#稳定币发展与应用 Seeing the FASB include stablecoins in their 2026 work plan, I am reminded of the cyclical patterns that have played out over the past decade.

Around 2015, people were still debating whether Bitcoin could be considered an asset; during the 2017 bull market, exchanges largely ignored accounting standards; by 2020, when MicroStrategy and Tesla started adding Bitcoin to their balance sheets, the market truly realized that regulation is not just a technical issue but a redistribution of power.

This time, the classification of stablecoins as "cash equivalents" is essentially a repetition of history. A new asset class moves from wild growth to institutional acceptance through a process: first technological breakthroughs, then explosive application, and finally accounting standards catching up. The problem is, when FASB discusses "what can be considered cash," they are actually answering a deeper question—who has the authority to define money.

I noticed a detail in the information: the Trump working group is pushing this behind the scenes, but FASB Chair Jones insists there is no pressure. That wording is quite interesting in itself. When the Bitcoin accounting standards were introduced in 2023, the controversy was nowhere near this intense; now, stablecoins have become political leverage, and everything has changed. History shows that the greatest danger at this point is being swept up in political cycles—because policies can change, but the nature of assets does not.

What truly deserves attention is that statement: without sufficient risk disclosure, investors are unlikely to accept stablecoins as cash equivalents. This is the turning point of the cycle. In the last bull market, how many "stablecoins" collapsed overnight? Luna, FTT, UST… each once "stabilized." Now, to truly attract institutional funds, transparency and risk management must be strengthened.

When the 2027 《Genius Act》 takes effect, if FASB’s standards are properly aligned, stablecoins could shift from gambling tools to productive assets. But if they are just financial products branded as cash, it will be a repeat of the most costly mistakes in history.