Harga DogeZila AiDAI

Something shifted over the past six months. A consortium of nine European banks has announced plans for a shared stablecoin targeting a 2026 launch. JPMorgan expanded JPM Coin to support euro settlements. Socit Gnrale launched EURCV with reserves held at BNY Mellon. All of this happened within a six-month window. These are not pilot programs. They are production deployments backed by capital commitments and compliance frameworks. Institutions that spent years dismissing stablecoins as speculative instruments are now building them directly into core financial operations. For anyone running an exchange, this changes the conversation. The question is no longer whether stablecoins belong in traditional finance. It is how quickly infrastructure adapts to what they have already become. What Finally Changed Two barriers fell at the same time, and banks moved fast. First, regulators wrote rules banks already understand. MiCA in Europe and the GENIUS Act in the U.S. established frameworks that mirror existing requirements for money market funds and payment processors. Full reserves held in cash and government securities. Regular third-party attestations. Clear redemption rights. Strict AML controls. Once stablecoins began to look like regulated products banks already operate, compliance stopped being the bottleneck. Second, the use case shifted from trading to payments. In 2025 alone, USDT processed $156 billion in transactions under $1,000, based on on-chain data. These were not exchange transfers or institutional settlements. They were retail payments, remittances, and peer-to-peer transactions happening at scale across borders and time zones. When stablecoins started behaving like money people actually use, rather than instruments shuffled between trading venues, banks could no longer ignore them. Not All Stablecoins Are the Same The market often treats stablecoins as a single category. That assumption is flawed. USDC publishes monthly attestations showing reserves held almost entirely in cash and short-term U.S. Treasuries with regulated custodians. USDT publishes quarterly reports with a broader reserve mix, including Bitcoin and gold. This difference in composition is why SP downgraded USDT, citing reserve-related risk. DAI follows a different model altogether, using over-collateralization with crypto assets locked in smart contracts. This removes reliance on bank custody but introduces protocol execution risk. Algorithmic designs, such as Ethenas USDe, maintain their peg through derivatives rather than direct reserves. These models can generate yield in stable conditions but have shown vulnerability during stress, briefly trading well below peg during market disruptions before recovering. These distinctions are not academic. They determine whether a stablecoin can function as settlement infrastructure or remains primarily a trading instrument. Banks understand this difference, which is why their own issuances follow fully backed, regulated models rather than algorithmic experiments. Why This Matters for Payments and Beyond Stablecoins have already replaced traditional payment rails in corridors where legacy systems fail. Workers sending remittances from the Gulf to Asia pay under one percent in fees using USDT or USDC, compared with four to seven percent through traditional channels. Funds arrive the same day instead of three to five business days later. In countries with currency controls or unstable banking systems, residents hold stablecoins as synthetic dollar accounts for both savings and daily transactions. In several emerging markets, most crypto transaction volume is now stablecoin‑denominated rather than driven by Bitcoin or Ethereum. This is not speculative behavior. It is functional money operating where banking infrastructure cannot. Institutions also use stablecoins as collateral in derivatives markets, as settlement assets between venues, and increasingly as yield instruments when paired with Treasury exposure. They now sit at the intersection of payments, banking, and capital markets in ways no single traditional product replicates. What Exchanges Must Do Exchanges determine which stablecoin models survive and which do not. When SP downgraded USDT, exchanges reassessed risk exposure. When TUSD lost its peg in 2024 after reserve concerns surfaced, exchanges delisted it. These decisions shape the market more directly than regulatory guidance or issuer marketing. I have watched exchanges struggle with this responsibility. The temptation is to list everything and let users decide. That approach fails because most users cannot independently evaluate reserve quality or protocol risk. Exchanges have to do that work. The path forward is straightforward but demanding. Support stablecoins that meet institutional standards for reserves, transparency, and regulation. Educate users on differences between models so risk profiles are clear. Treat stablecoins as infrastructure, not speculative assets. Stablecoin market capitalization now exceeds $300 billion, up from roughly $200 billion eighteen months ago. Active users grew more than 50 percent year over year, and institutions report engagement with stablecoins approaching 90 percent. Banks are paying attention because the infrastructure works and the rules are clear. The question facing exchanges is whether they will support this infrastructure with the rigor it requires or treat it as another speculative product category. At Phemex, our commitment is simple. Transparent reserves over opaque backing. Regulatory clarity over jurisdictional arbitrage. User education over unchecked expansion. The banks building stablecoins already understand what matters. Exchanges need to apply the same standard. The industry can wait for regulation to force better practices, or it can implement them now. We choose the latter. Read the article at BeInCrypto

‎‎Introduction ‎ ‎Stablecoins are one of the most important innovations in DeFi, yet they’re also one of the most misunderstood. ‎ ‎After completing the DeFi Stablecoins 101 course on Mighty Academy, I finally understood how decentralized stablecoins maintain stability without central control. This article breaks down the key lessons, focusing on DAI and MakerDAO, in simple, beginner-friendly terms. ‎ ‎What Are Decentralized Stablecoins? ‎ ‎Decentralized stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value — usually pegged to $1 — while operating entirely on blockchain networks through smart contracts. ‎ ‎They aim to combine the benefits of crypto (borderless, programmable, transparent) with the price stability of traditional currencies. ‎ ‎Why Stablecoins Are Essential in DeFi ‎ ‎Crypto markets are volatile. Stablecoins provide: ‎ ‎A stable medium of exchange ‎ ‎Liquidity for trading ‎ ‎A base currency for lending and borrowing ‎ ‎A store of value during market swings ‎ ‎ ‎Without stablecoins, DeFi cannot function effectively. ‎ ‎Types of Decentralized Stablecoins ‎ ‎The course explained three major models: ‎ ‎1. Crypto-backed ‎ ‎Backed by other cryptocurrencies held as collateral. ‎Example: DAI, backed by assets like ETH through overcollateralization. ‎ ‎2. Algorithmic-backed ‎ ‎Supply is adjusted algorithmically based on market demand, without direct collateral. ‎ ‎3. Asset-backed ‎ ‎Backed by real-world assets such as fiat or commodities held in reserves. ‎ ‎Each model balances decentralization, stability, and risk differently. ‎ ‎Transparency & Smart Contracts ‎ ‎Decentralized stablecoins rely on smart contracts for issuance, redemption, and stability mechanisms. ‎ ‎All transactions are recorded on-chain, allowing anyone to verify: ‎ ‎Collateral backing ‎ ‎Minted supply ‎ ‎System health ‎ ‎ ‎This transparency reduces counterparty risk and increases trust. ‎ ‎MakerDAO and DAI Explained ‎ ‎MakerDAO operates on Ethereum and supports two main tokens: ‎ $DAI ‎ — a stablecoin pegged to $1 ‎ $‎MKR — a governance token ‎ ‎ ‎MakerDAO functions as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), where MKR holders vote on key parameters such as collateral ratios and stability fees. ‎ ‎DAI was launched in November 2019 and is designed to remain stable while being fully decentralized. ‎ ‎How DAI Is Minted (The Pawnshop Analogy) ‎ ‎Minting DAI is similar to using a pawnshop: ‎ ‎Instead of selling your crypto, you lock it as collateral in a Maker Vault and borrow DAI against it. ‎ ‎For example: ‎ ‎Deposit $150 worth of ETH ‎ ‎Mint up to $100 DAI (150% collateral ratio) ‎ ‎ ‎To retrieve your collateral, you repay the DAI plus a stability fee, which acts like interest. ‎ ‎Key Maker Mechanisms ‎ ‎Collateral Ratio: Determines how much DAI can be minted ‎ ‎Stability Fee: Cost of borrowing DAI ‎ ‎DAI Savings Rate (DSR): Earn interest by holding DAI ‎ ‎Liquidation Penalty: Triggered if collateral ratio falls too low ‎ ‎ ‎These mechanisms help keep DAI pegged to $1. ‎ ‎Risks & Black Swan Events ‎ ‎The course also covered extreme scenarios, known as Black Swan events, such as sudden market crashes. ‎ ‎In rare cases, MakerDAO can trigger an Emergency Shutdown, ensuring vault users and DAI holders are compensated fairly based on system assets. ‎ ‎Education around these risks is crucial for responsible DeFi participation.

COINOTAG News reported on December 21 that the Ethereum Community Foundation urged an end to truncating wallet addresses on Platform X, saying full addresses reduce risk and improve crypto security amid escalating USDT phishing concerns. According to the report, the phisher crafted an address sharing the first and last three digits, sending 0.005 USDT to the victim. The attacker then redirected 50 million USDT to a near-identical address, swapped to DAI to avoid freezing, and moved into ETH before washing via Tornado Cash. The episode underscores the risk of UI truncation and urges wallets and explorers to enable full address visibility, preserving verification and reducing phishing risk while maintaining usability. Going forward, readers should verify recipient addresses via trusted on-chain confirmations and avoid copied strings. Industry players must strengthen anti-phishing controls and emphasize transaction verification and address transparency.

BlockBeats News, December 21st, in response to the "50 Million USDT Phishing Attack" incident, the Ethereum Community Foundation posted on Platform X, calling for an end to the practice of truncating addresses with ellipsis (e.g., 0xbaf4b1aF...B6495F8b5). Address information needs to be fully displayed, as hiding the middle part of the address can create unnecessary risks. Currently, some wallets and blockchain explorers provide UI options that also have security issues, which can actually be resolved. Previously reported, the phisher generated an address with the first and last 3 digits the same to transfer 0.005 USDT to the victim's address. Then, when the whale officially transferred the funds or directly copied the address from the most recent transaction record, the entire 50 million USDT was transferred to a similar address generated by the phisher. The phisher quickly exchanged this 50 million USDT for DAI (to prevent freezing), then bought all of it into 16,624 ETH. Subsequently, these ETH were all washed away through Tornado.