Original title: (Who should say sorry to blockchain?)
Original source: Meng Yan's thoughts on blockchain
After the US Congress passed the GENIUS Act, President Trump signed it into law on July 18, 2025.
The United States passes many laws every year, but this time the stablecoin legislation will definitely be regarded as one of the most important milestones in the history of modern currency, comparable to the Bretton Woods Conference and the Nixon Shock.
So far, discussions in the Chinese community about US dollar stablecoins have mainly focused on the innovation opportunities and wealth dividends they bring, while the challenges they pose have not received enough attention. Even fewer are willing to explicitly point out that China is already seriously behind in this field and is in a very passive position.
In fact, it's not just China; every non-US dollar economy is currently facing severe challenges.
Due to the technical penetrability of blockchain, the near-100% dominance of US dollar stablecoins, and the sudden reversal in US stablecoin legislation adopting a preemptive offensive, a defense of monetary sovereignty has become unavoidable for almost all countries outside the US. Some countries in Latin America and Africa, whether proactively or passively, have opened their doors wide, allowing US dollar stablecoins to penetrate deeply into people's daily economic activities. In Brazil and Argentina, payments in US dollar stablecoins have become deeply embedded and extremely common. In Nigeria, reports suggest that up to one-third of economic activities are conducted using USDT. Currently, these countries lack the capacity to regulate this part of their economic activities, let alone tax them. This means that this part of their economic activities has effectively detached from national control in management and fiscal terms and has been incorporated into the broader US dollar economy.
Most countries cannot sit idly by and watch the spread of this digital economic colonization, but what should be done? Should we close the door and create a separate system, or simply guard against it and prohibit stablecoins? Many countries have done this in recent years, and the facts have proven that this approach not only fails to work, but also poses a more serious potential problem: falling behind in the long-term competition in finance, the internet, AI, and other technological fields, and being left far behind. In a sense, the challenges many countries face today are a direct consequence of past negative attitudes.
Simply copying and pasting is also unlikely to work. Recently, a number of financial institutions and companies from multiple countries announced ambitious stablecoin issuance plans. But I must say that the idea that obtaining a stablecoin issuance license and then holding a grand press conference will allow one to ride the stablecoin economy rocket to success, or even earn a place for their national currency in the on-chain economy, is overly naive. Issuing a stablecoin is simple; the problem is how to distribute it, overflow from one's own ecosystem, and persuade millions or even hundreds of millions of users to ditch their US dollar stablecoins to use it? How can you attract thousands of innovators to develop wallets, custody, payment, exchange, lending, and other applications around your stablecoin? How can mainstream internet applications like e-commerce, gaming, live streaming, and social media adopt your stablecoin? If competing with the US dollar in the traditional financial field is already extremely difficult, then competing with the US dollar in the stablecoin field is at least ten times more difficult. To achieve even a little progress requires unimaginable costs and long-term efforts, along with maintaining an extremely clear judgment.
What to do?
Before discussing countermeasures, we should perhaps first ask one question: How did things come to this?
Blockchain is not a suddenly emerging new technology, and US dollar stablecoins did not reach $260 billion and 99% market share overnight. The stablecoin revolution is not a surprise attack, nor a stealth attack, but a grand march that was announced in advance. Over the past decade, countless experts in the blockchain field have repeatedly reminded us that blockchain and digital currency technology have the advantage of dimensionality reduction against the traditional financial system. It is a strategic technology that needs to be planned in advance, laid out ahead of time, and seize the opportunity. If we do not respond proactively, we will be in a very passive position in the future. However, so many countries' regulatory authorities and industries have turned a blind eye to this and insisted on dragging matters to the passive situation we have today. In contrast, why is there such a high sensitivity and strong sense of urgency among all parties regarding the progress of AI technology, which is similarly disruptive and poses huge risks? Why can mainstream public opinion display such enthusiasm and such an optimistic yet naive attitude? If we could bring half the enthusiasm we have for AI to blockchain and stablecoins, then today the stablecoin field would not be dominated by the US dollar, with other currencies being negligible. If today there are two or three non-US dollar stablecoins that can stand up to the US dollar, then in the coming years, the competition around stablecoins will certainly have more variables and excitement.
What a pity! How lamentable!
What exactly went wrong?
Was there a lack of timely attention? No. Since 2014, research and discussions around blockchain and digital assets in China have gone through multiple ups and downs. Whether it is the academic community's forward-looking exploration, the industry's technical experimentation, or even the regulatory agencies' phased research, relevant voices and efforts have never ceased. Various think tanks, research institutes, and university laboratories have released in-depth analytical reports, and the financial industry has organized multiple closed-door meetings and simulations to a certain extent. It can be said that at least on the knowledge level, we were not entirely unprepared; in fact, some viewpoints' depth and forward-looking nature are even leading on an international scale.
Was the reasoning not clear? It was not. When Facebook announced the Libra stablecoin project in 2019, discussions within the industry about blockchain and stablecoins had already become very in-depth. Now, if someone were to go back and review some leading research institutions at that time, such as the series of reports compiled by the Digital Asset Research Institute, it could be said that all the issues we can see and think of today had already been identified and thought about back then. In fact, the discussions on many issues at that time were much more comprehensive and profound than those of today's short-video 'stablecoin experts' who have only been in the field for three months.
Is it an unprofessional expression? No. Many professionals in the financial industry have been speaking out early. For example, Dr. Xiao Feng, a PhD in finance, began discussing the technical superiority of blockchain in very professional terms as early as 2016, repeatedly emphasizing the integrated features of blockchain distributed ledger payments, clearing, and settlement. He clearly pointed out that just this one point would bring about a hundred-fold efficiency and cost advantage, ultimately leading to a significant upgrade of financial infrastructure, an unstoppable trend. This logic is clear, the argument is professional, and it has been widely disseminated.
Is it because the chaos in the cryptocurrency world led to a misjudgment? Perhaps for the general public, but for true professionals, this excuse does not hold. As early as 2016, discussions around blockchain in China clearly distinguished speculative digital currencies from blockchain technology. After 2019, with the discussions on 'industrial blockchain' deepening, the industry had already researched the application boundaries and management principles for using blockchain for verification, rights confirmation, and value transfer. If these studies had been given attention, we would not have faced such a situation of mixing the bathwater with the baby.
So what is the reason?
A few days ago, I heard a statement that at a high-level closed meeting, a financial official admitted that they had fully understood the disruptive potential of stablecoins and blockchain technology years ago. However, due to the Biden administration's rejection of blockchain, they judged at that time that this technology had no future. They did not expect that after Trump took office, the attitude would change so quickly, leading to a very passive situation now. He concluded that it seems that in the future, we must take a more proactive attitude towards technological innovation.
Coincidentally, I have recently been frequently discussing stablecoin-related topics with traditional financial experts and showcasing our developed stablecoin smart payment and digital note solutions. One Wall Street financial expert told me after viewing that if these applications were to be widely rolled out, they would inevitably have a disruptive impact on the relevant businesses of traditional banks, reconnecting the relationships among customers, funds, and businesses. However, Wall Street is not unaware of this; in fact, many large banks have been using blockchain internally for many years and are very clear about its advantages and disruptive potential. But they believe that precisely because blockchain is extremely disruptive, the regulatory authorities will temporarily suppress its development based on the need to maintain stability, 'to preserve the stability of the financial industry.' During the Biden administration, the authorities indeed maintained such a tacit agreement with Wall Street. If it weren't for Trump, a person who likes to overturn tables, coming to power, and if it weren't for the unexpected changes in the relationship between the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and the White House, it is hard to imagine the US government would release the tiger of stablecoins at this time.
The situation in other countries is similar. In Australia, we participated in the central bank's CBDC pilot in early 2023 and achieved a top ranking. The Reserve Bank of Australia highly praised the technical advantages demonstrated by CBDCs and stablecoins in this pilot, but after the evaluation, it decided to indefinitely postpone the rollout plans for CBDCs and stablecoins. In private communications with central bank officials, they told me that CBDCs and stablecoins are collectively resisted by Australian commercial banks, and the entire pilot project was doomed from the beginning to be merely an innovation showcase without breakthrough effects. In Singapore, after years of adopting a tolerant and supportive attitude towards the blockchain and digital asset industry, some changes have also occurred after this year's elections. According to analysis, the new government is concerned about the potentially disruptive impact of stablecoins and digital assets on the financial industry.
In summary, it can be seen that everyone is actually already aware of the technical advantages of blockchain and stablecoins, and even agree that this is the trend of the times. However, due to concerns about the risks they bring and the impact on existing interests and institutional frameworks, a deliberate numbness and sluggishness has been adopted after careful consideration. Or to put it simply, everyone is consciously pretending to sleep, hoping to prolong their sweet dream.
Comparing with AI makes this even clearer. To be serious, the disruptive nature of AI is at least as strong as that of stablecoins and blockchain; its risks are more comprehensive, its depth greater, its potential destructiveness larger, and its consequences more unpredictable. If suppressing blockchain development is to control risk and maintain stability, then the same should be true for AI. However, in the AI competition, Silicon Valley naturally fired the first shot, so no one hesitated, no one pondered deeply; everyone immediately armed themselves and threw themselves into the competition. In the blockchain field, however, people have long formed a strange tacit agreement that the first shot to shatter the dream should definitely not be fired by me.
Well, now Trump has forcefully fired this shot, and he knows very well that during the time when everyone was watching, shirking responsibility, and pretending to sleep, US dollar stablecoins quietly completed their dominant deployment in the global on-chain space, covering users, scenarios, liquidity, and developer networks. It can be said that the chessboard is already set, just waiting for the pieces to be played. What Trump has done is merely to take advantage of the situation to play this already poised trump card, openly pushing a 'supra-sovereign dollar network' onto the historical stage and throwing a blatant challenge in front of every non-US dollar economy. Externally, it declares that the restructuring of the global monetary landscape has entered a substantial phase; internally, it redefines the collaborative approach between the US national machine and technology, finance, and capital markets. For the world, from now on, this will no longer be a topic that can be delayed, blurred, or 'trialed while observing'; it will become an urgent issue pressing on the desks of the central banks, finance ministries, and regulators of most countries around the world, an unavoidable and inescapable reality challenge.
How to respond to this challenge is likely a question that will take many years to answer. But before entering the solution phase, we must first have the courage to face reality and dare to admit: we missed the opportunity, we misjudged the situation, and we covered our eyes with an obsession for short-term stability and luck, ignoring the steel-hard technological logic.
At this starting point of a new global financial order reconstruction, perhaps we should first put aside arrogance and prejudice and say sorry to blockchain. This is not for emotional release, but to re-establish a starting point for understanding. We need to re-recognize the innovation in production relations represented by this technology, to re-embrace the institutional experiments driven by this generation of developers, and to re-plan our position in the global digital value network. Perhaps only by doing so can we have a chance to win our place in the digital economy competition that concerns the future global landscape.
Original link