The narrative of stablecoins is being rewritten again.

CZ's year-end Q&A sent an important signal: the era of stablecoin 1.0 has ended, and the true competition of 2.0 has just begun. This is not a simple version upgrade, but a fundamental shift in business models.

Stage 1.0 was straightforward—deposit USD in banks, issue tokens, on-chain circulation, arbitrageurs moving bricks. All profits go to the issuers, users only gain liquidity. Tether relies on first-mover advantage and network effects, generating hundreds of billions in annual revenue, but this also attracts numerous competitors.

Now, the current FDUSD and USD1 are considered 1.5-generation products, beginning to try distributing yields to users. But the obvious problem remains—insufficient exchange integration, high usage friction, limited adoption.

The true 2.0 form should be a three-in-one of yield + liquidity + compliance. It sounds simple, but achieving it is very difficult. It requires convincing enough exchanges to list tokens, ensuring sustainable revenue sources, and solving compliance issues. However, the regulatory environment has already warmed significantly, and these difficulties are gradually easing.

A key observation is the evolution of the stablecoin landscape on BNB Chain. Although USDT has a large supply, it is essentially a wrapped asset; FDUSD faces friction in fiat on-ramps; USD1, as a new entrant, has the opportunity to become a more native choice. Network effects will eventually lead to centralization, but it’s still too early; the market is testing the feasibility of different models.

The outcome of this stablecoin competition may only be truly decided at the next critical event node. In the short term, it depends on who can fully commit and iterate continuously; in the long term, on whose business logic is more sustainable. The market space is large enough to accommodate multiple high-quality participants, with the key being differentiated product forms and execution capabilities.