Looking at the gameplay of the stablecoin ecosystem over the past two years, there's always a sense of déjà vu. From MBS to CDO, the cycle of history is playing out in the crypto space—underlying assets themselves have compliance risks, and then wrapping them with stablecoins to build financial derivatives, coupled with promised yields and speculative space, the boundaries become completely blurred.

Frankly, rather than layering these complex structures, it's more straightforward to just play in the virtual currency market. At least the logic is clear: leverage of dozens of times, cyclical collateralization, high risk and high reward, and quick liquidation. It's definitely better than engaging in stablecoin arbitrage games under the cloud of regulatory uncertainty.

So, where exactly do the problems with stablecoins lie?

**The Maze of Compliance**
Stablecoin regulations are still in the early exploratory stage across different countries, with significant differences in standards. The US recognizes the dollar and US Treasuries, the EU requires euro-dollar pairs to be backed by reserve funds and segregated, the UK mandates 40% reserves held at the central bank, and Hong Kong's dollar requires official reserves—none of these are fully compliant. Even more ironic, many stablecoin issuers, in pursuit of higher yields, have increased their allocation to risky assets this year, with Bitcoin's share rising. This turns what should be low-risk infrastructure into a gambling tool.

**The Paradox of Yield**
From its original design, stablecoins shouldn't have a dividend mechanism; they are meant to serve cross-border trade and future RWA investments. But in reality? Issuers use near-zero-cost assets to arbitrage for profit, while holders get nothing. This system itself is a one-way street of harvesting retail investors. Regulatory bans on dividends also confirm this—because authorities have long seen through this logical trap.