2026-01-11 23:22:57

Why are we not worried that centralized stablecoins or centralized L2 solutions will eat into the payment market share? The reasoning is simple. Once users truly need peer-to-peer digital cash—privacy-focused, censorship-resistant, and smooth in experience—the market will naturally make a choice. The existence of such demand is long-term, and few solutions can meet these core requirements. Centralized solutions may have an advantage in convenience, but fundamentally they will always be difficult to replace with truly decentralized payment tools. History will prove this.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SigmaValidator

· 01-11 23:51

This idea is too idealistic. Most people don't care about decentralization; they just want quick and cheap transfers. Centralized stablecoins have already won.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiLeftOnRead

· 01-11 23:43

Well... that's a nice way to put it, but how many people are actually using it? Most are just rushing to run away after quick arbitrage.

View OriginalReply0

FlatlineTrader

· 01-11 23:41

It sounds good, but what about reality? Most people don't care about decentralization at all, as long as they can spend money.

View OriginalReply0

ProxyCollector

· 01-11 23:34

That's right, but the problem is that most people don't care about privacy and censorship resistance at all. They just want cheap and fast, no other options.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter_9000

· 01-11 23:32

Alright, it's another old debate about decentralization vs. centralization... But on the other hand, do users really care so much about privacy and censorship resistance? Most people just want to transfer money quickly and cheaply.

View OriginalReply0