Global acceptance of BTC and ETH far exceeds that of stablecoins, primarily due to differences in regulatory approaches. Bitcoin and Ethereum are regarded as commodity assets, and large institutions have heavily entered through compliant channels like ETFs, making this path relatively smooth. In contrast, the situation for stablecoins is entirely different—so far, only the United States has established a legislative regulatory framework, while major markets like Japan and the EU remain cautious. Major Japanese exchanges even generally do not support stablecoin trading.

Why is this? Simply put, stablecoins are essentially shadow banking activities, which inherently carry higher financial risks than decentralized crypto assets. Ordinary cryptocurrencies are priced based on market confidence; their price fluctuations help regulators understand liquidity and risk. But stablecoins are pegged at $1, regardless of market volatility. If the underlying assets encounter problems or a run occurs, it could instantly create a hole worth hundreds of billions. Moreover, the financial transparency and corporate governance of issuers have always been major issues.

From a developmental perspective, some countries’ approaches are indeed somewhat backwards—pushing stablecoins before thoroughly understanding the ecosystem of the underlying assets. It’s like a child trying to run before learning to walk. The US’s approach is to first establish a BTC ETF to lay the foundation, leverage the US dollar reserve status to understand crypto regulation, and then consider stablecoins. In contrast, some places only hype stablecoins without supporting mainstream assets, which is missing the point altogether.

Remember one thing: stablecoins are ultimately just tools; they should serve core assets like BTC and ETH. Without genuine trading assets backing them, stablecoins are castles in the air—appearing convenient but actually fragile.