北京的大门敞开着，迎接保尔森的是温和有礼的对话，但中国立场已发生根本性转变：美国这场金融危机，中国不会再出手相救。 这并非突发事件，而是 美国长期经济失衡的必然结果。36.2万亿美元的巨额债务如同大山压顶，6%以上的赤字率还在持续攀升。特朗普政府一边夸耀股市"历史新高"，一边挥舞关 税大棒，同时实施大规模减税政策——一场典型的"借钱狂欢"，却试图让全球共同承担后果。 信用崩溃的警报早已拉响：穆迪率先下调美国评级，高盛更 直言美债已沦为"高风险货币游戏"。 资金加速外逃，中日两国作为美债的主要持有者，减持速度之快前所未有。 保尔森此行注定无法复制2008年的"成功"。中国回应以"保持必要沟通"的平稳姿态，没有盛情款待，更无重量级官方背书，其象征意义远大于实际效果。华 尔街内部或许仍有人抱持旧日幻想，但中国早已看清真相：美国财政失衡的根源在于其国内矛盾的外溢，并非他国能够通过增持债券来解决。 美国赖以支撑其全球霸权的三大支柱——军事实力、制度信用和美元资产的全球信任——正相继崩塌。强大的军事力量已无法再为美元提供坚不可摧的底层 保障；财政失控和反复无常的政策，使所谓的"制度信用"沦为笑柄；而华盛顿自身的政策，更是 ...

Core Viewpoint - Stablecoins have evolved from an emerging concept to a key force reshaping the financial landscape, leading to intensified global competition and diverse regulatory approaches across countries [2] Regulatory Landscape - The global regulatory landscape for stablecoins is characterized by significant diversity, with some countries banning their use while others embrace them as part of a regulatory sandbox [2] - The U.S. Senate passed the "Genius Act" on June 17, 2025, promoting compliance for USD stablecoins to reinforce dollar dominance and alleviate U.S. debt crises [2] - Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed the "Stablecoin Bill" on May 21, 2025, to regulate stablecoins within a structured framework [2] Key Regulatory Principles - Emphasis on 1:1 reserves and high liquidity, requiring stablecoin issuers to hold sufficient, high-quality, and liquid reserve assets to ensure value stability and redemption capability [4] - Strengthened prudential regulation of issuers, imposing stricter licensing, capital, governance, and risk management requirements [5][6] - Enhanced transparency and audit requirements, mandating regular disclosure of reserve asset composition and independent audits [7][8] - Focus on consumer protection and anti-money laundering/anti-terrorism financing obligations, placing user asset safety and rights at the core of regulation [9][10] - Cautious stance towards specific types of stablecoins, such as algorithmic and endogenous collateralized stablecoins, with some jurisdictions considering outright bans [11] Regional Regulatory Models - The U.S. employs a dual-track regulatory model, with a national focus on reinforcing dollar supremacy through mandatory dollar asset reserves [13] - The EU's MiCA establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins, effective from June 30, 2024, requiring issuers to meet strict obligations [18] - Hong Kong's regulatory framework emphasizes principle-based legislation followed by detailed enforcement, allowing for dynamic adjustments [19] - Singapore's regulatory approach features "labeling" for high-standard stablecoins, with strict asset reserve requirements [23] - Japan adopts a cautious innovation model, allowing trust companies to issue stablecoins while gradually relaxing reserve asset management requirements [24] - The UK follows the principle of "same risk, same regulatory outcome," ensuring stablecoins in systemic payment systems are subject to equivalent standards as commercial banks [26] Global Trends - The global trend towards stablecoin regulation has accelerated since 2025, with various countries implementing or planning regulatory frameworks [27]

前言： 美国通过了"大而美"法案，听起来气势十足，但这事真的"美"吗？背后可能隐藏着一场金融海啸。这不只是美国的事，全世界的钱包都可能被牵连。 特朗普的大手笔，到底有多大？ 最近，美国总统特朗普签署了一项法案，名字听起来挺喜感的——"大而美"。 可这名字不只是夸张，它的内容也确实够"夸张"。 这部法案最核心的一条，就是把美国债务上限直接提高了 5万亿美元。 什么意思？简单说，美国又多了5万亿的"借钱额度"。 原本众议院提的是增加4万亿，结果参议院一拍脑门，干脆多加1万亿，直接冲上41万亿总额。 美国银行的首席投资官哈特内特直接给出了警告： 按照这个节奏，到2028年美债就可能飙到 43万亿，到2032年，超过 50万亿 都不是梦。 还没完。哈特内特还说： 这中间很可能再来一波经济衰退，或者一次新疫情，到时候财政刺激一上，额外还得再加 10万亿。 美国要继续借钱，市场要承压 现在的问题是—— 财政部在猛抽，美联储却没放，甚至还在偷偷抽。 为什么这么说？ 问题来了，美国这么借钱，有底气吗？答案是：现在还真没有。 从今年开始，美国财政部其实就一直在"省着用钱"。 因为之前国会卡住了债务上限，财政部就只能靠TGA账户 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the recent increase in the US debt ceiling by $5 trillion, while alleviating immediate debt crisis concerns, may lead to short-term supply shocks in US Treasury bonds, resulting in upward pressure on interest rates [1][3][4] Group 2 - The "Great and Beautiful" Act passed by the US Congress aims to reduce taxes by $4 trillion and cut spending by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which is expected to create a historical high in bond supply that the market needs to absorb [1][2] - Historical context shows that the US has raised the debt ceiling over seventy times since its establishment in 1917, indicating that the debt crisis is more a product of political maneuvering rather than a genuine sovereign credit risk [2][4] - The increase in the debt ceiling temporarily removes the risk of default, but it also leads to significant supply shocks in the Treasury market, with expectations of rising interest rates, particularly if the 10-year Treasury yield approaches 4.5% [3][4] - The ongoing trend of increasing fiscal deficits and debt expansion could accumulate risks that may spill over into the global financial market if not addressed fundamentally [4]

Group 1 - The "Big and Beautiful" Act passed in the U.S. Congress will increase the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, leading to a significant surge in U.S. Treasury bond issuance, creating historical supply challenges for the market [3] - The act proposes a $4 trillion tax cut and a reduction of at least $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will result in an additional $2.8 trillion deficit over the same period [3][4] - Historical data shows that the U.S. has raised the debt ceiling over seventy times since its establishment in 1917, indicating that the so-called "debt crisis" is primarily a political tool rather than a genuine sovereign credit risk [4][6] Group 2 - The recent increase in the debt ceiling alleviates short-term default risks but introduces significant supply-side shocks to the Treasury market, with upward pressure on short-term Treasury yields [5] - The upcoming peak in Treasury maturities in 2025, combined with a growing fiscal deficit, will necessitate increased Treasury issuance, which is expected to drive up yields, particularly in the context of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet reduction [5][6] - The long-term risks associated with deferred debt issues include rising interest rates, concerns over fiscal sustainability, and increased market risk premiums, which could spill over into the global financial market [6] Group 3 - The electricity market is experiencing upward pressure on prices, with expectations that electricity price increases may outpace coal price rises due to extreme weather conditions and increased demand for thermal power generation [11][12] - The national electricity load reached a historical high of 1.465 billion kilowatts, with significant contributions from air conditioning loads, indicating a robust demand environment [12] - The introduction of new high-voltage direct current projects aims to enhance electricity supply and optimize pricing structures, reflecting a strategic shift in energy management [13]

Group 1 - The core issue is a global sell-off of U.S. Treasury bonds, with China liquidating $80 billion and Japan's central bank selling $20.6 billion, indicating a significant loss of confidence in U.S. debt [1][6] - The U.S. national debt has reached $36 trillion, with daily increases of $5.5 billion, yet U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen downplays the situation, suggesting it is not a major problem [1][6] - The dominance of the U.S. dollar is highlighted, with 59% of global foreign exchange reserves and 40% of international trade conducted in dollars, allowing the U.S. to maintain its financial position despite high debt levels [3][5] Group 2 - The U.S. Treasury market sees daily trading volumes exceeding $600 billion, making it a safe haven during crises, despite significant sell-offs by countries like China and Japan [3][6] - The manipulation of interest rates, transitioning from LIBOR to SOFR, has placed global borrowing costs under U.S. control, further entrenching the dollar's dominance [3][5] - The U.S. is facing a looming fiscal crisis, with interest payments on national debt projected to reach $881 billion in 2024, surpassing military spending, and expected to rise to $1.8 trillion by 2035 [6][7] Group 3 - The depreciation of the dollar is seen as a strategy for the U.S. to manage its debt, with projections indicating a drop in the dollar index from 105 to 85 between 2023 and 2025, leading to significant losses for countries holding U.S. debt [5][6] - The shift towards de-dollarization is accelerating, with BRICS nations increasingly using local currencies for trade, and significant gold purchases by central banks indicating a move away from dollar reliance [7]

Group 1 - The recent tax reform in the U.S. appears to benefit corporations and the wealthy, with corporate tax rates reduced from 35% to 20%, while low-income groups face increased financial pressure due to cuts in medical assistance and food aid [3] - The tax reform is projected to exacerbate wealth inequality, with the top 1% of earners expected to receive over $1 trillion in tax cuts, while the poorest will see their tax burden increase by 4% over the next decade [3] - The average tuition for private high schools in the U.S. has surpassed $60,000, indicating that the tax savings for middle-class families may not be sufficient to cover rising educational costs [3] Group 2 - Trump's trade policies, including the global tariff war, are criticized for potentially leading the U.S. into a "lose-lose" situation, with trade deficits reaching a historical high of $71.5 billion by May 2025 [5] - Prominent figures, including former presidents and business leaders, have opposed Trump's economic policies, indicating a divide even within the Republican Party regarding fiscal strategies [5] - The Federal Reserve has consistently rejected Trump's requests for interest rate cuts, maintaining rates despite inflation remaining at 2.8%, highlighting concerns over the national debt and its implications for economic stability [7]

Group 1 - The passage of Trump's "Big and Beautiful" bill is almost inevitable, as failure to pass it would lead to a halt in U.S. government operations and a collapse of the dollar and U.S. Treasury credit system [1] - Both the Democratic and Republican parties are attempting to leverage the bill for personal interests despite their public disagreements [1] - The current situation indicates a failure in efforts to control carbon emissions and a stagnation in the development of alternative energy, exacerbating wealth inequality in the U.S. [1] Group 2 - The current government faces two urgent issues: maintaining operational funding through continued issuance of Treasury bonds and addressing the credibility of the dollar and U.S. debt [3] - Trump's strategies include raising the debt ceiling, using ambiguous statements to create market volatility, and issuing a dollar stablecoin linked to U.S. debt to alleviate the debt crisis [5] - The potential outcomes of these strategies could determine whether the U.S. remains a leading power or declines to a second or third-tier status [7]

Core Viewpoint - Trump is exerting pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to 1%-2% by highlighting the burden of high interest costs on the federal government and threatening to undermine the Fed's independence if his demands are not met [1][5]. Group 1: Pressure Tactics - Public Shaming and Attacks: Trump emphasizes that a 1% increase in interest rates results in an additional $200 billion in annual interest payments for the federal government, demanding a reduction in rates [1]. - Personal Attacks on Fed Officials: Trump labels Powell as "Mr. Too Late," accusing him of incompetence and threatening to appoint a successor who supports rate cuts if Powell resigns [1]. Group 2: Data Manipulation Allegations - Questioning Data Credibility: Following a negative ADP employment report, Trump suggests that the subsequent strong non-farm payroll data is "untrustworthy," implying the Fed is using it to avoid rate cuts [2]. - Pushing for Data Revisions: Trump's team is reportedly manipulating initial employment data to create a rationale for rate cuts, exploiting the rules around data revisions [3]. Group 3: Personnel and Institutional Changes - Nominating Allies to the Fed: Trump is preemptively nominating officials like Bowman, who support rate cuts, to influence the Fed's decision-making ahead of the July meeting [4]. - Threatening Fed Independence: Trump claims he will push for legislation to weaken the Fed's decision-making power if rates are not cut by September [5]. Group 4: Market Expectations and Fed Signals - Market Expectation Adjustments: Despite strong non-farm data, Trump's pressure has led to a 75%-80% probability of a rate cut in September, down from 98% prior to the data release [6]. - Compromise Signals from the Fed: Powell's comments suggest that without tariff policies, a rate cut would have already occurred, indicating potential action in September [6]. Group 5: Political and Economic Implications - Urgency for Rate Cuts: Trump must secure a rate cut by the end of September to avoid funding risks for the "Great American Plan," which could exacerbate the U.S. debt crisis [8].

Group 1 - The U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive tax and spending bill with a vote of 51 to 50, highlighting significant partisan divisions [3][4] - Three Republican senators voted against the bill, which was ultimately passed by Vice President Vance's tie-breaking vote [3][4] - The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, aims to pass the bill before the July 4 deadline set by Trump [5] Group 2 - Elon Musk criticized the "big and beautiful" bill, threatening to establish a new political party if it passes, claiming it represents a single-party system [6][9] - Musk's criticism is partly due to the bill's proposal to eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles, which could significantly impact Tesla's sales and revenue [12][17] - The bill is expected to increase federal debt significantly, with estimates suggesting an average annual increase of $55 billion in debt interest payments over the next decade [18] Group 3 - The bill disproportionately benefits the wealthiest 1% while cutting social welfare programs for low-income families, leading to a projected income decrease of nearly 4% for the poorest households [21] - Trump's pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to 1% is seen as an attempt to alleviate the government's debt burden and shift responsibility for economic issues onto the Fed [20][31]