Stablecoins have recently become the hottest topic in cryptocurrency assets. Why do stablecoins have such a strong connection with U.S. Treasuries? (Background: U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: Stablecoins will become major buyers of government bonds! Discussions have been held with Tether and Circle.) (Background Information: Powell's speech at the Global Central Bank Annual Meeting on August 22: Dove or Hawk? Goldman Sachs predicts three interest rate cuts this year and is optimistic about short-term U.S. Treasuries.) Recently, a core question has emerged within the cryptocurrency community: Why do virtual currencies, which fundamentally pursue "decentralization," especially stablecoins, choose to deeply link with the symbol of "high centralization"—U.S. Treasuries? This seemingly contradictory combination actually reveals the path toward the maturity of crypto assets and their acceptance by the mainstream financial system, but the end of this road may also hide unexpected risks. The contradictory appearance: the ideal of decentralization and the bridge of centralization. The core appeal of decentralized finance (DeFi) lies in its characteristics of being intermediary-free, transparent, and censorship-resistant. However, any emerging technology that aims to gain widespread adoption cannot completely detach from existing social and financial frameworks. The rise of centralized exchanges is the best example of this, sacrificing some degree of pure decentralization in exchange for large-scale user entry. Similarly, when stablecoin issuers choose to allocate reserve assets in U.S. Treasuries, this is a strategic "bridging," leveraging the most trusted assets in the traditional financial system to construct a bridge for stablecoins toward legitimacy and widespread adoption. The inevitability of regulation: Pursuing legitimacy and "least liability." From a legal and regulatory perspective, the core of stablecoins lies in "stability." Past decoupling events have sounded the alarm for global regulatory bodies, leading to the gradual formation of regulatory frameworks in various countries, with a core requirement for high consistency: stablecoins must possess sufficient, transparent, and high-quality liquid assets as reserves. U.S. Treasuries are the gold standard for such assets; choosing them is the stablecoin issuers' risk-minimizing and most easily accepted choice for compliance in the current environment. Market signals: Recognition and empowerment from traditional finance. When stablecoin ecosystems become major buyers of U.S. Treasuries, this undoubtedly marks a milestone of mutual engagement between traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi). It represents the formal participation of traditional finance and provides the strongest endorsement of the dollar value of crypto assets from the traditional world, indirectly enhancing the stability and credibility of the entire crypto market. Geopolitical scheming: National-level strategy. From the perspective of the U.S. government, this regulatory design can be considered a clever national-level strategic layout. It not only creates a new "rigid demand" for astronomical amounts of U.S. Treasuries but also cleverly realizes "digital dollar hegemony" without issuing a CBDC. At the same time, it incorporates the previously unregulated "outliers" into its financial jurisdiction, ensuring the U.S. leadership position in global fintech innovation. This strategy transforms a potential threat into a powerful tool to consolidate its core national interests. Critique and reflection: Potential risks and compromises of ideals. However, this seemingly win-win marriage does come at a cost. As I have always maintained, if viewed solely from the perspective of risk management and the original intention of cryptocurrencies, excessive reliance on U.S. Treasuries also sows several profound concerns: Reshaping a "centralized single point of failure": The birth of cryptocurrencies aimed to break free from reliance on a single centralized institution. Now, betting the value foundation of global digital dollars entirely on the sovereign credit of a single country is akin to reconstructing a massive centralized risk point. U.S. fiscal discipline, domestic political stability, and even geopolitical decisions will directly impact the security of crypto assets for hundreds of millions of global users. Becoming a political weapon: When stablecoin issuers are brought under U.S. regulation, their assets also become tools for the U.S. to execute its foreign policy. Censorship resistance is one of the core value propositions of blockchain, but in the future, the U.S. government could demand issuers freeze stablecoin assets of specific countries, entities, or even individuals with just an administrative order. This turns stablecoins from a neutral financial tool into an extension of its "financial long-arm jurisdiction." The inception of Bitcoin was a reflection on the failure of a financial system backed by national credit during the 2008 financial crisis. Now, stablecoins seem to have turned back around, basing their credibility entirely on the system they once sought to transcend. In exchange for immediate legitimacy and market scale, is the crypto industry selling out the core values of decentralization and censorship resistance? Conclusion: Between pragmatism and risk. The core goal of stablecoins is to innovate the payment system. From this functional goal, choosing to link with U.S. Treasuries is indeed an efficient, pragmatic shortcut that aligns with current regulatory needs. However, we must not overlook the significant risks and compromises of ideals behind it. The combination of stablecoins and U.S. Treasuries represents a clever balance struck between idealism and harsh reality, but it is also a fragile balance. While it brings legitimacy to the industry, it also puts heavy shackles on it. Will this ultimately become a Trojan horse that undermines the core values of crypto or decentralization? This deserves deep reflection from all participants.

#BTC #CBDC