2025-12-27 17:25:02

Some emerging cryptocurrencies overly rely on a single policy narrative, and once expectations fall short, it can easily trigger a sell-off. Instead of taking such risks, it's better to look at the choices of leading exchanges—why do they insist on using a basket of stablecoins like U, USDT, USDc, USD1 as trading benchmarks? The reasoning is simple: if one stablecoin encounters issues, the other several can support the normal operation of the trading system, spreading the risk. This is not without reason. History teaches us an unbreakable truth: both public sentiment and policies are subject to change; today's supporters may become outsiders tomorrow. Rather than relying on eternal favorable conditions, it's better to strengthen defenses through mechanisms.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WagmiWarrior

· 14h ago

Honestly, I haven't touched coins that are based on policy narratives for a long time. One round of cutting is enough. The combo punch of stablecoins is indeed brilliant; I learned a lot. Policies are never reliable, it's old news. Isn't there still someone who hasn't seen through it? A basket of stablecoins for defense > betting on a single coin; the logic is sound. People's hearts are easily swayed. Yesterday's faith becomes today's joke. I've seen too many cases. This is true risk management. Compared to those who go all-in on new coins, I'm much more clear-headed. Diversification sounds good, but it all boils down to one word—timid, but it really works.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityNinja

· 14h ago

Damn, this explanation is so clear. Multi-chain stablecoins are indeed a more stable way to operate. I've heard too many stories of coins going to zero just because a policy turned out to be empty talk, really. The reason the Dalian Exchange uses a basket of stable U is so simple—it's just risk hedging. Betting on a single narrative is betting on human nature. I don't play that game. Mechanism > Narrative. This phrase should be engraved in every retail investor's mind. If one stablecoin collapses, there's a backup. Now that's professional risk control.

View OriginalReply0

SelfSovereignSteve

· 14h ago

How should I put it, I agree with the logic of a basket of stablecoins, but obviously the big players aren't that naive. Policy narratives, huh, they’re fun to hype up for a while, but then the fire gets stomped out. Instead of betting on policies, it’s better to bet on mechanisms, at least that’s more reliable. I’ve long grown tired of those "permanent good news" arguments, it’s hilarious. The operations by top exchanges are definitely playing chess, while small traders are still just playing cards. A single narrative is playing with fire, waiting to be harvested. The saying that human nature is changeable really hits home; today’s leek is tomorrow’s hand to cut. Diversifying risks vs. betting on a single coin, the difference is as big as between a gambler and an investor. The stablecoin matrix is indeed much more reliable than going all-in on a single project. When expectations fall short, you can see clearly who’s swimming naked, it’s uncomfortable. Mechanism > story, always the truth.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationKing

· 14h ago

Really, a basket of stablecoins is much more reliable than going all-in on a single coin.

View OriginalReply0