The question is very good, let me try to answer it:

The question is very good, let me try to answer it:

1. The growth rate of stablecoins must have a threshold, this is inevitable. In the early stages, the growth rate of USDC was very fast, although it was aided by Coinbase, it is clear that Circle increased its cooperation with leading exchanges like Binance and OKX. However, in terms of revenue, the only ongoing cooperation is with Coinbase, and the 4% yield for Coinbase members is something that needs to be paid. Therefore, I personally believe that the probability of Coinbase and Circle unlocking in the short term is very low.

If it really gets unlocked, it will have a significant impact on the growth rate of USDC. From my personal understanding, wealth management is one aspect, but a more important aspect is that USDC can be used directly as USD within Coinbase, and USDC can be exchanged for USD without loss. At least I believe this is the biggest trump card.

As for the growth rate of USDC, after its listing, the total market value is still the most important concern for Circle. After all, in terms of revenue, with the arrival of the Federal Reserve's interest rate cut cycle, if Circle cannot find new revenue points, it will have to increase its absolute returns by expanding its market value. However, I personally feel that Circle's total market value is greatly related to the cryptocurrency market. When the market is poor, the total market value growth of USDC will be slow, unless Circle can find new growth points, which USDT has done very well.

2. The so-called speed of stablecoin payments is actually due to bypassing the traditional banking system. Can the banking system be fast? The answer is yes, as long as the bank is willing, speed is not an issue. The problem is that the "slowness" of banks is not only in the process but also in the scrutiny of funds. Therefore, rather than saying that stablecoins are fast, it is better to say that stablecoins are resistant to scrutiny. So I believe that "speed" is not the main reason for the expansion of stablecoin payment scale.

For example, when I use Wise to transfer money from Singapore to my bank account in China, it can take less than 10 seconds at the fastest.

Thus, questions 1 and 2 are closely related, as it depends on whether the essence of stablecoin usage scenarios is "payment." If it is just for payment and specifically for cross-border transactions, then the total market value does not need to be too large, like the current PYUSD. However, if the main scenario for stablecoins is not payment but "acceptance," which is the current role of USDC, then the total market value of stablecoins should ideally match the total market value of cryptocurrencies.

3. Buying gold and US stocks with stablecoins is like taking off your pants to fart; this is undoubtedly clear from the trading volume. The market does not consider buying US stocks and gold with stablecoins to be attractive, so at least the current model has no possibility of becoming mainstream.

Every market has its own users. The cryptocurrency market tends to lean more towards high-risk and high-leverage users, which naturally distinguishes it from relatively low-volatility US stock users. It is undeniable that some American investors use cryptocurrencies as a supplementary return to US stocks, betting small amounts for larger gains, which is similar to how we use large funds to buy mainstream coins and small funds to buy altcoins and memes.

However, the main users of US stocks actually include pension systems, passive ETF systems, index systems, buyback systems, active institutional systems, and even some overseas funds. These constitute the dominant force in US stock buying, and all of these have sufficient compliance and regulation. Compared to stablecoins, they trust fiat currency more, and the assets purchased with fiat are real, deliverable, and traceable legal assets. In contrast, assets purchased with stablecoins are almost all "mapped" non-compliant assets, which predestines that at least for now, buying US stocks with stablecoins is just a redundant option.

This also relates to your question about why use stablecoins as intermediaries. As long as the funds are compliant and legal, there is no need for this extra process, and it can be even more complicated when it comes to bonded warehousing.

Ultimately, I still maintain that if stablecoins are just a payment channel, their significance and value will definitely diminish. The main reason that allows stablecoins to continue to develop is not payment, but acceptance.

Disclaimer: This article represents only the personal views of the author and does not represent the position and views of this platform. This article is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice to anyone. Any disputes between users and authors are unrelated to this platform. If the articles or images on the webpage involve infringement, please provide relevant proof of rights and identity documents and send an email to support@aicoin.com. The relevant staff of this platform will conduct an investigation.