Recently, discussions about stablecoins have heated up again, with various arguments leaning to extremes: some say "a Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse," others say "so big that the risk is basically zero." But neither of these judgments hits the mark.

What is the real situation? The risk of stablecoins is not about whether the accounts have money, but whether you can smoothly withdraw your funds in a crisis. That is the core issue.

Many people think of stablecoins as "digital dollars," but wake up—you are not the direct customer of the issuer. Most holders do not have true 1:1 redemption rights. To put it simply, what maintains the price stability? Liquidity on exchanges, market makers' quotes, and arbitrageurs operating back and forth. From another perspective— as long as the market believes someone can exchange, the price stays stable. This is psychological stability, not legal guarantees.

Regarding reserves that include Bitcoin, gold, and collateralized loans, the direction is correct, but many people speak with too much emotion. A more objective way to put it is: during upswings, the profits go into the issuer’s pocket, but during downturns, the risk is borne by all holders, supported by a layer of excess reserves that isn’t particularly thick. This is not "leveraged speculation," but a standard financial intermediary structure. The real issue is not whether the asset pool contains risky assets, but whether it can be quickly liquidated under pressure and whether the rules are transparent.

So, what do stablecoins really fear? Not market fluctuations. Bitcoin dropping 50% doesn’t necessarily cause problems for stablecoins. But watch out for this combination: tightening regulations, restricted channels, shaken market confidence. Once a key bank card is cut off, or a jurisdiction encounters issues, or redemption rules are unilaterally changed, or the supported blockchains are gradually removed—liquidity will be the first to falter, and price drops are just a surface phenomenon. Looking at the history of stablecoins, most projects that failed didn’t go bankrupt because of actual losses, but because of a bank run, where they couldn’t withdraw funds.

So, how to properly assess risk? Don’t focus on daily fluctuations like 0.998 or 0.995—that’s not an early warning. The truly important indicators are: whether redemption rules have quietly become stricter, whether supported chains and regions are being continuously removed, whether liquidity depth has decreased, whether excess reserves have been passively used, and whether comprehensive third-party audits are missing long-term. Price movements are always the last to give warnings.

Finally, as a trading tool and liquidity carrier, these stablecoins remain the strongest option in the market. But if you treat them as risk-free stores of value, you’re using the wrong tool. They are well-functioning financial machines, not fixed-term deposits in a bank. Understand this, and you won’t be led astray by emotional arguments; if you don’t, when problems arise, you’re likely to be among the last in line.