# stablecoins — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-29 20:45 UTC)
## @Tomheroy_io (Sir Tom) · 09-29 17:20 · ♥47 ↻48 💬4 September has been a busy month for @Velvet_Capital, with a few updates worth paying attention to.
First, the $SUMMER Trading Competition, where traders can compete for 2.5M $SUMMER on BNB Chain. With 250K reserved for the Top 25 veVELVET holders.
Then there’s Lift on the Trenches. New Lift launches can now be discovered directly inside VelvetX.
You can watch activity, see what other traders are buying, run AI analysis, and execute without constantly switching between platforms.
And finally, Arc is now on VelvetX, built around stablecoins and financial markets, and VelvetX has been there since the first day of mainnet.
Users can explore new Arc tokens, get AI insights, move assets across supported chains with gasless swaps, and trade from the same terminal.
@Velvet_Capital is making it easier to discover what is happening onchain and actually do something about it.
Explore: https://t.co/sc68HHk7Mr
#VELVET #DeFi #VelvetTrading https://x.com/Tomheroy_io/status/2104984727727845721
## @ElsalvadoronX (El Salvador on X) · 09-29 19:30 · ♥117 ↻7 💬2 🧨 Bloomberg says Bukele is “turning to stablecoins.”
El Salvador’s Bitcoin Office says the government has no plans to launch or operate any Bitcoin or stablecoin wallet.
Meanwhile, the official Bitcoin dashboard shows 7,789.37 BTC.
Sometimes the correction is the story. 🇸🇻₿
👇 We looked at what’s actually happening.
🧨 BLOOMBERG SAYS BUKELE IS “TURNING TO STABLECOINS.” EL SALVADOR’S BITCOIN OFFICE SAYS THAT’S FALSE. 🇸🇻₿
Bloomberg published a striking headline Tuesday:
“El Salvador’s Bukele turns to stablecoins as Bitcoin push stumbles.”
Its social-media promotion went further, describing El Salvador's Bitcoin policy as an “experiment” that has done little to make Bitcoin a mainstream form of payment — and saying President Nayib Bukele is therefore turning to dollar-backed stablecoins.
There's a problem.
El Salvador's @bitcoinofficesv says that's not what is happening.
Its first response to Bloomberg was three words:
“This is fake news.”
Then came an official clarification that goes directly to the heart of Bloomberg's framing:
“The government of El Salvador has no plans to launch or operate any bitcoin or stable wallet.”
And then:
“With the recent sale of Chivo Wallet to a private operator, all state involvement has officially ended.”
That's not a small distinction.
That's the government office responsible for El Salvador's Bitcoin strategy directly disputing the premise that Bukele is moving the government from a Bitcoin wallet toward a stablecoin wallet.
THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T SWITCHING WALLETS
Sivar exists.
Stablecoin technology exists.
Private companies can build applications using stablecoins in El Salvador's regulated digital-asset ecosystem.
But none of those things automatically make those applications government-operated wallets.
And according to the Bitcoin Office:
The Salvadoran government isn't launching one.
In fact, the government has been moving in the opposite direction when it comes to operating wallets.
Earlier this month, the IMF confirmed that ownership and operational control of the government's Chivo e-wallet had been transferred to a private operator.
So compare the two narratives.
Bloomberg:
Bitcoin push stumbles → Bukele turns to stablecoins.
Bitcoin Office:
The government has no plans to launch or operate either a Bitcoin or stablecoin wallet.
Those aren't two ways of saying the same thing.
They're fundamentally different descriptions of government policy.
AND BITCOIN DIDN’T DISAPPEAR
There's another problem with the idea that Bukele is simply “turning” away from Bitcoin.
Look at El Salvador's own Bitcoin dashboard.
On Tuesday morning, the official Bitcoin Office explorer displayed:
7,789.37 BTC
It also displayed:
+7 BTC over seven days
and
+30 BTC over 30 days.
At the displayed valuation, those holdings were worth approximately $647.4 million.
That's a strange way to “turn away” from Bitcoin.
Those treasury figures don't answer a separate question about how frequently Salvadorans use Bitcoin for everyday purchases.
But they do matter when a headline leaves readers with the broader impression that El Salvador is abandoning Bitcoin for something else.
It isn't an either/or proposition.
Bitcoin can exist.
Stablecoins can exist.
Tokenized securities can exist.
Private digital wallets can exist.
All inside the same expanding digital-asset ecosystem.
One does not have to fail for another to be built.
THE STORY BLOOMBERG COULD HAVE TOLD
There actually is an interesting story here.
Sivar is a new technology platform incorporating identity, communities, public services, AI-powered features and financial infrastructure.
Its potential use for cross-border payments is worth covering.
Stablecoins are worth covering.
The privatization of Chivo is worth covering.
And the evolution of Bitcoin's role in El Salvador is absolutely worth covering.
But those facts don't require turning the story into:
Bitcoin failed. Bukele switched to stablecoins.
Especially when the Bitcoin Office says the government isn't launching or operating a stablecoin wallet at all.
And here's where the framing becomes particularly interesting.
Just days ago, Bloomberg itself reported that the United States was considering an initiative to encourage the international use of dollar-backed stablecoins as part of strengthening the dollar's global role.
When stablecoins are discussed as part of America's financial infrastructure, they're a tool.
When stablecoins appear in El Salvador, suddenly they're evidence that Bitcoin “stumbled.”
Same technology. Very different headline.
BITCOIN OPENED A MUCH BIGGER DOOR
El Salvador's digital-asset story didn't stop in 2021.
Bitcoin came first.
Then came a broader digital-asset regulatory framework.
Then CNAD.
Then regulated digital-asset service providers.
Then tokenized securities and real-world assets.
Now private companies are building additional financial technology on top of that ecosystem.
That isn't necessarily a retreat.
It's an ecosystem becoming more complex.
Bitcoin doesn't have to be the only digital asset in El Salvador for Bitcoin to remain important to El Salvador.
Stablecoins don't erase Bitcoin.
Tokenization doesn't erase Bitcoin.
And a private company building a stablecoin-enabled application doesn't mean the Bukele government has replaced its Bitcoin policy with a government stablecoin wallet.
According to the Bitcoin Office, there isn't going to be one.
🧨 SOMETIMES THE CORRECTION IS THE STORY
There are legitimate questions to ask about Bitcoin adoption.
There are legitimate questions to ask about stablecoins.
There are legitimate questions to ask about Sivar.
And there are legitimate questions about how El Salvador's digital-asset strategy continues to evolve.
Ask them.
But start with what El Salvador is actually doing.
Bloomberg says Bukele is “turning to stablecoins.”
The Bitcoin Office says the government has no plans to launch or operate a Bitcoin or stablecoin wallet.
Meanwhile, the country's official Bitcoin dashboard displays 7,789.37 BTC.
That's not a footnote.
That's the story Bloomberg's headline didn't tell. 🇸🇻₿
El Salvador on X — Explaining El Salvador to the World. > 引用 @business: El Salvador was the first country to make Bitcoin legal tender. Five years on, the experiment's done little to turn the cryptocurrency into a mainstream form of payment — so President Nayib Bukele is turning to dollar-backed stablecoins. https://t.co/8xyMstH5uN
📷: Marvin Recinos / Getty Images https://x.com/ElsalvadoronX/status/2105017339238404379
## @Web3CyruX (CyruX) · 09-29 18:56 · ♥44 ↻0 💬50 Stablecoin transfers are becoming more flexible on @AntarcticWallet.
USDC can now be topped up and withdrawn through Ethereum and BSC while USDT adds Ethereum and Kaia to its supported network options.
That matters because moving stablecoins is not always about the asset itself. The network you use can affect fees, speed and compatibility depending on the situation.
Having several network options gives users more flexibility to choose the route that works best for them.
It also makes the wallet more practical for everyday transfers and for users already active across Ethereum, BSC and Kaia.
@AntarcticWallet is continuing to expand its asset and network support, making its ecosystem more accessible with each update.
The wallet is available through Telegram, mobile apps and APK.
Join here: https://t.co/XzrzpRyy8n https://x.com/Web3CyruX/status/2105008725098680490
## @Xaif_Crypto (Xaif Crypto) · 09-29 17:59 · ♥42 ↻14 💬3 NEW: RLUSD's market cap has passed $2.5B, but Ripple's SVP of Stablecoins says the real signal is daily activity: from $100M at the start of the year to $1.3B in August.
That's institutions using it in payments and capital markets.
RLUSD is now coming to Notabene Flow. > 引用 @Xaif_Crypto: Institutional adoption of on-chain finance is about more than throughput.
With $XRP and blockchain infrastructure becoming part of the conversation, custody, fund flows, permissions, controls and regulatory alignment all need to work together. https://t.co/Noy0rsvcOR https://x.com/Xaif_Crypto/status/2104994549441638557
## @SimonDixonTwitt (Simon Dixon) · 09-29 18:49 · ♥57 ↻4 💬4 Stablecoins are tiny relative to the scale of US debt rollover and new deficit financing.
Yes, stablecoin growth creates incremental demand for short-dated US Treasuries.
But don’t confuse that with solving the Treasury’s funding problem.
Stablecoin reserves redirect existing private-sector dollars into T-bills. They can participate in demand for newly issued debt, but they don’t magically create the trillions in new savings required to absorb persistent deficits and refinancing.
That is not QE.
Primary dealers are required to participate in Treasury auctions, but they’re not the only buyers. Funds, banks, pensions, insurers and foreign institutions can absorb new issuance too.
The real question isn’t whether stablecoins buy Treasuries.
It’s whether there is enough marginal demand to absorb the enormous quantity of debt the US needs to roll over AND issue to finance new deficits without yields continuing to rise.
If private demand isn’t there at acceptable yields, yields have to rise until buyers emerge.
Or eventually, the Fed expands its balance sheet.
So no.
Stablecoins are not QE. > 引用 @WhoamInonsense: @SimonDixonTwitt @IgracBarake Isn't Stable Coin is light mode QE https://x.com/SimonDixonTwitt/status/2105007085121356276
## @rolandayd (Roland) · 09-29 17:30 · ♥60 ↻2 💬0 A Token Is Only Useful If Something Can Use It https://x.com/rolandayd/status/2104987234986230147
## @MarcoSalzmann80 (Marco Salzmann 🇩🇪🇻🇪 Ħ²) · 09-29 14:44 · ♥41 ↻9 💬2 🧵 One of the world’s largest asset managers just brought institutional cash management onchain.
@StateStreet and @galaxyhq have launched SWEEP, a tokenized liquidity fund now live on @StellarOrg
Stablecoin subscriptions. 24/7 redemptions. Institutional custody.
But the architecture behind it may be even more interesting. 👇
SWEEP stands for the State Street Galaxy Onchain Liquidity Sweep Fund.
It is issued by State Street Investment Management and tokenized by Galaxy.
The goal is straightforward:
Give eligible institutional investors an onchain way to manage liquidity around the clock.
And Stellar is the network underneath it.
SWEEP is a private liquidity fund for eligible Qualified Purchasers, rather than a retail product.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Eligible investors can subscribe and redeem using certain stablecoins 24/7, subject to stablecoin availability in the fund’s portfolio.
That begins to connect two increasingly important pieces of onchain finance:
Stablecoin liquidity → Tokenized cash management
Instead of everything being constrained by traditional banking hours and settlement windows, the infrastructure can remain available around the clock.
That 24/7 functionality and its conditions are explicitly described in the announcement.
And SWEEP isn’t simply represented by a token on Stellar.
The fund is issued through a @StellarOrg smart contract.
That combines programmable asset logic with Stellar’s native issuer controls:
• Authorization • Freeze • Clawback
The kind of controls regulated financial products can require.
Then look at the institutional stack:
State Street → fund issuer Galaxy → tokenization + distribution Stellar → public blockchain infrastructure Anchorage → digital asset custody Chainlink → pricing + reserve data NAV Consulting → transfer agent State Street Bank and Trust → holds the fund securities
Multiple specialized providers operating around one onchain product.
The respective roles are stated by SDF.
@DenelleDixon summarized the significance well:
“Cash management only moves onchain where the infrastructure has already proven it works.”
Stellar has now been running in production for more than a decade.
And SWEEP puts State Street’s institutional asset-management infrastructure directly onto that network.
SDF says Stellar has operated for more than a decade with 99.99% uptime.
The interesting part isn’t simply that another fund has been tokenized.
It’s what is beginning to connect around these products:
Stablecoins ↓ Cash Management ↓ Tokenized Securities ↓ 24/7 Onchain Settlement
State Street + Galaxy + Stellar is another piece of that architecture.
The institutional onchain economy is starting to look less like an experiment and more like infrastructure.
https://t.co/OmUgysHLfB > 引用 @lumenloop: State Street launches SWEEP on @stellarorg: a 24/7 tokenized cash fund. Qualified investors access stablecoins anytime without banking hours or settlement delays. One of the world's largest fund managers now on Stellar.
https://t.co/MNS95cc9p0 https://x.com/MarcoSalzmann80/status/2104945352570769751
## @zecbetter (Better life) · 09-29 14:01 · ♥42 ↻3 💬1 Less than four months ago, I bought some $ZEC at around $300. To this day, I haven’t sold a single ZEC I bought then.
Because from my perspective, there really isn’t a fundamental difference between ZEC at $300 and ZEC at $1,500.
What truly matters has never been any particular price. What matters is what Zcash could ultimately become.
In my view, Zcash is one of the very few major cryptocurrencies genuinely attempting to solve both financial privacy and compliance at the same time.
One of the biggest misconceptions about “privacy coins” is that the value of privacy lies in hiding assets or concealing transactions.
I see it differently.
The real value of financial privacy is not to make assets disappear. It is to make it possible for real financial activity to move onchain while preserving the level of privacy that traditional finance has always had.
In my view, the biggest obstacles to bringing traditional finance onchain at scale are no longer just performance, speed, or transaction fees. There are two more fundamental issues: privacy and compliance.
A company will not want its competitors to see its cash balances, suppliers, customers, purchase amounts, and cash flows in real time.
A fund will not want to broadcast every change in its positions and every movement of capital to the entire world.
And ordinary people should not have to expose their wealth and complete transaction history to everyone simply because they choose to use a blockchain.
Traditional finance has never worked that way.
So if blockchain is truly going to evolve from today’s crypto-asset market into the much larger world of real-world finance, privacy will no longer be an optional feature.
It will become part of the financial infrastructure itself.
In my view, BTC cannot solve this problem. ETH, at the base-layer level, has not truly solved it either.
Zcash, however, offers at least one path that might actually work.
Of course, technological potential never guarantees eventual success.
Zcash still needs deeper liquidity, broader adoption, a richer range of financial products, and an ecosystem capable of supporting real economic activity.
But I believe Zcash is moving in the right direction.
And the next major turning point may be native stablecoins.
If the most important privacy-preserving asset on Zcash is always ZEC itself, then Zcash will ultimately remain, to a large extent, a crypto asset with powerful privacy capabilities.
But if stablecoins can one day exist natively within Zcash’s privacy environment, the equation changes completely.
Most real-world economic activity does not want to be denominated every day in a highly volatile asset. Corporate payments, salaries, trade settlement, personal transfers, and fund settlement all need stable units of account.
At that point, people may no longer use Zcash simply to “hold ZEC.”
They may use it to privately pay in dollars, transfer assets, settle transactions, and conduct real financial activity.
And if, eventually, it is not only stablecoins entering the Zcash privacy environment, but also Treasuries, funds, securities, RWA, and other real-world assets, then the meaning of Zcash changes fundamentally.
It would no longer simply be a blockchain with a privacy coin.
It could gradually become an infrastructure layer for private financial activity.
I believe the valuation logic for those two things is completely different.
That is why I did not sell between $300 and $1,500.
Not because I believe $ZEC must reach some specific price, but because the core thesis behind my original purchase has not yet played out.
Quite the opposite.
I think the stage that really matters may only be beginning:
Can Zcash evolve from a privacy asset into a privacy-preserving financial network?
If Zcash ultimately succeeds in making that transition, then looking back, the difference between $300 and $1,500 may not seem nearly as large as it does today. > 引用 @zecbetter: I’m not joking. I added more $ZEC around the $300 level because I was genuinely impressed by the team’s speed and competence in handling this crisis.
The Orchard vulnerability was serious, but what mattered most was the response. The issue was identified, verified, contained, coordinated across the ecosystem, and patched before any known exploitation occurred. No hidden inflation was detected and no user funds were lost.
In the age of AI, vulnerabilities are becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. What matters is not whether a project ever encounters a bug, but how quickly and effectively it responds when one is discovered. This incident increased my confidence in the Zcash team’s ability to manage critical situations, which is why I chose to add to my position rather than panic sell. https://x.com/zecbetter/status/2104934554502909970