2026-01-18 13:28:02

The transfer costs of stablecoins have always been quite frustrating. Sometimes the fees can eat up a significant portion of the transfer amount, which tests patience. Recently, I've noticed some projects starting to focus on "stablecoin payments" as a core feature, and I don't oppose this direction. Honestly, the main use of stablecoins is for transfers and payments, which is more aligned with real-world needs than piling up various flashy concepts.

However, the features listed by these projects sound very comprehensive—which actually makes me a bit cautious. The crypto space is never short of plans that "want to do everything," and when it comes to implementation, they start throwing out phrases like "still optimizing," "future updates," and "ecosystem will gradually improve." I've seen this too many times.

EVM compatibility indeed lowers the entry barrier. Developers don't need to relearn, existing tools and contract code can be directly migrated, saving a lot of detours. But there's a problem: compatibility ≠ usability, and more compatibility ≠ security. Compatibility is just a ticket to enter; the real pitfalls come afterward. For example, risks inherent in the contracts themselves, whether cross-chain asset trust assumptions hold, fairness mechanisms for nodes and transaction ordering, and most importantly, how to truly make users confident enough to put their money in. These are unavoidable issues.

"High throughput + sub-second finality" indeed sounds like a payment-level experience. The problem is, I’ve heard this promise many times before. Many chains can make their test environment data look impressive, but when it comes to high-load scenarios—transaction spikes, complex contract interactions, large numbers of users operating simultaneously—issues like latency, congestion, and degraded user experience appear. Speed in the lab is normal; being able to maintain stability in the real world is what really counts.

As for slogans like "confidential but compliant transactions," I find myself speechless. These concepts sound wonderful, but whether they can be practically implemented and how regulators view them still have a long way to go.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-afe07a92

· 9h ago

It's the same old trick of "wanting to do everything," and in the end, it's still "follow-up optimization." Compatibility does not equal security, and that's a point well said. What's the use of running tests in a staging environment? When real users flood in, the true nature is revealed. I'm really fed up with the propaganda about confidential compliance. No matter how well the concept is packaged, a single regulatory statement can ruin it. Stablecoins are meant for payments; stop messing around with all those flashy things. EVM compatibility indeed saves trouble, but developers need to fill in the gaps themselves. Promises of high throughput and sub-second latency have been heard too many times; I don't believe them. The trust issue of cross-chain assets is the biggest pitfall, and no one explains it clearly.

View OriginalReply0

ShibaMillionairen't

· 9h ago

It's the same old story, wanting to do everything but ending up bad at everything. --- Running in a test environment is useless; it falls apart under real high load. --- "Compatibility ≠ Security" is spot on; many projects fall into this trap. --- I've heard "future version updates" too many times; it's basically nonexistent. --- Payment features definitely need to be improved, but don't stuff every function into it. --- Trust assumptions in cross-chain are the easiest to overlook and the most prone to issues. --- Listen to the promises, see the implementation—I've learned to be smarter over the past two years. --- Confidentiality and compliance? Ha, how will we pass regulatory scrutiny? --- High transfer fees are a real pain point, but can this new project truly solve it? --- EVM compatibility is just the first step; the real test comes afterward.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCryBaby

· 9h ago

Another "do everything" project. I bet five dollars that in half a year they'll still be saying "coming soon." I've heard too many promises of high throughput and sub-second confirmation times. Testnets run super fast, mainnets are a truckload slower—laughable. Compatibility with EVM doesn't mean it can be used; these people always like to confuse concepts. Stablecoin payments are indeed a necessity, but how many actually dare to put money in? Focus on security first before bragging. Confidential compliance transactions? Let's wait and see what regulators say. Right now, this term is just a canned concept.

View OriginalReply0

RektCoaster

· 10h ago

It's the same old story, able to do everything but ultimately can't do anything. I've heard this kind of story too many times. If you don't have real skills, how dare you boast? Runs super fast in the test environment, but reveals its true colors once on the mainnet. Tired of this trick. Compatibility is one thing, but what about security? That's the key. Transaction fees still need to be kept low, or what's the point of talking about payments? The more flashy the promotion, the greater the risk. That's the truth. Claim compliance just to claim compliance? Can regulators really approve? I doubt it.

View OriginalReply0

MechanicalMartel

· 10h ago

Same old marketing buzzwords again, they sound better than they actually are --- EVM compatibility can solve the problem? Wake up, the pitfalls behind are the real issues --- No matter how beautiful the test data is, what really matters is whether it can withstand the actual launch --- I've heard the phrase "ecology gradually improving" a hundred times, it's so annoying --- The core of stablecoins is transfer and payment, don't bother with all those虚的 things --- Whether users dare to put their money in is the key, everything else is虚 --- Confidential transactions + compliance? What does regulation think? That's a serious issue --- Fees eating up most of the transfer amount, that's the real pain point that needs solving --- Trying to do everything but ending up bad at everything, I've seen this trick too many times --- High-load scenarios are the real test, running benchmarks in the lab is meaningless

View OriginalReply0