#稳定币立法与监管 Seeing Coinbase's head of research and investment say this, I have a somewhat complicated feeling. To be honest, over the past few years of on-chain exploration, I’ve seen too many projects that claim "innovation" to cut leeks, so I’ve always been cautious about grand narratives like "institutional adoption" and "global financial infrastructure."

But the clarification of regulations is indeed an important turning point. During the wild growth period before, vague regulations became a shield for some whales and scammers—no one knew where the boundaries were, giving them room to act arbitrarily. The US pushing for stablecoin regulation and Europe introducing MiCA, although these frameworks are strict, at least provide us with a basic logic: clear rules mean that projects relying on information asymmetry and chaos will find it increasingly difficult to survive.

The key is to distinguish two things: regulatory clarity itself is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean that all projects in the market are now safe. On the contrary, this transitional period might be even more dangerous—some projects will accelerate their exit or change faces, and some new projects will appear under the guise of "compliance." My advice is not to be tempted by the idea that "institutions are all entering," but to instead scrutinize each project’s actual operations, fund flows, and team backgrounds. While the regulatory framework is clearer, the skill of judging people still needs to be practiced.