# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Stablecoins

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Stablecoins", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

In a Losing Bear Market, Who Is Quietly Making a Fortune?

Amid a prolonged bear market where most crypto participants are losing money, a few projects continue to generate significant revenue. A closer look at Defillama’s revenue rankings reveals that profitable projects share simple and clear revenue models, primarily falling into two categories: spread income and transaction fees. Spread-based revenue models involve acting as capital intermediaries—absorbing funds at lower costs and deploying them at higher yields. Examples include stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle, which earn from interest on reserve assets like U.S. Treasuries; lending protocols such as Aave, which profit from the spread between borrowing and deposit rates; and liquid staking services like Lido, which retain a portion of staking rewards as fees. Transaction fee models generate revenue by taxing activities like trading, token creation, or other on-chain actions. Platforms such as Hyperliquid and EdgeX (perpetual trading), Polymarket (event prediction), pump.fun and GMGN (meme trading), Aerodrome and Jupiter (spot trading), as well as Phantom (via swap fees) and NFT marketplaces like Courtyard and Fragment, all rely heavily on transaction fees. Notable exceptions include Grayscale (traditional asset management fees), Chainlink (oracle data service fees), and Titan Builder (which profited unusually from a large MEV capture incident). The key insight is that sustainable profitability in a bear market comes from straightforward revenue models combined with sophisticated product execution, liquidity management, and user engagement—not complex or high-risk strategies.

Odaily星球日报04/10 08:48

In a Losing Bear Market, Who Is Quietly Making a Fortune?

Odaily星球日报04/10 08:48

Non-Dollar Stablecoins Are Winning the Wrong Battle

The article argues that non-USD stablecoins (euros, local currencies) create a misleading impression of challenging dollar dominance by merely changing the currency label, without altering the underlying monetary power structure. True monetary sovereignty is analyzed through three layers: 1. **Pricing Layer (most visible):** The currency unit used for pricing. Non-USD stablecoins win here, but this is a superficial, low-cost change—like changing a shop's sign without changing its ownership. 2. **Settlement Layer (most valuable):** The actual infrastructure (banking, payments, compliance, liquidity networks) through which money moves. This "plumbing" is controlled by existing players. Changing the currency flowing through these pipes doesn't change who owns them. 3. **Freeze Layer (most powerful):** The ultimate authority to freeze, blacklist, or halt transactions. This final control often remains with external entities enforcing KYC/AML and sanctions. The case of Argentina's $LIBRA token scandal is used to illustrate that such initiatives are often not genuine innovation but a symptom of a failing local currency. When a national currency loses its pricing power and trust (e.g., due to hyperinflation), external digital credit (like dollar-based or crypto narratives) rushes in to fill the void. The dependency merely shifts from traditional dollar systems to on-chain dollar networks; the underlying power dynamics remain. The conclusion is that non-USD stablecoins are expanding monetary expression but not rewriting monetary power. The real battle isn't about which currency is used for pricing, but about who controls the settlement infrastructure and the ultimate authority to freeze assets. Until that changes, "de-dollarization" remains superficial.

marsbit04/09 00:08

Non-Dollar Stablecoins Are Winning the Wrong Battle

marsbit04/09 00:08

活动图片