stablecoins

En el ecosistema cripto, ambas son stablecoins (1 ≈ 1 USD) y son las herramientas esenciales para ahorrar, transferir valor y refugiarse de la volatilidad. Pero, aunque el destino es el mismo, el camino que recorren es muy distinto. 👇
​USDT (Tether) | El Rey de la Liquidez
​Es la moneda más veterana y utilizada en el mercado.
​Liquidez imbatible: Es el estándar en casi todos los pares de trading.Adopción masiva: La encuentras en cualquier exchange y red (TRC20, ERC20, etc.).Transparencia: Sus reservas han sido cuestionadas históricamente por no ser tan claras como las de su competencia.Riesgo regulatorio: Siempre está bajo la lupa de las autoridades.
​USDC (Circle) | El Estándar de la Confianza
​Es la opción preferida por instituciones y perfiles que priorizan la seguridad.
​Auditorías reales: Reservas mensuales verificadas y transparentes.​Cumplimiento legal: Respaldada por el sistema financiero de EE. UU. (efectivo y bonos del tesoro).​Seguridad institucional: Mayor tranquilidad para grandes capitales.​Menos volumen: En ciertos mercados, su liquidez es menor comparada con USDT.
​¿Cómo gestionar tu capital con inteligencia?
​No se trata de elegir una y descartar la otra. La clave está en la estrategia:
​$USDT para la batalla: Úsala para trading rápido, scalping y mover fondos entre exchanges con máxima velocidad.
​$USDC para el búnker: Úsala para guardar valor, mantener tus ahorros a largo plazo y reducir el riesgo ante posibles problemas regulatorios de Tether.
​💡 El consejo de oro: Usarlas juntas no es una contradicción, es diversificación.
​En cripto, no gana el que corre más... gana el que sabe dónde estacionar su dinero cuando el mercado se pone difícil.
​#Stablecoins #USDT #USDC #TradingTips #CryptoEducación

Why predictable settlement, stable fees, and deterministic execution matter for stablecoin payments.
Key Takeaways
Payments impose different infrastructure requirements than trading or general computation, prioritizing predictability, consistency, and operational simplicity.
General-purpose blockchains introduce structural uncertainty through fee volatility, shared blockspace contention, and variable settlement behavior.
Stablecoin-native settlement streamlines the payment lifecycle by aligning on-chain execution with off-chain accounting, reducing operational complexity and enhancing efficiency.
Institutional adoption depends on protocol-level guarantees, not application-layer workarounds.
StableChain implements payment-native design at the base layer, providing the stability and reliability necessary for large-scale, dependable stablecoin settlement.
Payments impose specific, non-negotiable infrastructure requirements that differ materially from those for trading, general computation, or experimentation. As stablecoin usage increasingly reflects real-world settlement activity, infrastructure limitations become operational constraints rather than theoretical tradeoffs.
This article outlines why payment flows require dedicated blockchain design and the system-level principles necessary to support them at scale.
The 2025 Stablecoin Payments Shift
In 2025, stablecoin activity continued its transition from speculative trading toward broader settlement use:
Stablecoin transaction volume reached record highs, with full-year stablecoin activity estimated at ~$33T.
USDT processed $156B in transactions under $1,000, underscoring significant small-value transfer activity consistent with payment usage patterns.
USDT remained the dominant stablecoin by market value, with circulation exceeding $170B and representing roughly two-thirds of total stablecoin supply.
Together, these patterns point to a growing class of payment behavior characterized by low-value, high-frequency transactions, including consumer payments, remittances, payouts, and programmatic transfers. These flows place different demands on infrastructure than speculative activity. They require predictable fees, fast finality, and consistent performance, even when transaction values are small and margins are thin.
StableChain’s design supports this class of payment activity by prioritizing settlement behavior over generalized execution. As stablecoins increasingly operate as payment instruments, infrastructure must be optimized for volume, reliability, and cost efficiency at the micro-transaction level. Supporting this shift requires systems capable of continuous, global settlement rather than infrastructure optimized primarily for peak throughput or isolated high-value transfers.
Core Requirements of Payment Systems
Real-world payment systems impose technical and operational constraints that differ from general blockchain use cases. Key requirements include:
Predictable execution costs: Payments require cost consistency for budgeting, reconciliation, and operational planning.Deterministic settlement timing:Variable confirmation times introduce risk for treasury operations and service-level guarantees.High sustained throughput: Payment rails must handle continuous flows without performance degradation.Simple operational models: Institutions demand clear rules and low operational overhead.
Traditional financial systems were built around these principles; For stablecoin payments, meeting them at the protocol level becomes increasingly important.
General-purpose blockchain networks are designed to support diverse workloads, not to prioritize settlement as a first-order feature, which led to:
Unrelated demand spikes influence fee volatility.Non-deterministic transaction ordering affects service-level expectations.Variable settlement latency during congestion.
For payment systems, these characteristics translate into operational risk: unpredictable costs, reconciliation challenges, and variability in service delivery.
Institutional Operational Requirements
The gap between payment requirements and existing blockchain behavior becomes most visible at the institutional level.
For enterprises and payment providers, infrastructure is evaluated based on its behavior under real operating conditions. Key considerations include:
Treasury predictability, where costs and settlement outcomes must be forecastableSettlement finality, ensuring funds are available when expectedAuditability and compliance, requiring transparent and repeatable executionOperational reliability, minimizing exceptions, and manual intervention
When infrastructure introduces uncertainty at the protocol layer, institutions compensate with additional controls, buffers, and reconciliation processes. Over time, this complexity becomes a barrier to adoption.
Principles of Dedicated Payment Infrastructure
Infrastructure designed around settlement must structurally prioritize:
Settlement first, execution second:The network should guarantee consistent behavior for value transfer before optimizing for general computing flexibility.Stability over expressiveness:Reducing protocol complexity minimizes unpredictable behavior under load.Deterministic performance, including consistent block production and ordering, is fundamental for ensuring predictable and secure payments.
These principles are not inherent to every blockchain; they must be embedded in protocol design and operational assumptions.
Implementing Payment-Native Infrastructure with StableChain
StableChain applies these principles directly at the protocol level by prioritizing settlement behavior over generalized flexibility.
Its design focuses on:
Stablecoin-denominated fees, removing volatility from transaction costsDeterministic execution characteristics, enabling consistent settlement timingArchitecture optimized for sustained payment flows, not sporadic peak usage
By embedding payment requirements into the base layer, StableChain reduces uncertainty before applications build on top of it. This futureproofing allows developers, payment providers, and institutions to operate on infrastructure designed from the outset for real-world settlement.
Early mainnet indicators reinforce this positioning:
~0.8s finality for near-instant settlement120,000+ transactions processed13,000+ active addresses3,000+ contracts deployed
By designing for high-frequency, low-margin payment flows from the outset, StableChain provides a base layer that payment providers and enterprises can build on with fewer operational unknowns.
Looking Ahead
The evolution of stablecoin usage in 2025 underscores a critical infrastructure inflection point: settlement flows are no longer incidental; they are central. General-purpose blockchain systems, while flexible, are misaligned with the predictability and reliability required by payment systems.
Dedicated payment infrastructure, exemplified by StableChain, aligns protocol design with these requirements, providing a sustainable foundation for stablecoin-denominated settlement at scale.
#Stablecoins $USDT

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has strongly criticized the U.S. Senate Banking Committee’s proposed crypto market structure bill. According to him, the bill would harm the crypto industry more than if there were no regulation at all. Armstrong shared his position on platform X (formerly Twitter), warning of serious consequences the legislation could have for decentralized finance, user privacy, and market competition.

Coinbase: This Bill Threatens the Future of Crypto
Armstrong pointed out that the Senate’s proposal would:

🔹 Ban tokenized stocks

🔹 Restrict the DeFi sector

🔹 Give the government access to users’ financial data

🔹 Undermine the CFTC’s role while empowering the SEC

🔹 Penalize stablecoins and block fair competition with traditional banks
He warned that the bill, in its current form, would damage innovation and strengthen the monopoly of large financial institutions. Nevertheless, Coinbase plans to continue working on improving the bill through dialogue with lawmakers.
“We appreciate the lawmakers’ bipartisan efforts, but this version is significantly worse than the status quo. We would prefer no bill over a bad one,” Armstrong stated.

Crypto Market Grows, While Regulation Lags Behind
Ironically, this debate comes at a time when the crypto market is surging again. The total market capitalization grew 3% in the past 24 hours, with Bitcoin heading toward $98,000 and Ethereum nearing $3,500.
Industry experts agree that clear legislation is needed to define when a digital asset is a security and when it is a commodity. While the proposed bill does grant more power to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), it also contains sections that could hinder the growth of stablecoins—therefore blocking the development of decentralized financial services.

137 Amendments Filed, Banks Accused of Influence
The bill has triggered a wave of public responses. So far, over 137 amendments have been submitted, with final wording expected after further negotiations. Meanwhile, crypto industry groups accuse banks of wielding excessive influence over the bill’s content.
Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, stated that banks are pushing to shape the law in their favor, preventing new players from entering the market. Proposed limitations on stablecoin rewards would, she said, hurt consumers and block innovation before it can compete.

#coinbase , #CryptoNews , #brianarmstrong , #Stablecoins , #defi

Stay one step ahead – follow our profile and stay informed about everything important in the world of cryptocurrencies!
Notice:
,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“

Bank of Italy–Style Models: Ethereum Collapse and Infrastructure Risk
Abstract
As blockchain networks become systemically important, central banks and financial institutions are increasingly studying the infrastructure risks embedded in public blockchains. Using modeling approaches similar to those employed by institutions like the Bank of Italy, this article explores a hypothetical scenario: What happens if Ethereum suffers a large-scale collapse? We analyze Ethereum as a financial infrastructure, identify fragility points, and explain how network stress can propagate across decentralized finance (DeFi), stablecoins, and global crypto markets.

1. Ethereum as Financial Infrastructure, Not Just a Token
Ethereum is no longer just a cryptocurrency. It functions as:
A settlement layer for DeFiA collateral backbone for stablecoinsA smart-contract execution engineA liquidity hub for NFTs, bridges, and Layer-2s
From a central-bank modeling perspective, Ethereum resembles a financial market infrastructure (FMI)—similar to payment systems or clearing houses.
➡️ This means Ethereum failure risk is systemic, not isolated.

2. How Central Banks Model Infrastructure Risk
Institutions like the Bank of Italy typically use:
Network theory modelsStress-testing frameworksAgent-based simulationsLiquidity contagion models
Applied to Ethereum, these models focus on:
Node concentrationValidator incentivesLiquidity dependenciesSmart-contract interconnections
The goal is to answer one question:
Can a shock in one part of the system cascade into total failure?

3. Key Fragility Points in Ethereum’s Architecture
3.1 Validator Concentration Risk
Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake relies on validators, but:
Large staking providers control a significant shareRegulatory pressure on validators can cause coordinated exitsSlashing events can amplify panic
📉 Model Outcome: Reduced validator participation → slower finality → loss of trust.

3.2 DeFi Liquidity Feedback Loops
Ethereum hosts massive leveraged positions through:
Lending protocolsLiquid staking tokens (LSTs)Synthetic assets
In stress models:
ETH price dropsCollateral ratios failLiquidations spikeGas fees surgeNetwork congestion worsens
This creates a negative reflexivity loop.

3.3 Stablecoin Dependency Risk
Most major stablecoins depend on Ethereum rails.
If Ethereum stalls:
Stablecoin redemptions slowArbitrage breaksPeg instability increases
📊 Central-bank-style simulations show that stablecoin stress accelerates systemic collapse faster than price volatility alone.

4. Hypothetical Ethereum Collapse Scenario (Modeled)
Phase 1: Shock Event
Regulatory action, major exploit, or validator outageETH price drops sharply
Phase 2: Liquidity Freeze
DeFi protocols halt withdrawalsBridges become bottlenecksGas fees spike uncontrollably
Phase 3: Contagion
L2s fail due to Ethereum dependenceCross-chain liquidity dries upStablecoin confidence erodes
Phase 4: Market Repricing
ETH loses its “risk-free crypto collateral” statusCapital migrates to alternative chains or exits crypto entirely

5. Why This Matters Beyond Crypto
From a Bank-of-Italy-style macro view:
Crypto markets are increasingly interlinked with traditional financeEthereum acts as a shadow settlement layerFailure could impact:Crypto fundsPayment startupsTokenized real-world assets (RWA)
This is why regulators study Ethereum not as innovation—but as infrastructure risk.

6. Risk Is Structural, Not Technical
Important insight from infrastructure modeling:
Ethereum does not fail because of bad code alone —
it fails when economic incentives, liquidity, and trust break simultaneously.
Even perfect technology cannot survive:
Liquidity runsGovernance paralysisConfidence collapse

7. Can Ethereum Reduce Collapse Risk?
Mitigation strategies identified in systemic models include:
Validator decentralizationBetter liquidation throttlesReduced DeFi leverageMulti-chain settlement redundancy
However, no system is collapse-proof—only collapse-resistant.

Conclusion
Using modeling logic similar to that applied by the Bank of Italy, Ethereum emerges as a critical but fragile financial infrastructure. A collapse would not be a simple price crash—it would be a network-wide liquidity and trust failure, with cascading effects across the crypto ecosystem.
For traders, builders, and policymakers, the lesson is clear:
Ethereum risk is no longer speculative risk — it is systemic infrastructure risk.

$ETH

У Сенаті США розгорілася активна дискусія навколо запропонованого законопроєкту про регулювання криптовалют. За останніми даними, до документа було внесено понад 75 поправок, що свідчить про складність питання та широкий спектр поглядів серед законодавців. Цей масштабний обсяг змін відображає прагнення знайти баланс між інноваціями та захистом споживачів.
Серед внесених поправок є пропозиції, що стосуються найрізноманітніших аспектів:
* Визначення цінних паперів та товарів: Спроби чіткіше класифікувати різні типи цифрових активів.
* Захист інвесторів: Механізми для запобігання шахрайству та маніпуляціям на ринку.
* Оподаткування: Пропозиції щодо регулювання податкового режиму криптовалютних операцій.
* Стабільні монети: Спеціальні правила для стейблкоїнів, спрямовані на забезпечення їхньої стабільності та прозорості.
* Децентралізовані фінанси (DeFi): Спроби інтегрувати DeFi в існуючі регуляторні рамки.
Така кількість поправок підкреслює, наскільки важливою та багатогранною є тема регулювання криптовалют для американського законодавства. Хоча це може уповільнити процес прийняття закону, це також дає надію на розробку всеосяжного та добре продуманого регуляторного підходу.
⚡️ Щоб першими дізнаватися про всі законодавчі ініціативи та їхній потенційний вплив на криптоіндустрію у США та світі — підписуйтесь на #MiningUpdates !
#CryptoRegulation #USSenateCrypto #BlockchainPolicy #CryptocurrencyLaw #DigitalAssets #SEC #CFTC #DeFiRegulation #Stablecoins #LegislativeUpdates

Speaking at the Delphi Economic Forum, Federal Reserve Governor Miran placed stablecoins squarely into the conversation about the future of U.S. monetary influence. His remarks signaled a growing recognition inside central banking circles that dollar-backed digital assets are no longer a fringe innovation, but a potential structural force shaping global demand for U.S. financial instruments.
Stablecoins as a New Demand Engine for the Dollar
Miran argued that stablecoins backed by U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury assets effectively export the dollar into the digital economy. Each stablecoin issued requires reserves, often held in cash or Treasuries, which creates incremental demand for U.S. safe assets. In his view, this mechanism could scale dramatically. He estimated that the stablecoin market could grow to between $1 trillion and $3 trillion by the end of the decade, up from roughly $150–200 billion today.
Unlike traditional dollar usage that relies on correspondent banking or sovereign reserve holdings, stablecoins circulate natively across borders. They are used for remittances, on-chain trading, payments, and settlement, often in regions where access to U.S. banking rails is limited. Miran framed this as a quiet reinforcement of dollar dominance rather than a challenge to it.
Monetary Policy Context: Rate Cuts and Productivity
Miran’s comments came against the backdrop of easing inflation and growing debate over the Federal Reserve’s policy path. He referenced calls for up to 150 basis points of rate cuts this year, reflecting confidence that inflation pressures are cooling. Lower rates, he suggested, could coexist with a strong dollar if global demand for dollar-denominated assets remains robust.
He also linked stablecoins to a broader push for deregulation and productivity growth. By reducing friction in payments and settlement, digital dollar instruments could lower transaction costs and improve capital efficiency, supporting economic growth without relying solely on monetary stimulus.
Why Crypto Markets Took Notice
Crypto market participants quickly interpreted Miran’s remarks as a tacit endorsement of digital assets’ strategic role. Stablecoins, long viewed primarily as trading infrastructure, were framed instead as macroeconomic tools that extend U.S. financial influence. For an industry often positioned in opposition to central banks, the idea that stablecoins might strengthen the existing dollar system marked a notable shift in tone.
This narrative aligns with recent policy discussions in Washington that distinguish between speculative crypto assets and dollar-backed stablecoins, increasingly treating the latter as financial infrastructure rather than systemic threats.
Skepticism and Open Questions
Not everyone was convinced. Critics argue that while stablecoins may increase demand for Treasuries at the margin, they do not address deeper fiscal concerns such as rising U.S. debt or long-term deficits. Others warn that concentration of reserves among a few issuers could introduce new systemic risks, especially during market stress.
There is also the unresolved regulatory question. For stablecoins to scale to the levels Miran suggested, clear federal oversight, reserve standards, and redemption guarantees will be essential. Without them, growth could stall or fragment across jurisdictions.
A Subtle but Significant Signal
Miran’s remarks did not amount to formal policy, but they mattered. They reflected an evolving mindset within parts of the Federal Reserve: that digital finance, if structured correctly, may reinforce rather than undermine the dollar’s global role. Whether stablecoins ultimately become a pillar of dollar dominance or a contested experiment will depend less on technology and more on regulation, trust, and execution over the coming decade.
#FedRateCut #TrumpCrypto #Stablecoins #MarketRebound #CryptoNews
$GUN
$DASH
$BERA