can gain compensation through regulatory games, but it is difficult to achieve "kill that new cheap competitor and continue to love me alone."
- Regarding "USDC fundamentally threatening the control of the modern dollar system"
This is completely contrary to the real strategic level, as previously stated.
From a common-sense perspective, even without delving deeply, one would know that unless the people in the U.S. are foolish, they would not create a stablecoin legislation. The bank-affiliated BlackRock would not sign a multi-year exclusive cooperation memorandum with CRCL but would directly shut it down.
Compliant stablecoins are essentially the "second curve of the dollar & U.S. Treasury bonds," a new tool in the imperial toolbox, not an external enemy.
- Regarding "high policy risk, limited growth ceiling, so it is not advisable to be bullish"
The original text assumes that once the scale of USDC approaches 5% or even 10% of M2, it will trigger regulation. This logic has been discussed, and from a pessimistic perspective, even in the worst-case scenario, 10% of M2 is $2 trillion, while USDC is currently $78 billion…
For the asset $CRCL, my thought is simple: as long as it can significantly outperform Bitcoin in the coming years without a noticeable increase in risk, it is a good asset. As for whether to continue holding after it has increased several times or to wait until the stablecoin scale reaches $3-5 trillion, that will no longer be a question that needs serious consideration.
Thanks to @Rocky_Bitcoin for the in-depth sharing; my views may not be correct, just a discussion!
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。
