A multidimensional chess game of national will, capital interests, and regulatory ethics.
I. Core of the bill: Reshape the dollar genes of stablecoins with 'compliance'
The (Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability Act) (STABLE Act), passed in April 2025, is not a simple regulatory framework but represents a systematic subjugation of digital currency sovereignty by the United States, with its core logic reflected in three major institutional designs:
1. Monopoly on issuance rights
- Only federally or state-approved banks, non-bank financial institutions, and compliant entities are allowed to issue stablecoins, ending the 'algorithmic stablecoin' era (the bill Sec.11 explicitly prohibits 'endogenously collateralized stablecoins'), concentrating issuance rights in institutions recognized by the traditional financial system.
- Essence: Centralize the entry point of decentralized finance (DeFi) innovation under establishment control, forming a 'compliant cartel'.
2. Asset reserve prisonification
- Mandatorily require 1:1 reserves of 'high-quality liquid assets' (cash, short-term debt within 93 days, Federal Reserve deposits), prohibit investment lending, prohibit paying interest, prohibit excessive collateralization.
- Essence: Transform stablecoins into rigid purchasing channels for U.S. bonds—e.g., Tether has already held $120 billion in U.S. bonds, exceeding Germany to become the 19th largest holder globally.
3. Federalization of regulatory power
- Establish a 'federal-state' dual-track regulation, but grant the Federal Reserve ultimate veto power: able to revoke licenses, freeze accounts, and review all issuers' reserve compositions.
- Political implications: Weaken state-level regulatory flexibility, prevent 'regulatory arbitrage', and ensure the unity of the dollar's digital ecosystem.
> Strategic essence of the bill: Transform stablecoins into 'on-chain dollars', making them capillaries of Federal Reserve monetary policy in the digital space—both absorbing global dollar demand and preventing uncontrolled financial innovation.
---
II. Open value vs. covert line games: Who is pushing the bill? Who is being sacrificed?
(1) Official narrative: Three major 'legitimacy' banners
| Goals | Implementation mechanisms | Beneficiaries
|---------------------|----------------------------|---------------------|
| Consolidate dollar hegemony | Mandatorily bind U.S. bond reserves, expand on-chain dollar circulation | U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve |
| Prevent systemic risks | Ban algorithmic stablecoins, eliminate 'LUNA-style crashes' | Traditional financial institutions |
| Improve payment efficiency | Compliant stablecoins accelerate cross-border settlement | Giants like JPMorgan, Circle, etc. |
Federal Reserve governor Waller bluntly stated: 'Stablecoins will expand the global coverage of the dollar and consolidate its reserve currency status'—unveiling the geopolitical financial intentions of the bill.
(2) Underlying power currents: The Trump's family's 'policy arbitrage'
- Conflicts of interest: On the eve of the bill's passage, the 'World Liberty Finance' (WLFI) supported by the Trump family announced the issuance of USD1 stablecoin and raised $500 million, which was criticized by Democratic lawmakers as 'rent-seeking'.
- Regulatory capture risk: The bill does not restrict politicians' affiliated enterprises from issuing tokens, which could turn stablecoins into 'private vaults'.
(3) Victims: Innovation and market diversity
- DeFi innovation suffocated: A ban on algorithmic stablecoins directly stifles financial experiments that rely on code rather than assets (e.g., the collapse of UST becomes regulatory 'ammunition').
- Small and medium issuers pushed out: Monthly audits, FDIC-level custody, and other costs make it difficult for small players to survive, concentrating the market among giants like Circle (USDC) and Tether (USDT).
> The brutal truth: The bill superficially prevents risks, but in fact, under the guise of 'compliance', it reconstructs the distribution of power—traditional financial capital and political families divide the on-chain dollar dividends, while the taxpayers bearing the risks have no rescue guarantees (former Federal Reserve governor Tarullo warns).
III. Nine chain reactions: Reconstruction and fractures of the global order
1. Compliance laundering channel for the black economy
The direct connection between stablecoins and banks provides a seamless channel for money laundering through 'on-chain - fiat currency'. Dirty money can be transferred into compliant stablecoins via mixers, and then redeemed for dollars through registered issuers—while the bill leaves regulatory gaps for DeFi tools (e.g., FinCEN's authority does not cover DEX).
2. 'Short-term antidote and long-term poison' of U.S. bonds
- Short-term: Force U.S. bond reserves to absorb excess dollars, delaying inflation pressure (e.g., Tether becomes the 19th largest holder of U.S. bonds).
- Long-term: Bind stablecoin credit to U.S. bonds; once U.S. bonds collapse, it will trigger an on-chain dollar run, amplifying risk.
3. 'De-sovereignization' of global financial governance
Offshore stablecoins (like USDT) account for 60% of trading volume, with weak national currencies being replaced by on-chain dollars:
- Case: El Salvador accepting USDT for taxes means its central bank's monetary policy is essentially manipulated indirectly by the Federal Reserve.
4. 'Penetration testing' of China's capital controls
Underground money houses can use compliant stablecoins to achieve cross-chain arbitrage between 'USD - digital USD - RMB', bypassing foreign exchange controls (e.g., exchanging USDT for offshore RMB through the OTC market).
5. The 'dark side power' of the Federal Reserve extends
If the Federal Reserve turns a blind eye to some stablecoins flowing to sanctioned regions (e.g., Iran buying oil with USDT), then digital currency becomes a tool for geopolitical games—this contradicts the bill's declared goal of 'anti-terror financing'.
6. The 'financial empire' of tech giants falters
The bill prohibits non-financial technology companies from independently issuing tokens (e.g., Facebook's Diem plan is completely dead), preventing Silicon Valley from challenging Wall Street.
---
IV. Structural contradictions: Three paradoxes the bill cannot resolve
1. Decentralized spirit vs. centralized control
The bill requires issuers to KYC users, but blockchain-native transactions pursue anonymity—compliant stablecoins may split into two parallel systems: 'bank chains' and 'dark web chains'.
2. Dollar hegemony vs. debt crisis
Using stablecoins to consume U.S. bonds is essentially 'debt funding debt': when U.S. bonds exceed $50 trillion, on-chain runs will trigger a collapse more severe than the Silicon Valley Bank decoupling.
3. U.S. interests vs. global governance
The Federal Reserve can freeze 'national security-threatening' stablecoin accounts at any time (e.g., the bill Sec.4(d)), making on-chain dollars a long-arm jurisdiction weapon—countries may accelerate CBDC development for countermeasures (e.g., digital RMB cross-border pilot).
---
Tools are not guilty, but the wielders can never prove their innocence.
The STABLE Act is by no means a simple financial regulation; it represents the 'colonization of currency' of U.S. dollar hegemony in the digital age:
- In the short term, the bill buys breathing room for the U.S. bond crisis, allowing Wall Street to reap on-chain dividends;
- In the long run, it will bind the global black economy, sovereign weak countries, and financial innovation to the dollar war machine, laying the fuse for systemic chain reactions.
History metaphor: When the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, it claimed to 'end financial panics', but it gave rise to the Great Depression of 1929; will the stablecoin regulations of 2025 repeat the mistake of 'brewing tomorrow's poison with today's antidote'? When the dollar locks digital currency with compliance shackles, it may be ringing the death knell for hegemony.
---
Note: This analysis is based on the U.S. (STABLE Act) text and accompanying policy trends, with data sources including Federal Reserve announcements, Tether quarterly reports, and congressional hearing records. The geopolitical inference section references comparisons with the EU MiCA framework and the BRICS countries' de-dollarization trends.
