Odaily Exclusive Interview with Stable CEO: The Stablecoin Chain Race Accelerates—What Makes Stable Stronger than Plasma?

Stablecoins are completing a narrative leap from being a trading medium in the crypto market to becoming a core component of global payment infrastructure.

In 2024, the on-chain transaction volume of stablecoins reached $27.6 trillion, surpassing the total transaction volume of Visa and Mastercard for the first time. By the first half of 2025, this figure had climbed to $8.9 trillion. In cross-border payments and supply chain settlements, the proportion of enterprises using stablecoins grew by about 25% in 2024.

It is against this backdrop that the stablecoin chain sector saw explosive growth in 2025.

In October, Tempo, a payment public chain jointly incubated by Stripe and Paradigm, successfully recruited Ethereum core developer Dankrad Feist. The addition of this top developer, who has been deeply involved in Ethereum core research since 2018 and has made outstanding contributions to scaling technologies such as Danksharding, marks an unprecedented determination by traditional payment giants to enter the stablecoin infrastructure field.

The “first stablecoin stock” Circle has also been very active. In its Q2 2025 financial report, Circle announced its latest layout: a dedicated stablecoin Layer 1 public chain called Arc. Arc is designed specifically for stablecoin finance and asset tokenization, is EVM-compatible, and focuses on global payments, foreign exchange, and capital markets. Its goal is to solve issues such as transaction fee volatility, settlement uncertainty, and lack of privacy encountered by existing public chains in enterprise applications.

In this race, Plasma, backed by Tether, is undoubtedly the brightest star. With its hot pre-deposit campaign and impressive market performance after TGE, Plasma quickly became the market focus. Within less than two weeks after the mainnet launch, its TVL exceeded $6.3 billion, once surpassing base to rank sixth among public chains by TVL. Users participating in the pre-deposit were allocated XPL tokens worth at least about $8,390. From token performance to ecosystem heat, Plasma has dominated almost all discussions about “stablecoin chains.”

As another stablecoin L1 project deeply tied to Tether, Stable is also positioned as payment infrastructure, but has maintained a relatively low profile amid the market buzz. At 9:10 am (UTC+8) on October 24, Stable also announced the launch of its pre-deposit campaign, with the deposit quota filled within 2 minutes.

While all eyes are on Plasma, what exactly is Stable doing? What is the division of labor logic between it and Plasma? Why, despite both being backed by Tether, do the two chains choose such different market strategies? How will Stable break through in the competition for stablecoin payment infrastructure?

Recently, BlockBeats had an in-depth conversation with Stable CEO Brian Mehler, discussing its technical architecture choices, ecosystem cooperation strategies, synergy with Tether, responses to global regulatory trends, and the actual application logic of stablecoins on the enterprise side, in an attempt to restore the real picture of this “undervalued” stablecoin chain. The following is the original dialogue:

Competition with Plasma and Other Stablecoin Chains

BlockBeats: Before we start, could you give us a brief self-introduction? Why did you decide to join the Stable team?

Brian Mehler: My name is Brian Mehler, and I am the CEO of Stable. I come from the traditional financial industry. In 2018, I had the privilege of joining the Block.One team and participated in the launch of the EOS fund. This was an ecosystem fund with a total size of $1 billion, aimed at supporting the development of the EOS blockchain ecosystem. Since then, I have managed several venture capital funds and also provided asset management services for some individual investors.

Earlier this year, I was invited to join the Stable team. The founding team of Stable is a group of very experienced entrepreneurs who have done many projects before. I was fortunate to have worked with them in some roles in the past. They knew very clearly that the team needed an “executor,” someone who could truly realize the vision of “on-chaining traditional finance.” My experience in venture capital and corporate operations happened to complement theirs. So when they invited me to join, I felt it was a very natural decision.

BlockBeats: Let’s talk about the popular “free transfer” feature of stablecoin public chains. Stable offers gas-free USDT0 peer-to-peer transfers, while also using gasUSDT as its native gas token. Is this free transfer feature mainly to cope with competition from similar products like Plasma?

Brian Mehler: The launch of gas-free peer-to-peer transfer by Stable is actually part of our core mission. We hope that through this feature, we can truly push stablecoins into the mainstream. This is not only an improvement in user experience for individuals, but also greatly helps enterprises in fund management and payment processing.

In the past, the price volatility of gas tokens has always been a pain point for users when trading on-chain. We hope to eliminate this barrier and make the Stable chain and our stablecoins more suitable for business scenarios and more easily accepted by ordinary users. To this end, we are also actively seeking partners to promote this goal together.

Gas fees generated by stablecoin transactions account for 98.7% of the total gas fees on the Tron network
Source: token terminal

We are not passively responding to market competition, but actively proposing solutions. For example, we chose USDT as the native gas token on the chain, which is a major differentiator and can bring real value to users.

We are building a Stable chain payment network that will redefine the way funds flow and solve various obstacles that currently exist. At present, many obstacles come from the volatility of gas tokens. In the future, these problems will no longer exist. For example, if you want to transfer a small amount of money to your family or make a cross-border remittance to express thanks, you no longer have to worry: “Do I have to pay an extra 10% fee?” We are working hard to eliminate these concerns and hope to make these payment behaviors as simple as sending a message.

So I think this feature is not only suitable for ordinary consumers, but also very suitable for enterprises’ needs in cross-border payments and fund flows.

In addition, from the perspective of chain operation, although USDT is the native gas token on the Stable chain, it is actually denominated in the form of “gasUSDT.” This design allows us to build a unified system in which transactions and fees are settled in USDT and implemented through the account abstraction layer. This means that users do not need to worry about different types of balances when using it, and only need to see a unified number or transaction amount.

This mechanism brings a “gas-free” user experience. For users, the underlying technical details are completely hidden, and no manual conversion or operation is required. Therefore, when making peer-to-peer stablecoin transfers on the Stable chain, the price always remains the same, and the process is efficient and seamless.

BlockBeats: Not long ago, after the launch of Plasma’s native token XPL, the market responded enthusiastically, with its valuation quickly soaring to several billions of dollars, and early investors earning more than 220 times their investment. At the same time, the Stable team has remained silent, and some say you lost to Plasma in Go-To-Market. How do you view this opinion?

Brian Mehler: I think stablecoins are a very hot track right now, and it doesn’t look like it will cool down in the short term. I think we all saw the news last week that the asset management scale of stablecoins is reaching new milestones. We are very excited about this growth trend, not only because of the push from the “Genius Act” in the US, but also because many countries around the world are actively formulating new regulations and regulatory frameworks to support the development of stablecoins.

We are happy to be part of it and are full of confidence in the upcoming products. We have strong partners and a team that has been driving the project from day one and continues to expand. I am very excited about all this.

In addition, you just mentioned different participants in the market. I want to add a point that may not have been noticed: Stable is a Layer 1 protocol, which means that we can provide users with higher speed and transaction confirmation efficiency at the launch stage, rather than relying on Layer 2 solutions. We understand that there are various projects in the market and welcome their participation. A rising tide lifts all boats, and the entire ecosystem will benefit.

So we look forward to seeing the development and expansion of the stablecoin chain market. We hope to be, and are working to become, a very key player in this track, whether it’s next week or in the years to come.

BlockBeats: Many people are curious about the relationship between Stable, Plasma, and Tether. Can you also talk about the relationship between Stable and Tether? And the positioning and differences between Stable and Plasma?

Brian Mehler: Stable has had the support of Tether CEO Paolo from day one, and he is one of our advisors. He provided a lot of help in the design process of our product to ensure that we are building a stable foundation that users really need. We are also continuing many of Tether’s concepts, such as making funds more accessible, circulating faster, and achieving zero-fee transfers.

Stable focuses on building high-performance payment infrastructure, and the Stable chain uses USDT as the native gas token, which is one of our major features. I want to say that the products launched by Tether, especially USDT, are a core component of our Layer 1 construction. Whether it’s USDT, USDT0, or future collaborations with other projects, we are very focused on USDT and hope it can drive global market expansion, which is also Stable’s goal.

At the KBW summit, USAT CEO Bo Hines (middle) and Stable CEO Brian Mehler (right) discuss the institutional future of stablecoins
Image source: Stable official website

BlockBeats: Plasma seems to have some “first-mover advantage,” establishing partnerships with mainstream DeFi projects such as Aave and Ethena after the mainnet launch, and TVL quickly grew to over $2 billion. Does Stable also have confirmed ecosystem collaborations from financial institutions or DeFi protocols?

Brian Mehler: I don’t have any particularly big news to announce today, but I can share some recent progress we have made public.

One important piece of news is the investment from PayPal Ventures. PayPal is a global fintech giant that has long been deeply involved in traditional finance and has millions of users. They made a strategic investment in Stable. Part of this collaboration is to bring their stablecoin PYUSD to the Stable chain. This not only expands the distribution channels of PYUSD but also enhances its utility and liquidity.

I think this is a great cooperation model, showing that we are not only working with investors but also jointly promoting ecosystem development with strategic partners. We also look forward to announcing more key content in the coming days, and I will contact you as soon as possible then.

BlockBeats: PayPal Ventures has recently been active in stablecoins and AI agent payments. What do you think of their layout in this direction?

Brian Mehler: I can’t speak on behalf of PayPal or PayPal Ventures, but I can share some of my personal observations and understanding. Their core business is transferring funds between people, and for decades, they have relied on traditional payment infrastructure, which dates back to the 1970s. This system has a lot of friction, such as transaction delays and poor user experience.

More importantly, they do not fully control the ecosystem they operate in and must constantly respond to user feedback on fees, speed, experience, and so on. So, if they can find a solution, such as integrating stablecoins or other new mechanisms to improve the customer-facing product experience, I think this is a direction they are very willing to explore and invest in. Because this can not only optimize the user experience but also improve the efficiency and flexibility of the entire payment ecosystem.

Stable’s Technical Philosophy and Strategic Positioning

BlockBeats: Next, let’s talk about Stable’s strategic positioning. Stable positions itself as a high-performance Layer 1 built for institutional settlement and B2B cross-border payments. Given that most stablecoin trading volume currently comes from DeFi and retail trading, why did you choose to focus on the slower-paced, more complex institutional market first?

Brian Mehler: Actually, on the contrary, this is exactly the conscious choice we made in product design and market strategy from the beginning.

At the project launch stage, we decided to focus on the institutional market because we clearly saw an opportunity: the possibility of fundamentally changing the way global payments are processed. In building Stable, we realized that if we could create a high-performance Layer 1 blockchain dedicated to institutional settlement and supporting cross-border B2B payments, it would truly change the future payment infrastructure. It would not only be faster and safer, but also scalable to meet the actual needs of enterprise clients.

The monthly settlement volume of B2B stablecoins has grown from less than $100 million at the beginning of 2023 to over $3 billion at the beginning of 2025
Image source: Stable official Medium

Of course, we also care a lot about the user experience on the individual and consumer side. But we wanted to ensure from the start that Stable’s design had “currency-level” operational capability, meaning it must be able to support large-scale use.

Our goal is to make stablecoins an indispensable part of everyone’s daily financial life, including achieving real-time settlement and a highly predictable financial operation experience.

BlockBeats: You just mentioned that Stable’s underlying design is to solve various pain points in payment systems. For the financial institutions you serve, what is the most critical guarantee? Is it ultra-low latency, or the ability to guarantee predictable transaction costs under any network load?

Brian Mehler: I think the most critical technical guarantee for financial institutions is to provide an inclusive and highly predictable solution that ensures controllable transaction costs and final transaction confirmation. These are pain points we realized early in the project, but they have not been well solved for a long time.

No matter the network conditions, we hope to solve these problems through Stable. Currently, many enterprises using stablecoins often encounter severe gas fee volatility, making transaction costs difficult to predict. This is a big challenge for CFOs, as it is hard to accurately judge which costs can be passed on to customers and which need to be borne by themselves.

At the same time, exchange rate fluctuations between different currencies add extra uncertainty. Coupled with slow settlement speeds, these factors together make using stablecoins in some scenarios a “trap.” Therefore, when designing Stable, we systematically optimized for these challenges. We chose to use USDT as the native gas token, fundamentally eliminating gas fee volatility, so enterprises can clearly know the cost and delivery fee of the entire process before initiating a transaction.

In addition, we have achieved sub-second final transaction confirmation. Compared to the uncertainty of confirmation time on traditional networks, Stable provides a stable and fast settlement experience. This not only solves the problem of cost control but also greatly improves transaction efficiency. We believe this will significantly improve enterprise operational efficiency and expand the application space of stablecoins in more real-world scenarios in the future.

BlockBeats: One of Stable’s unique features is “Guaranteed Blockspace,” which reserves a portion of fixed network capacity for enterprise clients to ensure their transactions are prioritized. What are the main commercial application scenarios for this mechanism?

Brian Mehler: I’m glad you brought up this topic. “Guaranteed Blockspace” is one of our most differentiated core features for the enterprise side.

As we mentioned earlier, many blockchain networks currently have great volatility in transaction fees and confirmation times. For example, if you initiate a $100,000 USDT transfer today, you may only need to pay a $2 to $3 fee. But later in the day, as different markets go live and network congestion intensifies, this fee may soar to $20, $30, or even higher.

For enterprises, this uncertainty greatly affects their business plans. Sometimes they can make a profit, but sometimes they may lose money due to soaring costs. I don’t think any company wants to face such risks. Through “Guaranteed Blockspace,” we have created a “fast lane” for enterprises on the Stable network. Enterprises can ensure their transactions are prioritized into the next block by subscribing or paying per use.

These fees are also paid in USDT, allowing enterprises to know the cost of each transaction before trading. Through the subscription model, they can even estimate the cost for the entire month in advance, no longer needing to worry about the uncertainty caused by gas price fluctuations or perform extra hedging operations. The entire transaction process cost is locked and predictable.

BlockBeats: In extreme situations of market volatility and high network congestion (such as during the recent market crash, where Ethereum, Solana, and many other public chains experienced soaring gas fees, network congestion, or transaction failures), how does Stable ensure that critical enterprise transactions are not affected?

Brian Mehler: The situation you mentioned can actually be divided into two aspects: one is network congestion, and the other is token price volatility.

For the token volatility issue, we can solve it well. Because we use USDT as the native gas token, which is a stablecoin familiar to everyone, its price is stable and does not fluctuate as violently as other crypto assets, eliminating one uncertainty.

As for network congestion, general-purpose Layer 1 blockchains are powerful, but they are not specifically designed for payment scenarios. We have focused on building a dedicated network from the beginning, with the goal of enabling payments to truly operate at scale.

So, on Stable, you won’t encounter high congestion like on other chains. Because we focus on stablecoin circulation, there won’t be a large number of games, meme coins, and other non-payment applications occupying network resources.

BlockBeats: Plasma’s security relies on the Bitcoin network and can be understood as a Bitcoin sidechain or Layer 2. In contrast, Stable uses its own POS Layer 1 and Stable BFT security framework. How do you view the differences between these two architectures? From the perspective of institutions that value security, why can the self-developed BFT mechanism be comparable to the mature security model of the Bitcoin network?

Brian Mehler: Bitcoin’s security is indeed very mature, but the Stable BFT you mentioned is a mechanism we tailor-made for stablecoin transaction scenarios, rather than applying a system originally designed for other purposes. We designed the architecture around this theme from the beginning.

Stable BFT can achieve fast final confirmation and high throughput, which are features highly valued by institutional users. While ensuring security, we also prioritize performance to ensure it is truly suitable for our target market. Specifically, Stable BFT can provide sub-second final confirmation, allowing institutions to obtain certainty immediately after the transaction is completed, rather than waiting 15 to 20 minutes or even longer on other networks.

At the same time, it can maintain stable performance under high load, meeting the reliability standards required for financial-grade settlement. This is exactly what we are striving to achieve.

BlockBeats: For example, you have announced and implemented OPE (Optimistic Parallel Execution) and DAG consensus mechanisms, demonstrating that Stable is continuously upgrading its technology. Can you share how Stable’s development roadmap will help B2B payments or the entire ecosystem?

Brian Mehler: Of course. I think these are two key technology upgrades we are very much looking forward to, and we plan to officially launch them in the version early next year. These two upgrades are what we have been actively promoting to ensure that the Stable chain can compete in performance with other high-performance Layer 1 blockchains.

I believe these technologies are crucial for building a future-adaptive architecture. Current B2B capital flows not only require predictability of transaction finality but also the execution efficiency of global payments. We must have the scalability that traditional financial market participants possess. OPE allows us to process independent transactions in parallel, significantly increasing network throughput and reducing latency. The future introduction of the DAG system is aimed at accelerating transaction confirmation speed, further improving efficiency without sacrificing network reliability.

OPE operating mechanism
Image source: Stable official documentation

The combination of these two mechanisms will ensure that the Stable chain has good scalability and promote widespread adoption by institutional users. Through the implementation of these technologies, we are preparing for the upcoming growth in market demand while avoiding the scaling bottlenecks caused by complex architectures in traditional financial systems.

BlockBeats: Suppose in the future Stable successfully captures the B2B and institutional settlement market, while Plasma dominates the broader retail market. Do you think relying solely on B2B business revenue can sustain L1 infrastructure and validator incentives in the long term?

Brian Mehler: We believe that capturing high-margin B2B and institutional settlement flows can indeed provide the necessary support for the Layer 1 we are building. Our focus is on continuously creating outstanding value for these clients, while ensuring the stable operation of the infrastructure and maintaining the sustainability of the validator incentive mechanism.

In addition, as stablecoin application scenarios continue to expand, more exciting new opportunities will emerge in the market. This not only deepens our existing market but also includes emerging fields we are actively entering. Whether on the institutional or retail side, we are deploying in both directions simultaneously.

As the platform develops, we will launch more integrated solutions, cooperative projects, and cross-domain collaborations. Ultimately, our users will truly gain value in multiple scenarios. Of course, we will not limit Stable to a specific audience or vertical. We believe this network has the potential to cover a broader market.

BlockBeats: Currently, the competition pattern of stablecoin chains is becoming increasingly fierce. Circle has launched Arc, Stripe has launched Tempo, and Stable and Plasma are seen as Tether’s “internal competition.” Can you talk about how Stable can attract more use cases to migrate to Stable for settlement first?

Brian Mehler: That’s a great question. Stable is actively promoting cooperation in multiple fields, including commodity trade and financial services. Many three-party transactions that are being put on-chain are the focus of our business development team. Especially in emerging markets where Tether has already established a strong influence, they have completely changed the local banking system and the way funds flow, which we value greatly.

We have already established some partnerships and will announce them one after another in the coming weeks. These collaborations will help us quickly bring a large amount of capital inflow to the Stable chain. These emerging market corridors are places where USDT is already solving real-world problems, and we are just going with the flow to meet existing market demand.

We are very focused on the regions where Tether has already brought change, and we look forward to further amplifying this influence to make capital flow more freely and efficiently.

BlockBeats: Another competitor you face is the Tron network. Many USDT whales and users currently rely heavily on it. What specific features or incentives will Stable use to attract these users to migrate from the Tron network to Stable?

Brian Mehler: I think some of the features we offer, such as the previously mentioned “Guaranteed Blockspace” and “sub-second finality,” are very critical for enterprises. These are elements that enterprises value highly when pursuing efficiency and reliability. Stable’s infrastructure is designed for large-scale transactions, and the cost is also very low. Therefore, for institutional users currently operating on other chains, we are a very attractive alternative.

They may find that continuing to use the original infrastructure is becoming less and less cost-effective, while Stable offers a faster, cheaper, and safer option. I would say that capital always flows to the path of least resistance. If we can eliminate these friction points, we will naturally see capital start to flow our way.

The Regulatory Future of Stablecoins

BlockBeats: Next, let’s talk about regulatory issues. Stable is developing a “confidential transfer” mechanism that hides transaction amounts while retaining addresses to meet compliance requirements. How important do you think this feature is in winning regulated institutional clients?

Brian Mehler: We have invested a lot of effort in this issue, not only listening deeply to enterprise clients to understand the real needs of the institutional market, but also attaching great importance to compliance issues in different jurisdictions. This is a very large and complex system, and we must become experts in this area.

At present, we are exploring various innovative ways to implement the “confidential transfer” mechanism, aiming to attract institutional clients who have high privacy requirements and are also subject to regulatory constraints. We hope that when they handle sensitive data, they can enjoy the benefits of privacy protection while ensuring compliance. This is a topic they care about very much. We are advancing from both regulatory requirements and customer needs, and will announce more details when we are ready.

BlockBeats: Will the rules for this feature differ in different countries or regions?

Brian Mehler: We don’t have specific information to disclose yet, as this work is still ongoing. But it is certain that we will ensure the system is designed with compliance and structural integrity. Because our goal is to build a payment infrastructure that can support global-scale expansion, compliance is an indispensable part of it.

BlockBeats: Stable’s goal is to achieve a fully decentralized validator set. But we also know that institutions tend to prefer working with controlled, known validators to meet compliance and reliability requirements. How will Stable balance the “open participation” philosophy of the crypto world with institutions’ need for a “permissioned validation environment”?

Brian Mehler: We fully understand that having reliable validators is crucial for institutional clients. Our goal is to create a network environment that encourages permissionless participation while ensuring that validators on the chain can meet the necessary compliance and performance standards. The key is to find the right balance so that the network can remain open while providing the stability and trust guarantees that institutional users need.

BlockBeats: Do you think the main service targets of stablecoins in the future will be the To C market for individual users or the To B market for enterprises and institutions?

Brian Mehler: I think it’s both. From market performance, we can already clearly see this trend. The total deposit and transaction volume of stablecoins are both growing. The retail side does contribute a large number of transactions, while the institutional side controls larger amounts of funds.

This is very similar to banking business in traditional finance, and on-chain account management is also showing a similar structure. The combination of the two helps balance overall transaction frequency and transaction size. This dual participation model is very beneficial to the development of the entire ecosystem.

BlockBeats: What do you think are the future application scenarios of stablecoins in institutions? Enterprises already have very mature traditional financial systems to handle fund transfers and payroll. Why do they still need to turn to stablecoins?

Brian Mehler: If you ask any CFO or corporate leader of a multinational company, they will definitely tell you about the various pain points in the current financial network, such as unexpected fees or transaction delays.

For example, using the SWIFT network for cross-border transactions is not easy, and many people cannot use it smoothly. Sometimes the bank does not support it, or you need to pay a $100 fee to remit $50. As global information flows accelerate, payment systems must also keep up. The current settlement process may be T+2, T+3, or even T+4, which is very unfavorable for enterprise operations.

For example, for payroll, if the end of the month is a holiday and the next day is Monday, when does the CFO need to prepare funds to pay employees worldwide? Now it may have to be done by the previous Wednesday. This means funds must leave the account long in advance. With stablecoins, companies can get closer to the actual payment time, even paying on the holiday itself.

Consumers and employees live 365 days a year and should not only receive their salaries on bank business days. Global holidays are different, and many delays are unpredictable because no one can remember all the calendars. So why can’t stablecoins achieve instant, global, frictionless payments?

BlockBeats: How do you see the impact of future regulatory environments in the US, EU, and other regions on the competitive landscape of the stablecoin sector?

Brian Mehler: This is something I am very much looking forward to, and it is exciting to see regulation gradually being implemented. We have always closely followed regulatory developments globally, and I personally attended the launch event in New York.

What comforts me is that many of the people involved are old friends I have known in the industry over the past decade, and many are from the traditional banking system—I remember in 2018, they were even unwilling to discuss anything related to stablecoins. Now, individuals, companies, and even large institutions from different backgrounds are actively embracing on-chain technology.

The “Genius Act” provides institutions, especially large banks, with the necessary regulatory framework to begin accepting and adopting this new technology. They have realized the effectiveness of this technology, and that is no longer the issue.

Banks and financial institutions know that blockchain can solve many long-standing pain points, and the main obstacle in the past was the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Without clear judicial coverage, they could not fully embrace the technology. The introduction of the “Genius Act” has completely changed this situation. For example, the launch of USAT is a good example.

This is indeed exciting. I remember after the Stable project was officially announced, we held a large offline event in New York and co-sponsored Korea Blockchain Week. I was sitting on stage with the CEO of USAT, discussing how regulation is reshaping the market landscape. The main purpose of this work is to eliminate fees and friction in cross-border transactions and make payments truly flow smoothly. Now TikTok allows content to spread freely, but funds are still difficult to flow efficiently.

The faster and smoother the flow of funds, the more active the economy and business activities. We are full of expectations for this. Whether in the US, other Asian markets, or even the EU you mentioned, all these regulatory frameworks are helping to build a brand new system. Not only companies like Stable, but even traditional financial institutions are excited to embrace it.

BlockBeats: Is Stable considering entering the Hong Kong stablecoin market?

Brian Mehler: Stable’s positioning does not include issuing stablecoins. Therefore, many regulatory requirements are for stablecoin issuers, which is obviously something those companies and teams need to focus on. As a permissionless Layer 1 system, we are not involved in these regulatory discussions because we neither custody funds nor own any assets. So, this is indeed an issue that our partners and related companies need to carefully evaluate in the coming weeks.

BlockBeats: Last question, if you place Stable in the ecological niche of the traditional financial system, do you think Stable wants to be the “Visa” or the bank branch of the future payment world?

Brian Mehler: I think we do touch on multiple levels. Our vision is to become the “rails” of global payments. This is our mission—to connect A to B and make funds flow faster and more smoothly. So I would say we are the carrier of network effects, just like the core payment networks in the traditional financial system.

Of course, there are many excellent projects building the stablecoin ecosystem, and we hope to become the “home” for all stablecoins. We are indeed a network effect platform, and we are also actively seeking more cooperation and collaboration opportunities to expand the entire ecosystem to an unprecedented scale.