January 7, 2026, today let's look at things from a different perspective—no talk about market trends, no discussion of interest rates, and no geopolitical talk. Let's just discuss something everyone can't avoid—why do the world’s transactions ultimately rely on stablecoins?

Simply put, it’s four words: mathematical inevitability.

Think about it—every bank, every platform, every country needs to transfer funds and reconcile accounts. That’s like a bunch of isolated islands needing to build bridges to connect. Two islands need one bridge, three islands need three bridges, what about ten islands? 45 bridges. And for 1,000 islands? Don’t bother calculating—it’s 499,500 bridges!

That’s the core issue—the more participants involved, the exponentially higher the system’s costs. This is the real reason cross-border remittances are slow, expensive, and prone to issues. Rather than a technical failure, it’s mathematics punishing this inefficient complexity.

Is there a clever solution? Of course. Instead of building a bridge between every two islands, why not connect all islands to a single port? For 1,000 islands, instead of 499,500 bridges, you only need 1,000 lines. Suddenly, complexity, cost, risk, and latency all shrink from quadratic to linear scale. That’s the power of a unified ledger.

Thanks to the white paper of Bitcoin, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” which became the cornerstone of blockchain and cryptocurrency.

But a new problem arises: who manages this central port? The US? China? The United Nations? Which country? Which bank? Clearly, none of these options work. As long as there’s a master, others will have doubts.

So, we need a special structure—appearing to be centralized on the surface, but in reality, without a ruler. This is the ingenious aspect of blockchain’s logical centralization versus physical decentralization.