# stablecoins — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-27 23:59 UTC)
## @RealVision (Real Vision) · 09-27 17:03 · ♥42 ↻7 💬9 The agentic economy doesn't work without crypto.
Steno: AI agents need to pay each other in tiny amounts, constantly. Card rails and banks were never built for that.
Stablecoins were. That's why the two run together. https://t.co/yLCWbZMiIM https://x.com/RealVision/status/2104255507800142091
## @humafinance (Huma) · 09-27 15:28 · ♥41 ↻6 💬8 "Trade finance is going to be the largest real-world user of stablecoins." @0xErbil
Global trade is a $32T market with a $2.5T financing gap. Exporters wait weeks. Banks charge outsized fees. SMEs are left behind.
PayFi is being built as the new financial layer for that flow. > 引用 @SolanaFndn: A big benefit of stablecoins is working capital efficiency: money that has to move across a border on a deadline and the corridors to make it possible.
@0xErbil, CEO of @humafinance, joined @amiravalliani on Bits to Bricks to get into remittances and trade finance.
Full episode 👇 https://x.com/humafinance/status/2104231792018657577
## @mrcauliman (MRCΛULIMΛN) · 09-27 16:13 · ♥41 ↻2 💬2 The Balance Sheet Behind a Digital Dollar
Stablecoins are becoming a real part of the financial system. The Federal Reserve’s latest GENIUS Act proposal gets into what has to sit behind a regulated payment stablecoin, how much capital the issuer needs, how redemptions work and who can issue one.
A regulated stablecoin has to be backed 1:1 with eligible reserve assets. Those reserves can include cash, Federal Reserve balances, insured deposits, short-term Treasury bills and certain Treasury-backed overnight instruments. A $10 billion stablecoin needs at least $10 billion sitting behind it, and a lot of that can end up in short-term U.S. government debt.
The Fed proposal also adds capital requirements on top of the reserves. For operational risk, the proposed charge starts at 2% on the first $20 billion outstanding, then steps down as the issuer gets larger. A $10 billion issuer would start with about $200 million in operational-risk capital before the other adjustments are added. That’s real money behind the company running the coin.
Redemption is part of it too. Holders would generally have to be able to redeem within two business days. If backing falls below 1:1, the issuer has to notify regulators and either restore the reserves or start liquidating assets and redeeming the stablecoins.
RLUSD already operates as an issued dollar on XRPL and other networks. It has an issuer, reserves behind it and regulatory oversight. $XRP is the native asset of XRPL. It pays network fees, supports account reserves and can be used in liquidity and payment paths. RLUSD is an issued dollar with an issuer behind it, which means it can carry controls like freeze and clawback. Native $XRP can’t be clawed back by an issuer because there isn’t one.
RLUSD growing on XRPL doesn’t mean the same amount of $XRP is being bought. It depends on how the money actually moves. $XRP can be used as a bridge asset or liquidity leg, and every XRPL transaction uses $XRP for fees. Simply issuing more dollars on XRPL doesn’t create the same amount of $XRP demand.
This is where it gets interesting to me. You can have Treasury bills backing a regulated digital dollar, that dollar moving across XRPL, and that same dollar settling against other issued assets or $XRP.
That’s traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure meeting in the same system.
The Fed proposal can still change before the rules are final. Stablecoins are getting pulled deeper into the financial system, and there’s a lot more sitting behind these tokens than most people ever look at. https://x.com/mrcauliman/status/2104242975995998393