在当今全球化的经济格局下，美元霸权一直是国际金融体系中不容忽视的存在。自布雷顿森林体系确立 了美元与黄金挂钩、其他货币与美元挂钩的国际货币制度以来，美元逐渐成为了世界主要储备货币和国 际贸易结算的主导货币。然而，随着数字货币的兴起，这一传统格局正面临前所未有的挑战。那么，美 元霸权最终会败给数字货币吗？这是一个值得深入探讨的问题。 美元霸权的形成有着复杂的历史和经济背景。第二次世界大战后，美国凭借其强大的经济和军事实力， 在国际货币体系中占据了主导地位。布雷顿森林体系的建立，使得美元成为了国际货币体系的核心。尽 管该体系在 20 世纪 70 年代解体，但美元在国际贸易和金融交易中的主导地位却得以延续。美国通过控 制全球石油贸易等大宗商品的定价权，进一步巩固了美元的地位。各国为了进行国际贸易和储备资产， 不得不大量持有美元，这使得美国能够通过货币政策和金融市场对全球经济施加巨大影响。 数字货币的兴起无疑为国际货币体系的变革带来了新的机遇和挑战，但美元霸权的根基依然稳固。要实 现数字货币对美元霸权的取代，还需要克服技术、监管、政治等多方面的障碍。在未来的发展中，数字 货币和美元可能会在国际金融体系中并存，相互竞争 ...

Core Viewpoint - The practicality and trust in digital currencies are questioned in the context of power outages, highlighting the differences between centralized and decentralized digital currencies [1]. Group 1: Centralized Digital Currencies - Centralized digital currencies, such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), are issued and managed by governments or financial institutions and rely on centralized servers and payment systems [3]. - In localized power outages, if the server area maintains power and payment terminals have backup power or offline payment capabilities, centralized digital currencies can still function [3]. - However, in widespread power outages affecting servers, transactions and usage of centralized digital currencies may face significant disruptions due to the inability to verify and record transactions [5]. Group 2: Decentralized Digital Currencies - Decentralized digital currencies, exemplified by Bitcoin, operate on blockchain technology, which is a distributed ledger maintained by numerous nodes [7]. - Theoretically, as long as some nodes remain operational, transactions can continue even in localized power outages, due to the decentralized nature of the blockchain [7]. - Practically, most users' devices may be inoperable due to power loss, and network connectivity could be compromised, hindering access to the blockchain for transactions [7]. - A large-scale power outage could incapacitate many nodes, leading to network congestion or reduced computational power, which would affect transaction confirmation speed and success rates [7]. Group 3: Merchant Acceptance and Practical Challenges - The acceptance of digital currencies by merchants is crucial; even if digital currencies can theoretically be used during power outages, transactions may fail if merchants' payment devices are non-functional or if they lack knowledge of offline usage [9]. - The ability to use digital currencies during power outages is contingent on various factors, including the type of digital currency, the extent of the power outage, backup power availability, and merchant acceptance [9]. Group 4: Future Considerations - Despite existing technical mechanisms, power outages can still pose challenges to the use of digital currencies [11]. - To enhance the practicality and stability of digital currencies, ongoing efforts in technology development, infrastructure improvement, and user education are necessary to ensure secure and convenient payment experiences in extreme conditions [11].

Core Viewpoint - The legitimacy of stablecoins does not equate to their universal acceptance in payment scenarios, as they serve merely as intermediaries for currency payments and are not legal tender [2][3]. Regulatory Environment - Stablecoins have been circulating in markets prior to the enactment of related regulations in the US, Hong Kong, and the EU, and their legal status may change post-regulation [3]. - The introduction of regulations aims to address the risks associated with stablecoins while recognizing their beneficial roles in the economy [3]. Application Scenarios - Stablecoins are not universally applicable; their use is limited to specific scenarios where legal tender is inconvenient or unavailable [9][11]. - Current primary use cases for stablecoins include virtual world payments, cross-border transactions to evade sanctions, and as a hedge against local currency instability [9][10]. Market Dynamics - The market for stablecoins is expected to shift significantly post-legalization, with a focus on mainstream payment scenarios such as retail, domestic, and cross-border trade [11]. - Retail payment scenarios may include large merchants issuing their own stablecoins, but widespread acceptance across different merchants is unlikely [12][13]. Technological Integration - The integration of blockchain technology in financial transactions is essential, but stablecoins may not be the optimal solution for all payment needs [19][20]. - The potential for tokenized financial instruments, such as bills of exchange, may offer more advantages than stablecoins in certain contexts [20]. Future Trends - Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are expected to outperform stablecoins in similar regulatory environments due to their status as legal tender [21]. - The future of stablecoins will depend on the evolution of transaction models, regulatory approaches, and technological advancements [21].

来源：市场资讯 （来源：吴说） 美国众议院共和党人在国防预算法案（H.R. 3838） 中加入了 禁止央行数字货币（CBDC） 的条款。该 修正案禁止美联储以任何名义测试、开发或实施 CBDC，唯一例外是"任何以美元计价、开放、无需许 可、私密，且能完全保障美元硬币和纸币隐私保护的货币"。（Decrypt） ...

Core Insights - The total market capitalization of stablecoins has grown from zero to over $251.7 billion since the inception of Tether (USDT) in 2014, with on-chain transaction volume reaching $5.6 trillion in 2024, establishing stablecoins as a cornerstone of the digital asset space [1] - The development of stablecoins is constrained by the "impossible trinity" dilemma, which highlights the challenge of achieving absolute price stability, extreme capital efficiency, and monetary independence simultaneously [1][5] - Different stablecoin designs reflect varying priorities, impacting their technological paths, risk exposures, and regulatory fates, ultimately shaping their roles in the global financial landscape [1] Group 1: Fiat-Collateralized Stablecoins - Fiat-collateralized stablecoins emerged to address the volatility of cryptocurrencies, providing a reliable "value benchmark" for decentralized finance (DeFi) applications and large-scale commercial settlements [2][3] - The 1:1 collateralization model, where each stablecoin is backed by an equivalent amount of fiat currency, has gained market trust, with USDC and USDT becoming foundational assets in the crypto economy, peaking at over $150 billion in market capitalization in 2022 [3] - The stability of fiat-collateralized stablecoins has been validated through compliance practices, as seen in Circle's USDC, which maintained its peg during the Silicon Valley Bank crisis in March 2023 [3] Group 2: Challenges of Fiat-Collateralized Stablecoins - Despite their success in price stability, fiat-collateralized stablecoins sacrifice capital efficiency and monetary independence, locking significant assets in low-yield reserves [5] - These stablecoins are essentially "digital dollars," relying on the dominance of the US dollar, which can exacerbate currency substitution issues in weaker economies [5] Group 3: Algorithmic Stablecoins - Algorithmic stablecoins emerged as a radical financial experiment aiming for high capital efficiency by using internal economic models instead of external collateral [6] - The collapse of Terra/LUNA serves as a cautionary tale, where the algorithmic mechanism failed under market pressure, leading to a loss of over $40 billion in value [7] - Even decentralized stablecoins like DAI have shifted towards incorporating fiat-collateralized assets to ensure stability, indicating a trend towards lower capital efficiency models [7] Group 4: Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) - The rise of CBDCs represents a response from central banks to the threats posed by private stablecoins, aiming to reclaim monetary sovereignty and enhance payment system efficiency [8][9] - CBDCs prioritize price stability and state monetary sovereignty, sacrificing capital efficiency in the process, which contrasts with the global nature of private stablecoins [9][10] - While CBDCs focus on enhancing financial stability within a centralized framework, they may lack the interoperability and capital efficiency of established global stablecoins [10] Group 5: Future Outlook - The stablecoin ecosystem is likely to evolve into a multi-layered and diversified landscape, with compliant fiat-collateralized stablecoins maintaining a significant role in mainstream finance, while those pursuing monetary independence thrive in DeFi [11] - CBDCs will reshape retail and wholesale payment systems at the national level, reflecting an ongoing tension between stability, efficiency, and sovereignty in the future of currency [11]

Group 1: Core Insights - The global stablecoin market has experienced explosive growth, with a total market value exceeding $250 billion by July 2025, dominated by USD-pegged stablecoins like Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC), which account for over 95% of the market share [1] - Hong Kong's government initiated a public consultation on a stablecoin regulatory framework in December 2023 to enhance its position as a financial hub and explore the potential of stablecoins [1] - The Hong Kong Legislative Council passed the Stablecoin Ordinance in May 2025, which will come into effect on August 1, 2025, integrating stablecoins into a comprehensive financial regulatory system [1][2] Group 2: Regulatory Framework - The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) released guidelines for licensed stablecoin issuers on July 29, 2025, focusing on compliance requirements to maintain financial stability and prevent money laundering risks [1][2] - The Stablecoin Ordinance defines stablecoins as digital assets based on distributed ledger technology, pegged to a single or basket of assets, and recognized as a medium of exchange [2][3] - The regulatory framework aims to balance financial innovation with systemic risk, requiring stablecoin issuers to establish a physical presence in Hong Kong and maintain high liquidity reserves [12][13] Group 3: Market Dynamics - The application scenarios for stablecoins have expanded from being mere trading tools in cryptocurrency markets to becoming core assets in decentralized finance (DeFi), tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), and cross-border payments [2][5] - The transition from purely algorithmic stablecoins to hybrid collateralized models reflects the need for stability and risk management in the market, as seen with the collapse of UST/LUNA [5][11] - Stablecoins are increasingly integrated into traditional financial systems, providing liquidity and low transaction costs, especially in emerging markets facing currency devaluation [5][11] Group 4: Compliance and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Measures - The guidelines for licensed stablecoin issuers include comprehensive AML/CFT frameworks, emphasizing risk assessment, customer due diligence, and transaction monitoring [13][20] - The guidelines require issuers to implement technology solutions for monitoring blockchain transactions and ensuring compliance with the Travel Rule for transparency in transfers [16][17] - Independent audits and assessments are encouraged to enhance compliance capabilities and market competitiveness for stablecoin issuers [19][20]

Core Viewpoint - Hong Kong's "Stablecoin Management Ordinance" marks a significant regulatory step, establishing it as the first major international financial center in Asia to comprehensively regulate the stablecoin market, amidst growing interest from major tech companies like JD.com and Ant Group in enhancing cross-border payment efficiency through stablecoins [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The new regulation requires all stablecoin transactions to occur through regulated exchanges, prohibiting direct peer-to-peer transfers between wallets, and mandates strict KYC (Know Your Customer) and KYT (Know Your Transaction) compliance for every transaction [2][21]. - The regulatory approach aims to prevent the influx of gray capital, ensuring that stablecoin development adheres to compliance and safety standards, even if it slows initial progress [2][31]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - Major tech companies are entering the Hong Kong stablecoin market primarily to improve cross-border payment efficiency and to capitalize on the potential for stable revenue generation through interest on deposited funds [18][17]. - The challenge for new stablecoins, particularly those pegged to the Hong Kong dollar, lies in overcoming the established dominance of USDT and USDC, which have created a robust "on-chain dollar" ecosystem [19][20]. Group 3: Systemic Risks and Opportunities - The essence of stablecoins as financial tools lies in their ability to connect on-chain and off-chain economies, but their stability is fundamentally dependent on the quality of the underlying assets [8][9]. - The emergence of stablecoins is reshaping the international monetary system, allowing tech companies to participate in currency creation, which poses significant challenges to traditional financial frameworks [3][39]. Group 4: Future Trends - There is potential for stablecoins backed by other real-world assets (RWA) such as gold or commodities to gain traction, especially as market confidence in the dollar fluctuates [25][24]. - The regulatory landscape is evolving, with different regions adopting varying approaches; for instance, the EU is likely to push for euro-backed stablecoins while the US maintains a more permissive stance [22][28].

Core Insights - Stablecoins are evolving from a niche concept in the cryptocurrency space to a key player in reshaping international payment systems and financial landscapes [1] - The recent regulatory developments in Hong Kong and the United States signify a new phase for the global stablecoin market, with implications for compliance and operational frameworks [10] Regulatory Frameworks - Hong Kong's Financial Management Authority has established a rigorous evaluation system for stablecoin license applications, emphasizing the practicality and sustainability of stablecoin projects [3] - The regulatory framework in Hong Kong allows for flexibility in the definition of stablecoins, potentially accommodating various asset-backed forms in the future [4] - The U.S. legislation supports the development of dollar-backed stablecoins while limiting the advancement of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), aiming to maintain the dollar's dominance in the digital economy [6][9] Market Dynamics - The relationship between CBDCs and stablecoins is characterized by competition and coexistence, with each serving different market needs [6] - Cross-border payment capabilities are a core application for stablecoins, prompting regulatory bodies in Hong Kong and other jurisdictions to explore mutual recognition of licenses and regulatory cooperation [7] - Hong Kong's regulatory measures aim to protect consumers by restricting the issuance of stablecoins to licensed entities, thereby preventing unregulated foreign stablecoins from entering the market [8] Comparative Analysis - The regulatory models in Hong Kong and the U.S. differ significantly, with Hong Kong adopting a centralized and efficient approach, while the U.S. employs a complex multi-layered regulatory system [9] - Hong Kong prioritizes investor protection and aims to create a transparent and secure market environment, contrasting with the U.S. focus on reinforcing the dollar's position in the global digital payment system [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The passage discusses the recent approval of three key cryptocurrency bills by the U.S. House of Representatives, which are expected to significantly impact capital formation and drive innovation in blockchain technology, thereby reshaping the global digital asset competitive landscape [1][2]. Group 1: Legislative Overview - The week of July 2025 was designated as "Cryptocurrency Week" by the U.S. legislative body, during which three core digital asset bills were submitted for review [2]. - The "GENIUS Act" was passed with overwhelming support, establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins, which will accelerate their application in payment and settlement scenarios [2]. - The "CLARITY Act" and the "Anti-CBDC Surveillance National Act" faced legislative hurdles but were ultimately approved and sent to the Senate for further consideration [2]. Group 2: Regulatory Framework - The three bills together form a comprehensive regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency industry in the U.S., aiming to enhance the dollar's influence in the global digital currency process [2]. - The regulatory matrix delineates clear responsibilities: the "GENIUS Act" focuses on stablecoin regulation, while the "CLARITY Act" introduces a technical protocol audit framework for blockchain networks [2]. - The "Anti-CBDC Surveillance National Act" prohibits the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), ensuring the innovation and competitive vitality of stablecoins [2]. Group 3: CLARITY Act Details - The "CLARITY Act" establishes a framework for regulatory jurisdiction over digital assets, distinguishing between "digital asset securities" (regulated by the SEC) and "digital commodities" (regulated by the CFTC) [5]. - It introduces a "decentralization maturity assessment system" that adjusts regulatory intensity based on the governance structure's decentralization level [5]. - This act aims to fill the regulatory gap in blockchain technology in the U.S. and establish a compliance foundation for stablecoin infrastructure [5]. Group 4: Anti-CBDC Surveillance National Act - The "Anti-CBDC Surveillance National Act" anchors the U.S. strategic direction in cryptocurrency regulation, emphasizing the protection of private sector innovation and market autonomy [7]. - It explicitly prohibits the Federal Reserve from directly issuing or managing retail CBDCs, requiring congressional authorization for any government token projects [7]. - The act aims to mitigate the risks associated with programmable currencies, thereby establishing a legal boundary for citizens' financial privacy [7].

Regulatory Framework - The three major cryptocurrency bills in the U.S. Congress—CLARITY Act, GENIUS Act, and Anti-CBDC Act—form a coherent regulatory framework for Web3 development[1] - CLARITY Act aims to clearly categorize digital assets as securities, commodities, or stablecoins, delineating the roles of the SEC and CFTC[2] - GENIUS Act establishes a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins, ensuring compliance and safety in their issuance and reserves[2] Market Impact - The combined effect of these bills creates a complex regulatory environment that fosters innovation while reducing traditional securities regulation constraints[3] - The Anti-CBDC Act prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs directly to individuals, protecting the decentralized cryptocurrency market from state competition[3] - The regulatory clarity provided by the CLARITY Act is expected to reduce legal uncertainties, thereby promoting market growth and investor participation[3] Innovation and Challenges - The CLARITY Act is designed to lower compliance burdens for decentralized projects, potentially enhancing the development of crypto derivatives[2] - The GENIUS Act aims to enhance trust in stablecoins, facilitating their use in DeFi and payment applications[2] - Concerns exist regarding the potential for dual regulation and the impact of over-banking on non-custodial stablecoin innovation[2]