#稳定币竞争与发展 Rethinking the relationship between stablecoins and banks reveals that the previous narrative framework might have been off.

Cornell's research data is straightforward: the market capitalization of stablecoins has surged, but bank deposits have not declined as expected. What does this indicate? Deposit stickiness is far stronger than we imagined. Direct salary payments, mortgage payments, credit card bills—the convenience of this binding system is enough to offset the few basis points of additional yield from stablecoins. Most users won't shift their financial center from banks to digital wallets just for slightly higher interest.

But the real change lies in the pressure of competition itself. The existence of stablecoins is enough to serve as a disciplinary constraint—forcing banks to shift from relying on "inertia locking" to improving interest rates and efficiency. This is not a life-and-death battle but a forced upgrade.

The significance of the GENIUS Act lies in establishing a regulatory framework. Clear reserve requirements and liquidity management standards essentially bring what was in the gray area into the regulatory boundary. What the Federal Reserve and OCC need to do next is to turn these principles into actionable rules—this is not about inventing new financial physics but applying existing engineering to new forms.

In the long run, the greatest efficiency dividend lies in "atomic-level settlement." Cross-border payments are currently trapped in the correspondent banking system for days; stablecoins can compress this into final on-chain transactions. The liquidity and cost improvements released from this are significant for the entire financial system.

The real opportunity for banks is not resistance but repricing—shifting from profiting through "delay" to charging based on "speed."