To clarify related issues, one must first establish a basic fact: despite being based on blockchain technology, digital currency (legal currency), digital assets (virtual currency), and USD tokens (stablecoins) are fundamentally different.
I. Digital Currency: The Digital Breakthrough of Sovereign Currency
In the realm of legal digital currencies, China's central bank is the most aggressive in its promotion—digital RMB has achieved practical implementation, allowing bank transfers, online purchases, and other operations through a downloadable app. Its core strategic value is more evident in international trade settlements: bypassing bank intermediaries through peer-to-peer transactions directly breaks through the USD-centered international financial settlement system.
This also explains why the Federal Reserve's attitude towards the digital dollar is conservative: Once the digital dollar becomes popular, cross-border transactions could detach from the traditional banking system, rendering the US's financial tools such as freezing and sanctioning foreign assets largely ineffective. For example, if Russia holds digital dollars, it would be difficult for Europe and the US to freeze its hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. For China, as a non-financial hegemonic nation, 'bypassing hegemony' is a necessity—digital currencies, bilateral currency swaps, and multi-currency bridges are essentially a combination of countermeasures against USD hegemony.
II. Virtual Currency: Financial Speculation Targets and Differences in Attitudes between China and the US
Bitcoin, as a representative of 'virtual currency', although its name includes 'currency', is essentially a financial asset, no different from stocks, bonds, and other investment products; it is merely a financial symbol traded with cash.
The difference in attitudes between China and the US stems from their different economic orientations:
As the manufacturing center, China implements foreign exchange controls to combat USD tides and prevent hot money from impacting exchange rates. The decentralized trading of virtual currencies inherently possesses the attributes of 'underground banks', which could trigger capital outflows and threaten financial stability, thus being strictly restricted (including banning trading and 'mining'). Especially since 'mining' requires a large amount of cheap electricity, it provides trading leverage to the US financial market without offering substantial benefits to the real economy.
The US, centered around finance, relies on Wall Street capital to harvest globally through 'USD tides'. Virtual currencies play the role of a 'USD reservoir': when the Federal Reserve expands its balance sheet, it absorbs liquidity to drive up prices, and when it contracts its balance sheet, it recovers funds by selling off assets to 'replenish blood' for USD bonds. Moreover, although virtual currency trading is decentralized, buying and selling must be completed through centralized exchanges, allowing the US to maintain control through financial hegemony (such as sanctions on Binance's Zhao Changpeng).
III. Stablecoins: The Power Struggle of USD Tokens
The essence of stablecoins is 'virtual currency backed by assets', usually issued with USD or US Treasury bonds as reserves on a 1:1 basis, essentially functioning as 'USD tokens', which directly touches upon the Federal Reserve's monetary issuance rights.
There is intense debate within the US regarding stablecoins:
The Trump administration and the Republican Party are promoting (stablecoin legislation), intending to open new sales channels for US Treasury bonds—previously, US Treasury bonds were mainly sold to banks. If stablecoins are legalized, companies could directly purchase US Treasury bonds as reserves, alleviating the interest payment pressure of $37 trillion in Treasury bonds (with annual interest exceeding $1 trillion).
The Federal Reserve and financial oligarchs strongly oppose this: Currently, with the USD benchmark interest rate, the USD index has dropped to 98. If stablecoins indirectly lead to 'money printing' and result in interest rate cuts, it could trigger USD depreciation and capital outflows, undermining the foundations of the US stock market.
China's focus on stablecoins is primarily centered around the potential impact of 'USD stablecoins': If American companies obtain large amounts of USD cash through stablecoins, it may increase their procurement of cheap Chinese goods, temporarily alleviating domestic overcapacity, but in the long run, it still remains constrained by the USD cycle.
IV. The Role of Hong Kong and the Layout of Digital RMB
Hong Kong is the first to bring stablecoins under regulation, closely related to its currency attributes: the Hong Kong Dollar itself is a 'non-digitalized stablecoin', pegged to the USD, with its credit relying on USD reserves. In the future, if digital RMB, digital Hong Kong Dollar, and US company stablecoins achieve interoperability, it may form a 'cash flow channel' that bypasses US regulation—while the transactions of digital RMB are transparent to the People's Bank of China, which precisely fills the regulatory gap of traditional offshore RMB.
The core of this layout still lies in 'trade facilitation' and 'counter-sanctions': using digital tools to reduce reliance on USD settlements, providing safer payment options for multilateral trade.
Supplement: A Brainstorming Idea
If USD stablecoins are legalized, theoretically China could attempt to issue USD stablecoins backed by its $870 billion in US Treasury bonds—its credit rating would be higher than that of US companies, which could revitalize existing US Treasury bonds and recapture USD, while avoiding direct losses from the current sale of US Treasury bonds (due to price drops caused by Federal Reserve interest rate hikes). However, this idea faces legal obstacles: currently, there are no provisions allowing the issuance of stablecoins backed by foreign exchange bonds, more a projection of future possibilities.
In summary, whether it is digital currency, virtual currency, or stablecoins, the fundamental difference in the attitudes of China and the United States is 'interest-oriented': China is based on the real economy, strictly preventing financial risks; the United States is centered on financial hegemony, pursuing capital expansion. Blockchain technology is merely a tool, ultimately serving their respective strategic demands.