#加密货币监管立法 I've read quite a bit over the past few days about the "GENIUS Act" and stablecoins, and there's a detail I want to share with everyone.

Many people have worried that stablecoins could deplete bank deposits, and the logic sounds convincing—if my money can be transferred at any time within 24 hours and can earn better returns, why keep it in a traditional account? However, Cornell University's latest research indicates that reality isn't so dramatic. In fact, despite the rapid growth in stablecoin market capitalization, no significant large-scale deposit outflows have been observed.

The underlying reason is actually quite simple—binding effects. Mortgages, credit cards, and direct salary deposits are all in one account, and this convenience creates a strong attachment that exceeds our expectations. Many people don't genuinely want to keep their money in a checking account; it's just a necessary central hub.

But what's even more interesting is that the emergence of stablecoins itself has become a form of constraint. Banks are now compelled to offer more competitive interest rates and more efficient services. This isn't a threat; rather, it acts as a catalyst for the financial system's self-upgrade.

My suggestion is that instead of worrying about whether stablecoins will replace banks, consider how stablecoins, with improved policies, can optimize your asset allocation. Regulatory requirements like full reserve backing and mandatory redemption rights are building a safety barrier for this new entity. True long-term gains often come from those willing to understand the new rules rather than blindly embracing or completely resisting them.