I increasingly feel that the war over stablecoins is no longer a technological competition but a credit competition.

In the past, many people thought stablecoins were just dollar substitutes on the chain, but only after experiencing several market fluctuations do they realize that ultimately, users choose whose credit system is more stable and who can better support global liquidity.
Recently, after re-examining @FIH_USD1, my biggest impression is that it is clearly moving toward institutionalization.
Currently, public information shows that USD1 is a fiat-backed stablecoin supported by short-term U.S. Treasuries, dollar deposits, and cash equivalents, with custody handled by BitGo.
It is not an algorithmic stablecoin but is closer to on-chain dollars under traditional financial logic.
Many people underestimate the importance of this structure.
After the UST collapse, the market has become increasingly clear that the greatest value of stablecoins is not yield but verifiable solvency.
Academic research has long pointed out that algorithmic stablecoins are inherently prone to liquidity runs and expectation collapses.
So I am now more focused on projects like USD1 that follow a more traditional reserve approach.
Because in the next phase, stablecoin competition is essentially about fighting for the entry point to global dollar liquidity.
And whoever can connect on-chain DeFi with institutional funds is more likely to survive until the end.
@Galxe @GalxeQuest @wallchain @TermMaxFi