#稳定币发展与应用 The new moves in stablecoins are worth paying close attention to, but don't rush to chase the trend.

Ethena's JupUSD launching on Solana and Zama implementing fully homomorphic encryption to realize privacy stablecoins look quite lively. But I have to be honest—these technological innovations require a calm and thorough analysis of the underlying logic.

The white-label stablecoin model essentially decentralizes issuance rights. Jupiter aims to gradually replace its $500 million USDC holdings with JupUSD. That sounds promising, but the question is: who maintains the creditworthiness of this stablecoin? If Jupiter itself encounters issues, the entire system could be exposed. I've seen too many projects fail because of overconfidence in "our innovative solution."

Looking at Zama, FHE technology is indeed an ideal application of cryptography, with a per-transaction cost of about $0.13, which is acceptable. But there's a trap—privacy stablecoins sound perfect, yet they significantly increase regulatory scrutiny risks. Will mainstream institutions truly embrace this? That remains to be seen.

In plain terms, expanding the stablecoin sector doesn't mean all projects are worth participating in. The key questions are: Is the collateral mechanism behind it stable? Does the team or platform have any past issues? Is the exit liquidity sufficient?

Many projects are now pushing "innovative stablecoins," but ultimately, they fail because of the conflict between application scenarios and trust foundations. Don't be dazzled by new concepts; only those who endure over time will see who truly goes far.