Airwallex Founder Sparks Debate on Crypto Stablecoins: Revolution or Dream?

Authors: awxjack; kkone0x; EarningArtist; alexzuo4; BroLeonAus; bonnazhu; 0xHY2049; codeboymadif

Compiled by: Wu Shuo Blockchain Aki_Chen

This article aims to present various viewpoints truthfully. Regardless of support or opposition, it reflects different thoughts in the market regarding the competition between stablecoins and traditional cross-border payments, and does not constitute any investment advice.

Introduction

In June 2025, Jack Zhang, co-founder and CEO of Airwallex, tweeted a series of tweets on social media openly questioning the actual value of stablecoins in B2B settlements in G10 advanced economies, sparking heated discussions in the traditional finance and crypto communities around fee efficiency, financial freedom in emerging markets, stablecoin regulation, and more. On the surface, this controversy is a different view of the technical route of cross-border payment, but at the deeper level, it reflects the collision of ideas between the financial system and the open blockchain system. This article presents Jack Zhang’s core views, combined with Airwallex’s development history, license layout and business model, and analyzes the views of the Twitter community and traditional financial practitioners from both sides. From a multi-dimensional perspective, we will interpret the positioning of stablecoins in the global payment track, Airwallex’s compliance competitive advantages, and the industry structure and interest game behind the dispute between the two parties.

On May 21, 2025, Airwallex completed a $300 million Series F financing, with the company’s valuation reaching $6.2 billion. This round of financing includes $150 million in secondary share transfers, with investors including Square Peg, DST Global, Lone Pine Capital, Blackbird, Airtree, Salesforce Ventures, and several long-established pension funds, with Visa Ventures participating as a strategic investor. After this round of financing, Airwallex’s total funding has exceeded $1.2 billion.

Jack Zhang: Stablecoins cannot surpass the existing cross-border payment system.

Jack Zhang, co-founder and CEO of Airwallex, recently made a series of comments on Twitter questioning the practicality of stablecoins in cross-border payments within mainstream developed economies. Firstly, he pointed out that for B2B cross-border payments between G10 developed countries, stablecoins do not provide advantages in terms of foreign exchange costs and speed. If the payment is sent from USD to EUR, the recipient still needs to convert the stablecoin back to fiat currency, and the “exit” costs are often higher than the costs of directly exchanging through the traditional interbank foreign exchange market. In other words, in this scenario, stablecoins do not actually lower the fees.

He further bluntly stated that he has not seen cryptocurrencies really solve any real problems in the crypto space for 15 years, and although many people have made a fortune by investing in crypto assets, crypto technology itself does not create real value. Even though stablecoin prices are less volatile than fiat currencies, Zhang says he doesn’t see how it can benefit business-to-business transactions on a large scale, unless the transaction involves unpopular “niche” currencies and the liquidity of these coins is relatively limited. He said that compared to the ubiquitous use cases of AI, the current use cases for crypto are limited. And the trading volume of most stablecoins does not include economic activity. Therefore, in his opinion, the frequency and value of stablecoins in the mainstream economy are still low.

Zhang emphasized that on this day in 2025, he still “does not understand how stablecoins can improve cross-border transactions of G10 currencies,” because Airwallex has already been able to achieve real-time, or nearly “zero-cost” cross-border settlement services — according to him, the company’s current cross-border transfer fees are below 0.01%, which can almost be considered “free” and “instant.” He admitted, “You can’t be cheaper than free, and you can’t be faster than real-time.”

The only stablecoin scenario he recognized was the business of Bridge, a company acquired by Stripe, which will provide stablecoin wallet infrastructure for consumers in Latin America or Africa. However, in Zhang’s view, this approach is less about innovation and more like arbitrage exploiting regulatory differences, rather than a truly disruptive new technology.

Airwallex Company Overview and Business Model

In order to understand the context of Jack Zhang’s view, it is necessary to understand Airwallex’s own product model and business logic. Founded in 2015 and headquartered in Singapore, Airwallex Chinese employs nearly 1,500 people in 23 countries. The business covers cross-border transaction collection, payment, foreign exchange and other links, and reshapes the traditional cross-border capital flow process through technical means. The global payment network has covered more than 180 countries or regions, has served more than 100,000 enterprises around the world, and processed more than $100 billion in transactions annually. Co-founded by Jack Zhang and three University of Melbourne alumni. While traditional banks still rely heavily on the SWIFT system established in the 70s to process cross-border remittances, Airwallex aims to leverage the internet and fintech to build a faster, lower-cost cross-border payment network. The company’s founding team set a vision: to solve the long-standing pain points of traditional financial infrastructure and build a new generation of global banking system.

Compliance path covered by multiple country licenses

Unlike many crypto start-ups, which focus on “decentralization”, Airwallex has made compliance licensing and regulatory cooperation its core competencies since its inception. The company currently holds payment licenses or financial business licenses in more than 60 countries and regions around the world, including Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, the European Union, and most states in the United States (including the main payment institution license issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore MAS, the electronic money license of the Dutch Central Bank, and the prepaid card license held in China through joint ventures, etc.). These licenses qualify it to legally operate cross-border payment and foreign exchange businesses in multiple countries, enabling it to establish a regulated, secure and reliable international settlement network. Airwallex’s compliant infrastructure allows it to interface directly with local banking systems, provide enterprise-grade account management and treasury services, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements such as anti-money laundering (KYC/AML).

Global Fund Pool Mechanism and Batch Settlement

Airwallex is a one-stop shop for global financial services, including multi-currency business accounts, international collections and payments, foreign exchange, corporate card and expense management, and online acquiring. Specifically, business users can open a global collection account online in minutes, get local collection account information, open a local account in 60+ markets, and receive payments in 20+ currencies. All incoming funds will be automatically pooled into the business’s multi-currency digital wallet, which supports holding over 23 currencies and converting them on demand.

In order to reduce the cost and delay of cross-border transactions, Airwallex has built a proprietary global banking network with direct partnerships with Standard Chartered, DBS Bank, MAS Licensing Authority in Singapore and ICBC in China. Airwallex maintains local bank accounts and deposits funds in various regulated jurisdictions, forming a distributed “pool of funds”. When a customer initiates a cross-border payment, Airwallex does not transfer money through SWIFT on a case-by-case basis, but uses its pool of funds in the destination country to make the payment directly to the recipient locally; Realize the “localized” transfer of funds, avoiding the high cost and slow speed caused by multiple transfers on the traditional SWIFT network. At the same time, the equivalent amount is deducted from the capital pool of the initiating country, and this “pre-bottoming + pool-to-pool” model bypasses the cumbersome process of traditional cross-border remittance and transfer.

Through these local settlement channels, Airwallex is able to clear funds directly in all major markets, and Airwallex’s API enables businesses to integrate the payment process with their own systems, enabling intelligent selection and automatic routing of payment routes: for example, automatic matching of the best channel (local transfer or SWIFT) based on the destination country, and centralized batch conversion of foreign currencies in the background using real-time exchange rates. In order to reduce exchange rate loss, Airwallex uses AI algorithms to determine the best exchange rate to use at the moment to perform the bulk conversion, balancing cost and time. This automated financial routing ensures the lowest cost and fastest flow of funds around the world, and allows Airwallex to claim “near real-time, near-zero cost” transfers in major currencies.

stakeholders and partners

During its business expansion, Airwallex established partnerships with several industry-leading partners. First, in the card business, it reached a global strategic cooperation with Visa to jointly launch the “Airwallex Borderless Visa Card” — this allows Airwallex to issue multi-currency virtual and physical cards as a BIN sponsor of Visa, and Visa also participated in Airwallex’s subsequent investment financing.

In addition, Airwallex has partnered with international card association Discover to expand access to the UK payments market, enhancing its services in the UK with virtual accounts and local payment channels. In the area of enterprise software, Airwallex has worked closely with Xero, New Zealand’s leading cloud-based accounting software, to establish a long-term strategic partnership to connect Airwallex accounts to Xero books, and to enable bill payment links to be embedded in Xero invoices, speeding up the collection process for SMEs. Through this partnership, payments from Airwallex Everyday Global Accounts can be directly tagged and reconciled, allowing businesses to invoice and receive payments into Airwallex accounts in over 170 currencies, eliminating the need for unnecessary currency conversions.

In the e-commerce space, Airwallex became one of Shopify’s official payment partners, offering the Airwallex payment plugin to Shopify merchants. The plugin allows merchants to accept payments from customers around the world and settle sales directly to their Airwallex Multi-Currency Wallet, avoiding currency conversion losses. Shopify also chose Airwallex as its payment gateway to help merchants reduce the cost of translating cross-border payments and improve cash flow efficiency. In addition, Airwallex has established system integrations with major cross-border e-commerce platforms (such as Amazon, eBay, Lazada, Shopee, etc.), and sellers can link their Airwallex accounts to these platforms to achieve instant payment collection and bulk foreign exchange settlement. In terms of financial management, Airwallex also provides integrations with ERP and accounting software such as Oracle NetSuite and QuickBooks, making it easier for businesses to access Airwallex’s payment capabilities in mainstream financial systems. These extensive ecosystem collaborations have enhanced the stickiness and channel access capabilities of Airwallex’s services, and also reflected its positioning as not only a payment tool, but also a basic financial network embedded in various industry scenarios.

Revenue Model Breakdown

Airwallex, as a fintech platform, primarily generates revenue through transaction fees and exchange rate spreads. Its business model is essentially a “payment-as-a-service” B2B financial infrastructure.

Specifically, foreign exchange conversion income is an important component: Airwallex claims to provide customers with exchange rates close to the mid-market rate, but in reality, it charges a fee of about 0.2%–0.5% as a spread during currency conversion. As a large number of customers conduct multi-currency fund conversions through Airwallex, this accumulation significantly contributes to substantial revenue.

Secondly, international payment processing fees are also a source of income. Although Airwallex implements a free policy for most local transfers, if customers choose the SWIFT route or non-major currency routes, a fixed fee is charged for each cross-border remittance. Additionally, for accounts in certain regions, Airwallex charges a processing fee of 0.3% on incoming funds (from third-party payers). These fees also contribute to income in large transactions.

Thirdly, Airwallex’s merchant acquiring business generates payment processing fee income: when merchants use its payment gateway to collect payments, a fee rate ranging from 2.8% to 4.3% is charged for each transaction, along with a fixed processing fee depending on the card organization and region. This part of the business is similar to payment companies like Stripe, profiting through transaction commissions.

Fourth, although the card issuance business itself is free for customers (no card issuance fee, no international transaction fee), Airwallex, as the issuer of the Visa card, can share the interchange fees from card transactions ( interchange ) and increase other business income by enhancing customer loyalty through corporate cards.

Fifth, as the platform’s accumulated funds scale increases, Airwallex has begun to generate interest income: funds retained by customers in multi-currency wallets bring interest revenue to the company, especially after the global interest rate rise in 2023, this portion of income has grown significantly (Airwallex disclosed that part of its revenue growth comes from customer fund interest).

Finally, Airwallex also charges through value-added services and platform integration, such as customized solutions for large platform clients and higher API call limits, which will adopt a separate pricing negotiation model. Overall, Airwallex’s business model relies on the expansion of transaction volume: attracting customers by providing near-free basic functionalities and then profiting from small fees generated from massive transactions.

Airwallex uses real costs: Pricing and user feedback

According to Airwallex’s publicly available fee policy, the official claim is that Airwallex has no account opening fees, no monthly fees, and no hidden charges. Customers can receive local transfer funds for free in the local accounts opened on the platform.

However, in some specific scenarios, users have found unexpected charges. For example, in the Hong Kong region, Airwallex charges a 0.3% fee for deposits from third-party accounts, but this fee was never clearly communicated, and even its automated customer service once provided incorrect information stating it was “free.”

In terms of international transfer fees, cross-border payments through Airwallex are free in most cases, especially when using its local payment network instead of SWIFT, which does not charge a fee. Only in certain situations (e.g., when the destination is not covered by local channels) does it require SWIFT wire transfer, for which a fixed fee of approximately $15–25 is charged per transaction.

In terms of foreign exchange conversion fees, Airwallex offers highly competitive exchange rates, charging only about 0.2%–0.5% conversion fee based on the market midpoint (the specific markup depends on the currency and region, generally 0.5% for mainstream currencies). This rate is significantly lower than the typical 1%-3% spread common among traditional banks.

In terms of payment processing fees, Airwallex charges merchants a percentage of the transaction amount for online collections: the fee rate for local issued bank card payments is about 2.8% + a fixed $0.30 per transaction, while the fee rate for international card payments is about 4.3% + $0.30; local e-wallets or alternative payment methods such as transfers generally incur a charge of $0.30 plus the cost rate of each payment method.

In terms of corporate cards and expense management, Airwallex offers customers free virtual/physical multi-currency cards with no monthly fees or transaction fees; the accompanying expense reimbursement and control software is currently also free in most regions to enhance user adoption (in some regions like Hong Kong, a fee of HK$40 per card per month was previously charged for advanced reimbursement features, which has been eliminated in subsequent versions).

Overall, Airwallex’s public pricing system highlights a “low fee” selling point: zero cost for basic operations, transaction fees significantly lower than banks and mainstream competitors, and claims to have “no hidden fees.” By pre-positioning liquidity globally and building funding pools, it has achieved localized processing for cross-border transfers. Although this model bypasses the intermediary fees of traditional banks and reduces the marginal cost per transaction, it entails huge fixed operational costs behind the scenes: compliance investments for obtaining licenses in multiple locations, the cost of maintaining thousands of bank accounts, and labor + technology management expenses. Airwallex needs to have sufficient transaction volume to dilute these operational expenses, thus providing services to customers at a low fee while remaining profitable. Therefore, it resembles a business model driven by economies of scale: the more transactions, the lower the unit cost.

However, for any latecomer, replicating such a global network requires huge investments and time. The high entry barriers ensure that pioneers like Airwallex have a competitive advantage in the short term, which also means that their cost structure includes a considerable premium. However, user experience and feedback indicate that despite the attractive official rates, there are some unclear aspects regarding certain fees charged by Airwallex. For example, in Hong Kong accounts, the system backend actually charges a fee of 0.3% for each deposit from non-associated accounts, but previously, Airwallex’s robot customer service provided misleading information of “zero fees,” making it difficult for users to understand the real costs in a timely manner.

On the other hand, emerging on-chain stablecoin payments are taking a different path. For example, using stablecoins like USDC for cross-border transfers on crypto networks can incur on-chain transaction fees of less than $1, and the transfers are instant. However, considering that stablecoins ultimately need to be converted to fiat currency, users often have to cash out through over-the-counter trading or exchanges, during which they may incur spreads and withdrawal fees of 0.2%–0.5%. If unclear regulations lead to increased compliance costs, these implicit fees may far exceed those of traditional financial channels. Overall, the emergence of Airwallex has lowered the traditional cost standards for cross-border payments, providing businesses with a compromise choice between banks and crypto networks.

Twitter community response: Support and skepticism coexist

The recent public questioning of stablecoins by Jack Zhang has sparked heated discussions among technology and finance media, industry research institutions, and social platforms. From the comments of various parties, opinions can be roughly divided into two camps: one side tends to believe that licensed financial networks like Airwallex will still suppress the rise of stablecoins in cross-border payments in the foreseeable future, while the other side believes that stablecoins are expected to gradually replace traditional payment channels in specific scenarios.

Supporting parties: Stablecoins are hard to shake the traditional cross-border payment network.

Viewpoint 1: The efficiency of the existing system has significantly improved.

Many people in the industry agree with Jack Zhang’s view, believing that his criticism is based on real-world data and experience, and is a rational expression. Proponents point out that stablecoins do lack disruptive advantages in the context of mainstream economies such as the G10 that have established efficient payment architectures. The speed and cost of interbank payments have improved dramatically, with instant payment systems in some regions (e.g., SEPA Instant, FedNow, etc.) enabling near-real-time cross-border transfers and near-zero fees. Proponents argue that instead of risking compliance and trying something new, it’s better to make the most of existing systems.

Viewpoint 2: The hidden costs of stablecoins are high and there are tax violations.

alexzuo4 commented that Jack’s viewpoint reflects a realist perspective: starting from the B2B scenario, for markets with a well-established banking infrastructure, the costs and efficiencies of the existing system are already quite high, making stablecoins unlikely to find a place.

EarningArtist also agrees with this view and summarizes the key points of Jack’s remarks: In B2B payment scenarios, the cost of converting stablecoins back to fiat currency (off-ramp cost) is very high, offering no advantages compared to interbank direct remittances provided by platforms like Airwallex. Additionally, stablecoins cannot directly serve tax purposes, and may even assist in evading taxes, leading to compliance issues.

Point Three: Regulatory and Trust Issues

Many supporters question the regulatory legitimacy of stablecoins and the lack of credit backing, stating that “issuing currency is the responsibility of central banks, and private stablecoins operate on the edge of regulation.” They are concerned that widespread use of stablecoins could disrupt the financial order, as ordinary businesses trust payment networks supported by central banks more. The frequent exposure of risks associated with stablecoins (such as the collapse of algorithmic stablecoins and issues with reserve transparency) has also been cited to illustrate their unreliability.

Point Four: The Scenarios for Stablecoins are Limited

Regulatory risk is a primary concern. When companies attempt to transfer funds from heavily regulated jurisdictions to unregulated blockchains and then convert them back to local fiat currency, the entire chain involves legal and compliance uncertainties. Jack does not completely deny stablecoins, but emphasizes their limitations in certain scenarios. For instance, there are indeed emerging market users who turn to USDT due to instability in their local currency, but these markets are often associated with high risks and money laundering concerns, making it difficult for legitimate businesses to participate. These individuals believe that stablecoins serve more for crypto trading and gray areas, and are not closely related to the daily operations of mainstream businesses. The existing system already meets the cross-border needs of most compliant businesses, and stablecoins are not a necessity for the mainstream market.

For regions without bank accounts or with unstable currencies, stablecoins may have their uses, but in mainstream fiat currency markets, efficient solutions have already been provided through complete compliance infrastructure, making it unlikely that stablecoins will replace this network. Overall, supporters believe that the application of stablecoins should focus on marginal areas that are not covered by the existing financial system (such as underdeveloped regions and unbanked populations), rather than attempting to compete directly with the banking system in mature markets. This perspective overall believes that the regulated financial network represented by Airwallex has significantly improved efficiency in cross-border areas, and stablecoins do not have disruptive advantages in comparison; instead, they are difficult for mainstream enterprises to adopt due to regulatory and trust issues.

Opposing party: Stablecoins will catch up in specific scenarios.

Point 1: Stablecoin has lower fees and a better system.

Many advocates in the crypto space have also questioned and disagreed with Jack Zhang’s comments. Supporters of this position believe that the value of stablecoins is not just about saving money, but about providing a better payment and settlement system. Simon Taylor commented that Jack’s understanding of stablecoins is superficial, only focusing on transaction fees while ignoring their fundamental significance. Stablecoins enable peer-to-peer instant settlement and full transparency, eliminating the need for funds to go through multiple accounts and intermediaries, thus inherently reducing friction. Even though they have not completely replaced the old system yet, they are already a better solution in terms of system design. Some users have also pointed out that Airwallex’s services are not without costs or delays.

For example, kkone0x mentions that while Airwallex’s advertised exchange rate rates are extremely low, there are still potential costs such as account opening fees, deposit fees, etc.; In practice, sometimes the funds do not arrive in real time, and some international transfers may even have to wait for several days. These hidden costs and timeliness issues make stablecoins still competitive in certain cross-border transfer scenarios. For example, some netizens also gave an example of Filipino foreign workers using USDT to remit back to China, and the recipient exchanged it for fiat currency through the over-the-counter market locally, and the overall handling fee is still lower than that of traditional remittance methods. This shows that stablecoins have shown the potential to reduce costs and accelerate speed in specific remittance scenarios.

Point Two: A New Paradigm Rather than a Fine-Tuning of the Old Track

There are also those who elevate the matter to the level of the battle between traditional finance and new finance. For example, BroLeonAus, 0xHY2049 and other commentaries believe that Jack’s statement reflects the struggle between traditional financial defenders and new crypto forces on the “settlement right” and “pricing power”. Emerging institutions such as Airwallex are innovative but still part of the existing financial system, while stablecoins and decentralized finance are trying to fundamentally reshape the rules of the game, and the so-called compliance barriers of stablecoins are also barriers to traditional domain systems, and will be gradually dismantled with the explosion of stablecoins.

Others focus on the future technology landscape, arguing that Jack underestimates the long-term value of blockchain payment networks. Xiaoxoca and Bonnazhu et al. believe that stablecoins are still in the growth stage, and in the future, as more and more people use them, network effects will gradually form, and it is possible to build a real on-chain settlement network, bypassing the traditional banking system itself, which is the fundamental reason why it is revolutionary. Although the current exchange of stablecoins for fiat currencies needs to go through over-the-counter channels or bank channels, as more merchants directly accept stablecoins and more financial services are on-chain, stablecoins are expected to form an independent payment cycle and greatly improve the efficiency of cross-border transactions. That is, the whole process from receipt and payment to stored value is completed on the chain and in the stablecoin system, without relying on fiat currency bank channels.

Once such a closed loop matures, it will truly achieve significant cost reduction, enhance efficiency, and impact the status of traditional cross-border payment networks. Especially in regions with weak financial infrastructure, stablecoins will find real demand. For example, the fintech company Juicyway in Africa has completed a total of 1.3 billion dollars in cross-border payment transactions using stablecoins without needing to establish a bank network. In addition, payments between Nigeria and Brazil, which traditionally require multiple intermediary banks and take several days, can be completed in minutes with stablecoins, with transaction fees much lower than bank wire transfers.

The CEO of the fintech startup Squads, Stepan Simkin, pointed out in response on platform X that the true disruption of stablecoins lies in empowering the new generation of startups to build financial services faster and cheaper. He compared the traditional banking system to a “high-cost, high-latency” legacy system, while stablecoins allow entrepreneurs to launch global financial products with smaller teams and shorter cycles, which is an agility that traditional institutions cannot provide.

Point Three: Financial Inclusion and Decentralization

Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, a representative of the crypto industry, spoke out from the perspective of financial sovereignty, criticizing the banking community’s resistance to stablecoins as a maintenance of its monopoly position, he believes that in countries with high inflation and strict regulations, stablecoins give ordinary people financial independence and means to resist policy risks, and its significance is not only payment efficiency, but to reshape the financial power structure, and more than 1 billion people currently lack access to basic financial services, Because the compliance costs and benefits of the existing system make it unintentional to serve the long-tail population, stablecoins combine mobile phones and the Internet to allow people in any corner of the world to directly hold the value of US dollars and make global remittances and transactions. In their view, Jack’s so-called “regulatory arbitrage” is actually a new financial order taking root in places that the traditional system cannot reach

Summary: The Struggle of Systems “or” Market Choice

Looking at the essence of the phenomenon, the battle between the CEO of Airwallex and the supporters of stablecoins is not only a battle of institutional paths, but also a difference in user positioning. The former represents the defense of its own boundaries and the vigilance of emerging things in the compliant financial system; The latter represents the challenge of the open crypto network to traditional monopolies and the persistence of the vision of inclusiveness.

From an institutional perspective, the controversy reflects the fundamental contradiction between centralized finance and decentralized finance. Traditional finance is accustomed to a regulated and central system, emphasizing safety, stability and controllability; The crypto world, on the other hand, advocates a system that has no borders and autonomy is in the hands of users, emphasizing efficiency, transparency, and inclusiveness. When stablecoins emerge as something in between, the former instinctively questions their legitimacy and necessity, while the latter sees them as a tool to subvert the old order. It’s actually a collision of financial paradigms: ledgers move from banks to blockchains, and credit moves from institutional endorsements to algorithms and consensus. At this level, the two sides are arguing for dominance of the future financial landscape. It is foreseeable that as stablecoins gradually enter the right track of compliance (and regulations in various countries have been implemented), this institutional tension will ease, but the inevitable competition will also become increasingly fierce.

From the perspective of the market, this debate is another picture of users and scenarios choosing their own places. The Airwallex model is for global businesses that need compliant, compliant, and efficient cross-border financial services that interface with their existing banking systems. Airwallex met their pain points and was a commercial success. The stablecoin model appeals to marginal markets and individual users who are either underserved by the traditional system or seek alternatives out of distrust of the local currency (an area of severe currency inflation) and dissatisfaction with capital controls. In the eyes of these people, stablecoins are a send-off. Therefore, the relationship between the two is not simply a substitute, but more like showing their magic in different market segments. At least for now, Airwallex and USDT have their own soil to survive.

Perhaps both sides of the argument need some empathy. For traditional financiers, it is important to see the structural changes brought about by technological advances: stablecoins are not just a new tool, they herald a flatter and more open financial architecture, and its long-term impact may be greater than currently imagined. Even if the price of DVD rentals was pushed to the extreme, it still couldn’t compete with the sudden rise of streaming media, because the latter did not change the price, but the model itself. In the same way, even if banks and payment companies reduce cross-border fees to zero, the complexity and exclusivity of the account system still exist, and blockchain thinking provides another set of answers. Conversely, the importance of financial stability and trust should be recognized for the crypto industry: technological superiority alone is not enough, and the large-scale application of financial instruments must address issues such as regulatory compliance and consumer protection. In order for stablecoins to truly become the cornerstone of future finance, they must be integrated into the trust system of human society, rather than self-enclosed in idealistic silos.

CodeboyMadif offers a comprehensive view of this controversy. He divided the discussion into dimensions such as product form, network effect, and scope of application scenarios: under the current framework, Jack Zhang’s judgment on the lack of advantages of stablecoins is valid, because the existing interbank network and compliance platforms such as Airwallex have provided near-optimal solutions in the mainstream market. However, he also acknowledges that there are still uncertainties in the long term – as technology advances and market conditions change, new tools such as stablecoins may find a breakthrough in the future. Therefore, the assessment of the future potential of stablecoins should not be generalized, and there is still room for discussion between short-term pragmatism and long-term vision.

These viewpoints emphasize that although stablecoins are still marginal in mainstream corporate payments today, their growth curve is remarkably bright in specific areas, and in the long term, they have the potential to expand from the marginal market to the mainstream. Especially when future regulatory frameworks gradually become clear, if stablecoins can address trust and compliance issues, they have a complete opportunity to become one of the important tracks for cross-border payments, potentially even replacing some traditional networks.

Link: