# 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.

Behind the Circle Freeze Controversy: Where Are the Power Boundaries of Dollar Stablecoins?

The recent controversy surrounding Circle's freezing of 16 unrelated business wallets, as publicly criticized by on-chain investigator ZachXBT, has ignited a critical debate about the power and boundaries of centralized dollar stablecoin issuers. This incident, occurring alongside Tether's simultaneous unfreezing of previously blacklisted addresses, highlights a fundamental question: who controls the stablecoins users believe they own? The core issue extends beyond a single error. A mistaken freeze can disrupt entire payment flows, preventing users from moving funds and triggering compliance alarms at exchanges. With USDT and USDC dominating over 82% of the stablecoin market, the reality is that most "on-chain dollars" are centralized, subject to freezing, and can be intervened with by their issuers. This event shifts the industry discussion from technical concerns to questions of power and accountability: Who has the authority to freeze funds? What are the public justifications? How is transparency ensured? And what recourse exists for those wrongly affected? Ultimately, the incident underscores that dollar stablecoins are not unregulated digital cash but financial instruments operating within a gray area of centralized control. As stablecoins become critical infrastructure for global value transfer, the power to freeze assets must itself be constrained and held accountable.

marsbit04/14 10:35

Behind the Circle Freeze Controversy: Where Are the Power Boundaries of Dollar Stablecoins?

marsbit04/14 10:35

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

活动图片