* Yield-Bearing Stablecoins (YBS) are reshaping banking by changing the credit creation mechanism through on-chain programmability, rather than merely acting as a subsidy tool.

* Stablecoins like USDT have reversed the traditional payment process, enabling real-time clearing and settlement. Their open-system nature challenges the closed systems of traditional banks and Web2 payment giants.

* The core value of stablecoin payments lies not in cross-border transactions or clearing/settlement, but in becoming permissionless fiat. After saturating geographical markets, new scenarios (like Agent streaming payments) must be explored.

* Future payments will shift towards A2A (Agent-to-Agent automated transactions), leveraging protocols like MCP and on-chain infrastructure, moving away from manual operations and the ecosystems of legacy giants.

* Within 5 years, stablecoin issuance could reach trillions of dollars, ultimately replacing banks and existing distribution channels to form a true Web3 payment system.

Summary

By Zuoye

TL;DR

* Yield is not an add-on benefit but a core component [currently, yield is often used merely as a subsidy].

* The "last mile" for stablecoins is not fiat on/off-ramps, but becoming permissionless fiat. When you cannot destroy USDT, launching alternative or permissioned variants becomes less meaningful.

* Banks screen customers; retail users choose DeFi products.

* Risk control and regulation need to become "programmable," integrated into existing business workflows.

Geographical markets are already captured by USDT; only new scenarios* remain. Streaming payments hold more imagination than cross-border payments—this is a new distribution channel, not just mechanically adding stablecoins to existing giant ecosystems.

In 2008, amidst the shadow of the financial crisis, Bitcoin attracted its first wave of ordinary users disillusioned with the fiat system. Concurrently, the term "FinTech" also began gaining popularity around 2008, perhaps coincidentally.

Another coincidence: in 2013, during Bitcoin's first major bull run where its price surpassed $1,000, FinTech went mainstream. Companies like Wirecard and P2P lending shone briefly, Yu'ebao defined the internet-era yield system, and Jack Dorsey's Square reached a valuation over $6 billion.

This isn't manufactured. Since 1971, the growth rates of gold prices and US national debt have been nearly identical (8.8% vs. 8.7%). After the gold-dollar and petrodollar eras, could the new energy-dollar be the stablecoin?

From a regulatory perspective, FinTech was seen as banking's salvation—using an internet mindset to remake or supplement the financial system, hoping to create an internet-native financial system within complex political-business relationships. Starting with payments became a global consensus, leading to endless prosperity or crises through acquirer services, aggregation, P2P, cross-border settlement, and micro-lending, often blurring boundaries.

Ironically, the real transformation for banks and the traditional financial system is coming from blockchain practices, evolving from the fringe to the mainstream, largely outside regulatory purview.

Payment is Rooted in Code, Not Finance

The maturity of Yield-Bearing Stablecoins will be marked by USDT offering dividends.

For centuries, payment systems revolved around banks. All digitization and internetification merely added bricks to the banking edifice—until blockchain emerged.

Blockchain, especially stablecoins, created an inverted world, completely reversing the order of payment, clearing, and settlement. Payment finality is achieved only after confirmation enables clearing and settlement.

In traditional banking, payments essentially split into front-end transfers and back-end clearing, with banks at the absolute center.

Under the FinTech model, payment processes focus on aggregation and B2B services. An internet user-acquisition mindset demands capturing all payment flows, which determines a FinTech firm's leverage against banks—"Fake it till you make it." Entities like NetsUnion and reserve requirements are eventual acceptance markers.

In the blockchain model, systems like USDT on Tron (as the early stablecoin L1) and Ethereum (for large-value settlement) achieved the "programmability" the internet promised but failed to deliver fully.

Whether something is "internet-native" reflects platform silos; the core issue is the insufficient internetification of the dollar. Digital touchpoints remain supplements to the fiat system. But for blockchain, stablecoins are native assets. USDT on any chain is interchangeable; friction cost depends solely on liquidity.

Thus, leveraging blockchain's properties, payment confirmation happens only after verifying settlement capability. Gas fees are market-driven, and transfers occur in real-time post-confirmation.

A counter-intuitive insight: Stablecoin systems emerged not primarily from regulatory arbitrage, but from the efficiency gains of programbility that overwhelmed the traditional financial system.

Payment is an open system rooted in code, not finance.

Consider a counter-example: The slowness of traditional bank wire transfers isn't just due to compliance or outdated networks; the core reason is participating banks have an incentive to "retain" funds. Idle capital generates continuous yield for the banking system—user time becomes the banks' passive compound interest.

From this angle, even post-Genius Act, banks fiercely resist yield systems entering their realm. The surface reason is yield—or that paying interest to users would distort bank deposit-loan mechanisms, potentially causing systemic crises.

The on-chain programmability of yield systems will ultimately replace banking itself, rather than creating more problems, because it will be an open system.

Traditional banks profit from the spread between user deposits and corporate/personal loans—the foundation of all banking business.

This spread mechanism grants banks bilateral power to choose customers, potentially creating the "unbanked" on one end and selecting "qualified" businesses on the other.

Ultimately, losses from inter-corporate debt or crises caused by banks are often borne by ordinary users. In a sense, USDT is similar: users bear USDT's risk, while Tether captures the issuance profits.

YBS projects like Ethena rely neither on USD for issuance nor operate under the traditional bank spread mechanism. They function entirely on Aave and other on-chain facilities, with payment experiments on chains like TON.

YBS is building a globally liquid system for payments, interest accrual, and valuation. Banking is becoming the target of stablecoin transformation—not by altering payment participation, but by changing banking's intermediary role in credit creation.

Facing the YBS offensive, small banks are the first affected. Minnesota Credit Union has tried issuing its own stablecoin, while former NeoBanks are rapidly moving on-chain (e.g., Nubank revisiting stablecoins). Even entities like SuperForm are transforming into stablecoin banking systems, sharing profits with users and correcting the distorted banking model.

In short, Yield-Bearing Stablecoins are not just a customer acquisition tool but the vanguard of reshaping banking. The migration of credit creation on-chain is a more profound change than stablecoin payments.

FinTech didn't replace banks; it improved areas banks neglected. But blockchain and stablecoins will replace the definitions of both banks and money.

Assuming YBS becomes the new dollar circulation system, "payment" would synonymous with on-chain transactions. Again, this isn't merely putting dollars on-chain or digitizing them; on-chain dollars are the fiat system.

Currently, the traditional payment sector views stablecoins only through the lenses of clearing/settlement and cross-border payments. This is a mistaken, entrenched mindset. Give stablecoins freedom; don't embed them into outdated payment systems.

Blockchain inherently lacks distinctions like domestic/foreign, card/account, personal/corporate, or receive/pay. Everything is a natural extension or variant of a transaction. Features like enterprise accounts or private transfers on stablecoin L1s are just programming adaptations, still adhering to blockchain principles: atomicity, finality, immutability.

Existing payment systems remain closed or semi-closed (e.g., SWIFT excluding regions, Visa/Mastercard requiring specific credentials). Analogously: banks reject low-profit individuals (unbanked), Square/PayPal reject certain groups; blockchain accepts all.

Closed and semi-open systems will eventually yield to open systems. Either Ethereum becomes the stablecoin L1, or stablecoin L1s become the new Ethereum.

This isn't about regulatory arbitrage; it's a dimensional shift driven by efficiency gains. No closed system can achieve full闭环; fees decay at various points competing for users, leveraging monopoly power for profit or regulatory compliance to exclude competition.

In an open system, users have absolute control. Aave became a standard not through monopoly, but because alternatives like Fluid, Euler haven't fully erupted yet. Regardless, on-chain banking won't be tokenized bank deposits; it will be tokenized protocols redefining banking.

Replacing banks and payment systems won't happen overnight. Paypal, Stripe, USDT emerged 20, 15, and 10 years ago, respectively. Current stablecoin supply is around $2.6 trillion; we could see $10 trillion within 5 years.

Web2 Payments are a Non-Renewable Resource

Handling credit card fraud often relies on manual experience and processes.

Web2 payments will become the fuel for Web3 payments, ultimately being fully replaced, not supplemented or coexisting.

Stripe's participation based on Tempo is the only correct path. Anyone trying to fit stablecoin tech into existing payment stacks will be overwhelmed by the flywheel effect—again, an efficiency issue. On-chain YBS separates yield rights from usage rights; off-chain stablecoins only have usage rights. Capital naturally flows to yield.

While stripping banks of their social role, stablecoins are also clearing out Web2 payment mental models.

As mentioned, stablecoin issuance is moving beyond simply mimicking USDT. While completely decoupling from the dollar and banking system remains distant, it's no longer pure fantasy. From SVB to Lead Bank, banks willing to serve the crypto sector will be found—a long march.

In 2025, not only are banks adopting stablecoins, but previous major obstacles for blockchain payments are thawing. Bitcoin's echoes have become stablecoin's roaring tide.

* On/Off-Ramps: Less focus on final fiat conversion. People are willing to hold USDC/USDT for yield, direct use, or inflation hedging. E.g., MoneyGram partnering with Crossmint for USDC remittances.

* Clearing/Settlement: Visa processed $1B in stablecoin volume, with Rain as a pilot partner (Samsung is a Rain investor). Anxiety among old giants becomes funding for stablecoin payments.

* Large Banks: RWA and tokenized deposits are just appetizers. Competing with DeFi isn't far off. Evolution is traditional finance's passive adaptation. Alliances like Google's AP2, GCUL are the struggles of former giants.

* Issuance: From Paxos to M0, traditional compliance and on-chain wrapped models advance together, but yield mechanisms are being considered. Paxos's USDH may have faltered, but empowering users and tokens is a common goal.

In summary, the positioning race for on-chain stablecoin payments is over; the combination race begins—how to push stablecoins' network effects globally.

In a sense, USDT has already pushed stablecoins into Asia, Africa, Latin America. Geographical frontiers are saturated; only new "scenarios" remain. If existing scenarios get "blockchain+" from payment players, then we must seek new "blockchain+/stablecoin+" scenarios. This is the Web3 application of internet tactics: buy growth, nurture new behaviors. The future will define today's history. Agentic Payment will happen.

After transforming banking and payments, let's delve into the Agent-driven future of payments. Note: The following completely disregards "blockchain+" or "stablecoin+" scenarios for existing systems—that's a waste of words. Future payment landscapes have no space for current giants.

Yield systems can incentivize end-user adoption, but new payment behaviors need supporting consumption scenarios. Using crypto for payments within a Binance mini-app makes sense; using a bank card in a WeChat mini-app feels odd.

The new scenario, from the perspective of Google, Coinbase, or even Ethereum, can only be A2A (Agent-to-Agent), requiring minimal human intervention. Web2 payment volume is a non-renewable resource because the future is pervasive payment.

Simply put, humans will have multiple Agents handling different tasks. Protocols like MCP will manage resources or call APIs within Agents, resulting in Agents matching and creating economic value autonomously.

Human behavior will shift towards direction rather than detailed authorization. We must cede multi-dimensional data for AI Agents to fulfill intrinsic needs.

* Human value lies in authorization.

* Machines operate tirelessly.

Existing pre-authorizations, BNPL, acquiring/issuing, clearing/settlement will happen on-chain, but the operators will be Agents. For instance, traditional credit card fraud requires manual review, but Agents will be intelligent enough to identify malicious activity.

From the viewpoint of existing payment stacks and the "central bank -> commercial bank" system, this might seem overambitious. But remember, the Digital Yuan's design also considered yield aspects, ultimately compromising with the banking system.

It's not unwillingness; it's inability.

Google's AP2 protocol, involving Coinbase, EigenCloud, and Sui, already integrates highly with Coinbase's x402 gateway protocol. "Blockchain + Stablecoin + Internet" is the current optimal blend, targeting micro-transactions—envisioning real-time cloud usage, article paywalls, etc.

We can be certain the future belongs to AI Agents, surpassing mere clearing channels. But the precise path of human transformation remains unknown.

The DeFi sector still lacks a genuine credit market, naturally suited for businesses, yet remains dominated by retail users via over-collateralization—an anomaly itself.

Technological paths are unimaginable beforehand; only their essence can be sketched. This was true for FinTech, DeFi, and is true for Agentic Payment.

The irreversible nature of stablecoin payments will also breed new arbitrage models, whose risks we cannot yet fully grasp.

Furthermore, existing distribution channels won't be the core battlefield for mass stablecoin adoption. High volume alone might damage their yield potential interacting with DeFi—like imagining an emperor using a golden hoe.

Only after stablecoin payments replace banks and distribution channels can we truly call it a Web3 payment system.

Conclusion

The envisioned path for a non-bank payment system: Yield + Clearing/Settlement + Retail (Network Effects) + Agent Streaming Payments (after self-liberation from old giants).

The current impact remains focused on FinTech and banking, rarely replacing central banking systems. This isn't technical infeasibility, but because the Fed remains the ultimate lender (and scapegoat).

Long-term, distribution channels are intermediate. If stablecoins can replace bank deposits, no channel can lock liquidity. But will permissionless, unlimited on-chain DeFi trigger more violent financial crises?

The USSR couldn't eliminate black markets; the US couldn't ban Bitcoin. Whether a deluge or paradise, humanity has no turning back.

* Yield-Bearing Stablecoins (YBS) are reshaping banking by changing the credit creation mechanism through on-chain programmability, rather than merely acting as a subsidy tool.

* Stablecoins like USDT have reversed the traditional payment process, enabling real-time clearing and settlement. Their open-system nature challenges the closed systems of traditional banks and Web2 payment giants.

* The core value of stablecoin payments lies not in cross-border transactions or clearing/settlement, but in becoming permissionless fiat. After saturating geographical markets, new scenarios (like Agent streaming payments) must be explored.

* Future payments will shift towards A2A (Agent-to-Agent automated transactions), leveraging protocols like MCP and on-chain infrastructure, moving away from manual operations and the ecosystems of legacy giants.

* Within 5 years, stablecoin issuance could reach trillions of dollars, ultimately replacing banks and existing distribution channels to form a true Web3 payment system.

Summary

By Zuoye

TL;DR

* Yield is not an add-on benefit but a core component [currently, yield is often used merely as a subsidy].

* The "last mile" for stablecoins is not fiat on/off-ramps, but becoming permissionless fiat. When you cannot destroy USDT, launching alternative or permissioned variants becomes less meaningful.

* Banks screen customers; retail users choose DeFi products.

* Risk control and regulation need to become "programmable," integrated into existing business workflows.

Geographical markets are already captured by USDT; only new scenarios* remain. Streaming payments hold more imagination than cross-border payments—this is a new distribution channel, not just mechanically adding stablecoins to existing giant ecosystems.

In 2008, amidst the shadow of the financial crisis, Bitcoin attracted its first wave of ordinary users disillusioned with the fiat system. Concurrently, the term "FinTech" also began gaining popularity around 2008, perhaps coincidentally.

Another coincidence: in 2013, during Bitcoin's first major bull run where its price surpassed $1,000, FinTech went mainstream. Companies like Wirecard and P2P lending shone briefly, Yu'ebao defined the internet-era yield system, and Jack Dorsey's Square reached a valuation over $6 billion.

This isn't manufactured. Since 1971, the growth rates of gold prices and US national debt have been nearly identical (8.8% vs. 8.7%). After the gold-dollar and petrodollar eras, could the new energy-dollar be the stablecoin?

From a regulatory perspective, FinTech was seen as banking's salvation—using an internet mindset to remake or supplement the financial system, hoping to create an internet-native financial system within complex political-business relationships. Starting with payments became a global consensus, leading to endless prosperity or crises through acquirer services, aggregation, P2P, cross-border settlement, and micro-lending, often blurring boundaries.

Ironically, the real transformation for banks and the traditional financial system is coming from blockchain practices, evolving from the fringe to the mainstream, largely outside regulatory purview.

Payment is Rooted in Code, Not Finance

The maturity of Yield-Bearing Stablecoins will be marked by USDT offering dividends.

For centuries, payment systems revolved around banks. All digitization and internetification merely added bricks to the banking edifice—until blockchain emerged.

Blockchain, especially stablecoins, created an inverted world, completely reversing the order of payment, clearing, and settlement. Payment finality is achieved only after confirmation enables clearing and settlement.

In traditional banking, payments essentially split into front-end transfers and back-end clearing, with banks at the absolute center.

Under the FinTech model, payment processes focus on aggregation and B2B services. An internet user-acquisition mindset demands capturing all payment flows, which determines a FinTech firm's leverage against banks—"Fake it till you make it." Entities like NetsUnion and reserve requirements are eventual acceptance markers.

In the blockchain model, systems like USDT on Tron (as the early stablecoin L1) and Ethereum (for large-value settlement) achieved the "programmability" the internet promised but failed to deliver fully.

Whether something is "internet-native" reflects platform silos; the core issue is the insufficient internetification of the dollar. Digital touchpoints remain supplements to the fiat system. But for blockchain, stablecoins are native assets. USDT on any chain is interchangeable; friction cost depends solely on liquidity.

Thus, leveraging blockchain's properties, payment confirmation happens only after verifying settlement capability. Gas fees are market-driven, and transfers occur in real-time post-confirmation.

A counter-intuitive insight: Stablecoin systems emerged not primarily from regulatory arbitrage, but from the efficiency gains of programbility that overwhelmed the traditional financial system.

Payment is an open system rooted in code, not finance.

Consider a counter-example: The slowness of traditional bank wire transfers isn't just due to compliance or outdated networks; the core reason is participating banks have an incentive to "retain" funds. Idle capital generates continuous yield for the banking system—user time becomes the banks' passive compound interest.

From this angle, even post-Genius Act, banks fiercely resist yield systems entering their realm. The surface reason is yield—or that paying interest to users would distort bank deposit-loan mechanisms, potentially causing systemic crises.

The on-chain programmability of yield systems will ultimately replace banking itself, rather than creating more problems, because it will be an open system.

Traditional banks profit from the spread between user deposits and corporate/personal loans—the foundation of all banking business.

This spread mechanism grants banks bilateral power to choose customers, potentially creating the "unbanked" on one end and selecting "qualified" businesses on the other.

Ultimately, losses from inter-corporate debt or crises caused by banks are often borne by ordinary users. In a sense, USDT is similar: users bear USDT's risk, while Tether captures the issuance profits.

YBS projects like Ethena rely neither on USD for issuance nor operate under the traditional bank spread mechanism. They function entirely on Aave and other on-chain facilities, with payment experiments on chains like TON.

YBS is building a globally liquid system for payments, interest accrual, and valuation. Banking is becoming the target of stablecoin transformation—not by altering payment participation, but by changing banking's intermediary role in credit creation.

Facing the YBS offensive, small banks are the first affected. Minnesota Credit Union has tried issuing its own stablecoin, while former NeoBanks are rapidly moving on-chain (e.g., Nubank revisiting stablecoins). Even entities like SuperForm are transforming into stablecoin banking systems, sharing profits with users and correcting the distorted banking model.

In short, Yield-Bearing Stablecoins are not just a customer acquisition tool but the vanguard of reshaping banking. The migration of credit creation on-chain is a more profound change than stablecoin payments.

FinTech didn't replace banks; it improved areas banks neglected. But blockchain and stablecoins will replace the definitions of both banks and money.

Assuming YBS becomes the new dollar circulation system, "payment" would synonymous with on-chain transactions. Again, this isn't merely putting dollars on-chain or digitizing them; on-chain dollars are the fiat system.

Currently, the traditional payment sector views stablecoins only through the lenses of clearing/settlement and cross-border payments. This is a mistaken, entrenched mindset. Give stablecoins freedom; don't embed them into outdated payment systems.

Blockchain inherently lacks distinctions like domestic/foreign, card/account, personal/corporate, or receive/pay. Everything is a natural extension or variant of a transaction. Features like enterprise accounts or private transfers on stablecoin L1s are just programming adaptations, still adhering to blockchain principles: atomicity, finality, immutability.

Existing payment systems remain closed or semi-closed (e.g., SWIFT excluding regions, Visa/Mastercard requiring specific credentials). Analogously: banks reject low-profit individuals (unbanked), Square/PayPal reject certain groups; blockchain accepts all.

Closed and semi-open systems will eventually yield to open systems. Either Ethereum becomes the stablecoin L1, or stablecoin L1s become the new Ethereum.

This isn't about regulatory arbitrage; it's a dimensional shift driven by efficiency gains. No closed system can achieve full闭环; fees decay at various points competing for users, leveraging monopoly power for profit or regulatory compliance to exclude competition.

In an open system, users have absolute control. Aave became a standard not through monopoly, but because alternatives like Fluid, Euler haven't fully erupted yet. Regardless, on-chain banking won't be tokenized bank deposits; it will be tokenized protocols redefining banking.

Replacing banks and payment systems won't happen overnight. Paypal, Stripe, USDT emerged 20, 15, and 10 years ago, respectively. Current stablecoin supply is around $2.6 trillion; we could see $10 trillion within 5 years.

Web2 Payments are a Non-Renewable Resource

Handling credit card fraud often relies on manual experience and processes.

Web2 payments will become the fuel for Web3 payments, ultimately being fully replaced, not supplemented or coexisting.

Stripe's participation based on Tempo is the only correct path. Anyone trying to fit stablecoin tech into existing payment stacks will be overwhelmed by the flywheel effect—again, an efficiency issue. On-chain YBS separates yield rights from usage rights; off-chain stablecoins only have usage rights. Capital naturally flows to yield.

While stripping banks of their social role, stablecoins are also clearing out Web2 payment mental models.

As mentioned, stablecoin issuance is moving beyond simply mimicking USDT. While completely decoupling from the dollar and banking system remains distant, it's no longer pure fantasy. From SVB to Lead Bank, banks willing to serve the crypto sector will be found—a long march.

In 2025, not only are banks adopting stablecoins, but previous major obstacles for blockchain payments are thawing. Bitcoin's echoes have become stablecoin's roaring tide.

* On/Off-Ramps: Less focus on final fiat conversion. People are willing to hold USDC/USDT for yield, direct use, or inflation hedging. E.g., MoneyGram partnering with Crossmint for USDC remittances.

* Clearing/Settlement: Visa processed $1B in stablecoin volume, with Rain as a pilot partner (Samsung is a Rain investor). Anxiety among old giants becomes funding for stablecoin payments.

* Large Banks: RWA and tokenized deposits are just appetizers. Competing with DeFi isn't far off. Evolution is traditional finance's passive adaptation. Alliances like Google's AP2, GCUL are the struggles of former giants.

* Issuance: From Paxos to M0, traditional compliance and on-chain wrapped models advance together, but yield mechanisms are being considered. Paxos's USDH may have faltered, but empowering users and tokens is a common goal.

In summary, the positioning race for on-chain stablecoin payments is over; the combination race begins—how to push stablecoins' network effects globally.

In a sense, USDT has already pushed stablecoins into Asia, Africa, Latin America. Geographical frontiers are saturated; only new "scenarios" remain. If existing scenarios get "blockchain+" from payment players, then we must seek new "blockchain+/stablecoin+" scenarios. This is the Web3 application of internet tactics: buy growth, nurture new behaviors. The future will define today's history. Agentic Payment will happen.

After transforming banking and payments, let's delve into the Agent-driven future of payments. Note: The following completely disregards "blockchain+" or "stablecoin+" scenarios for existing systems—that's a waste of words. Future payment landscapes have no space for current giants.

Yield systems can incentivize end-user adoption, but new payment behaviors need supporting consumption scenarios. Using crypto for payments within a Binance mini-app makes sense; using a bank card in a WeChat mini-app feels odd.

The new scenario, from the perspective of Google, Coinbase, or even Ethereum, can only be A2A (Agent-to-Agent), requiring minimal human intervention. Web2 payment volume is a non-renewable resource because the future is pervasive payment.

Simply put, humans will have multiple Agents handling different tasks. Protocols like MCP will manage resources or call APIs within Agents, resulting in Agents matching and creating economic value autonomously.

Human behavior will shift towards direction rather than detailed authorization. We must cede multi-dimensional data for AI Agents to fulfill intrinsic needs.

* Human value lies in authorization.

* Machines operate tirelessly.

Existing pre-authorizations, BNPL, acquiring/issuing, clearing/settlement will happen on-chain, but the operators will be Agents. For instance, traditional credit card fraud requires manual review, but Agents will be intelligent enough to identify malicious activity.

From the viewpoint of existing payment stacks and the "central bank -> commercial bank" system, this might seem overambitious. But remember, the Digital Yuan's design also considered yield aspects, ultimately compromising with the banking system.

It's not unwillingness; it's inability.

Google's AP2 protocol, involving Coinbase, EigenCloud, and Sui, already integrates highly with Coinbase's x402 gateway protocol. "Blockchain + Stablecoin + Internet" is the current optimal blend, targeting micro-transactions—envisioning real-time cloud usage, article paywalls, etc.

We can be certain the future belongs to AI Agents, surpassing mere clearing channels. But the precise path of human transformation remains unknown.

The DeFi sector still lacks a genuine credit market, naturally suited for businesses, yet remains dominated by retail users via over-collateralization—an anomaly itself.

Technological paths are unimaginable beforehand; only their essence can be sketched. This was true for FinTech, DeFi, and is true for Agentic Payment.

The irreversible nature of stablecoin payments will also breed new arbitrage models, whose risks we cannot yet fully grasp.

Furthermore, existing distribution channels won't be the core battlefield for mass stablecoin adoption. High volume alone might damage their yield potential interacting with DeFi—like imagining an emperor using a golden hoe.

Only after stablecoin payments replace banks and distribution channels can we truly call it a Web3 payment system.

Conclusion

The envisioned path for a non-bank payment system: Yield + Clearing/Settlement + Retail (Network Effects) + Agent Streaming Payments (after self-liberation from old giants).

The current impact remains focused on FinTech and banking, rarely replacing central banking systems. This isn't technical infeasibility, but because the Fed remains the ultimate lender (and scapegoat).

Long-term, distribution channels are intermediate. If stablecoins can replace bank deposits, no channel can lock liquidity. But will permissionless, unlimited on-chain DeFi trigger more violent financial crises?

The USSR couldn't eliminate black markets; the US couldn't ban Bitcoin. Whether a deluge or paradise, humanity has no turning back.