The trend of asset chain development under stablecoin pricing method

# The Impact of Stablecoin Wave on Global Financial Markets and the Second Growth Curve of Crypto  

Written by: Yang Ge (Gary)  

In August 2025, global financial cities began to experience drastic market changes impacted by the stablecoin wave. The promotion of the Genius Act and Project Crypto, coupled with the wealth-creation cases of Mstr and Circle, broke the balance of interest games in traditional finance. Stablecoins, crypto-stock linkage, DAT, RWA, and on-chain asset management quickly became competitive focal points in the new environment.  

Essentially, the implementation of stablecoin legislation marks the starting point of a comprehensive reform to on-chain global finance. The second growth curve of Crypto will follow the application scenarios of stablecoins and the tokenization of various assets, combining the flexibility of Crypto finance with the historical experience of professional finance to achieve differentiated development under different regulatory frameworks across regions.  

## tl;dr  

1. The essence of the Genius Act is to decentralize currency issuance and settlement rights, thereby gaining enhanced currency pricing power.  

2. By changing the form of currency pricing, stablecoins have triggered a reform of on-chain global finance and on-chain assets.  

3. This reform is rapidly dismantling the long-standing cartel alliance in traditional finance, bringing opportunities for interest reorganization amid chaos.  

4. Trump successfully aligned his own interests with a historical transformation node, establishing an unexpected sense of legitimacy.  

5. The two directions of crypto-stock linkage—securitization and tokenization—and their market characteristics.  

6. The industry characteristics and issues of stablecoins, DAT, stock tokenization, RWA, and on-chain asset management.  

7. Industry fragmentation and cultural division after the launch of Crypto’s second growth curve.  

## 1. The Essence of the Genius Act: Decentralizing Currency Issuance and Settlement Rights to Gain Enhanced Pricing Power  

In a previous article *The GENIUS Act and On-Chain Shadow Currency*, I detailed the irreversible trend of declining traditional U.S. dollar control and the trade-off decision behind the Genius Act—decentralizing issuance and settlement rights in exchange for a larger-scale circulation of the U.S. dollar. In fact, within three months of the Genius Act’s proposal, the market further proved the foresight of this decision: loosening and decentralizing the U.S. dollar’s issuance and settlement rights at this stage has, in the form of shadow currency, enabled U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins to gain broader market application scenarios and strengthened more extensive pricing power.  

Pricing power over currency will be the core manifestation of consensus competitiveness in future on-chain finance, while issuance and settlement rights will gradually fade into ordinary, universal infrastructure—losing their moat barriers and competitive value.  

Future currency wars will be competitions for consensus on currency application, not for the authority to issue or settle currency. This represents a qualitative reform driven by on-chain finance that forces traditional finance to adapt. However, it is clear that many countries and regions, as well as some traditional financial experts, scholars, and entrepreneurs, have not yet recognized this shift or struggle to change their mindset.  

In other words, the M2 of on-chain currencies will gradually lose its original meaning in the future. The over-issuance of a large number of currencies and tokenized assets will become a form of freedom, but this freedom does not mean equivalent value. Real value will lie in the consensus around currencies and tokenized assets, reflected in their liquidity, purchasing power, interactivity, community recognition, and other quantifiable market value feedback.  

At this node of qualitative reform, flexibility in paradigm-shifting thinking is crucial. Many traditional economic definitions, market regulation methods, and asset management models will change. For example, as M2 loses its original meaning, it may be adjusted using liquidity value factors as multipliers to derive the effective circulation value of a currency or asset. Naturally, various monetary and fiscal policies must also undergo fundamental changes to adapt to new approaches for on-chain economic governance.  

## 2. Stablecoins Trigger Reform of On-Chain Global Finance and Assets by Changing Currency Pricing  

After the Genius Act quietly initiated this new currency war, countries and regions around the world have competed to introduce their own stablecoin legislation. Although the foundation of many policies still relies on inertial rules of traditional monetary finance (requiring time for iteration and adaptation), the reform of on-chain global financial markets has already begun.  

While assets settled in 1USD and 1 USDC (or other stablecoins) may seem similar in pricing, their underlying monetary mechanisms are fundamentally different—leading to significant changes in the financial significance of these assets. Key differences include the programmability, composability, market liquidity, ecological differential liquidity of various assets, and the flexibility of financial derivatives.  

When friends from traditional finance recently asked about the characteristics of on-chain asset management offered by CICADA Finance, I used the analogy of a "financial motherboard": various financial asset strategies are like "financial chips" with different algorithms, which can be plugged into the financial motherboard through asset management choices to form flexible financial combinations. Stablecoins, in this analogy, play the role of "financial current" that connects the chips and the motherboard (see Note 1).  

## 3. The Reform Is Dismantling Traditional Finance’s Cartel Alliance, Creating Opportunities for Interest Reorganization Amid Chaos  

From the Genius Act to Project Crypto, stablecoins and on-chain financial reform have essentially subverted the inherent interest model of traditional finance. In other historical periods, this would certainly have triggered large-scale conflicts. Yet this transition has been surprisingly smooth and acceptable. Is this because modern financial laws have made competition fairer, or because contemporary institutions are more "civilized" than those in the past?  

The answer is neither. The simple reason is that the current global social development curve is too steep: the additional profits for enterprises that understand the trend and transform quickly far exceed the losses incurred by clinging to old interests and resisting change. The financial cartel alliance of the previous stage was quickly broken and abandoned by fast-transforming enterprises. From Wall Street to New York as a whole, the market has chosen a (+3, +3) game model to enter this new phase.  

This transition will inevitably lead to a period of chaotic reorganization in financial markets, accompanied by numerous new opportunities for trading new assets and capital.  

Over the past month in New York, I have observed significant differences in the rigidity of cartel alliances across industries. While the financial sector has quickly transformed under the impetus of the Genius Act and Project Crypto, most traditional industries (such as real estate) remain highly inflexible. Due to cartels’ strict control over access conditions and information flow, the trading environment in many industries remains primitive, and many RWA assets are far from meeting the conditions for tokenization upgrades.  

## 4. Trump Successfully Aligned His Interests with a Historical Transformation Node, Establishing Unexpected Legitimacy  

It is worth mentioning Trump—the "Crypto President" who has driven these rapid developments. Historically, promoting reform has always been high-risk, thankless work, and tying one’s own interests to such efforts would only add fuel to the fire. However, Trump’s actions have cleverly aligned with a unique historical node, granting him an unexpected sense of correctness and legitimacy. He used the interest reorganization opportunities brought by an inevitable industry trend to offset much of the opposition, creating a unique and irreplicable effect.  

## 5. The Two Directions of Crypto-Stock Linkage: Securitization and Tokenization, and Their Market Characteristics  

Crypto-stock linkage emerged as a key topic in Q3 2025. In essence, it has two directions:  

1. Injecting token assets into listed companies to create capital premiums in the form of stocks (securitization);  

2. Tokenizing stocks in line with current policy developments to create a 7x24 tradable stock token market (tokenization).  

The former (securitization) is typically regulated by a country or region’s securities regulatory commission, while the latter (tokenization) is temporarily overseen by alternative asset management regulations—with some falling under banking supervision for currency/payments and others under alternative securities regulation.  

### Securitization of Crypto-Stock Linkage  

In Q3 2025, the securitization of crypto-stock linkage gave rise to a new term: DAT (Digital Asset Treasury). Following ETFs, DAT is a more flexible and universal method of injecting token assets into listed companies to generate stock capital premiums. The success of early DAT cases (such as Mstr) created a premium multiplier of 1.5x-2x (peaking at nearly 4x), making DAT the mainstream wealth-creation tool in major financial cities like New York and Hong Kong in the past six months.  

By the end of Q3 and early Q4, the DAT market differed from the initial Mstr-BTC model in three key ways:  

1. Expansion of injected assets: Including ETH, SOL, and other non-BTC token assets;  

2. Use of financial tools to create leverage: Beyond direct stock price premiums from asset injection, leverage is now used to obtain higher capital or currency multipliers;  

3. Commercialization of small and medium-sized listed enterprises: Unlike Mstr, which carries symbolic political and economic significance, most small and medium-sized listed companies adopt DAT for purely commercial purposes—making them more vulnerable to the "Davis Double Kill" risk after gaining premiums.  

### Tokenization of Crypto-Stock Linkage  

As of Q3 2025, the tokenization of crypto-stock linkage is still in its early stages, facing several key challenges:  

1. Premature consumer-facing (to C) scenarios: Current demand is unrealistic (mostly limited to extended trading hours and tax avoidance during non-compliance periods), with the market still in the early stages of infrastructure (Infra) construction and business-facing (to B) development;  

2. Unfriendly conditions for small and medium-sized projects: Due to low profitability caused by the above issue, only mature participants like Robinhood and Ondo Finance can support the initial market;  

3. Long and obscure Infra construction and to B demand: Individual business models struggle to be profitable independently; industrial chains must be formed to achieve overall synergy, requiring time to mature.  

Many institutions entering the market initially made incorrect assumptions about the early stage of stock tokenization. Currently, the real needs for development are:  

1. Developing compliant pathways across different regions;  

2. Enabling large-scale stock tokenization through low-cost securities purchase/short selling/holding;  

3. Cultivating large-scale liquidity providers;  

4. Creating leverage multipliers and derivative markets through financial tools like lending;  

5. Providing high-liquidity assets with alpha potential for the highly competitive token quantitative strategy market.  

In comparison, as of Q3 2025, the securitization of crypto-stock linkage is "closer to profits" than tokenization but faces a shorter window of opportunity. Conversely, the tokenization of bonds, stocks, and foreign exchange is a long-term development direction—a key step in the on-chain asset process—and will open a larger market for strategy-driven quantitative financial assets.  

## 6. Industry Characteristics and Issues of Stablecoins, DAT, Stock Tokenization, RWA, and On-Chain Asset Management  

Stablecoins, DAT, stock tokenization, RWA, and on-chain asset management can be described as the "five pillars" of Crypto’s second growth curve and on-chain asset development. Stablecoins, DAT, and stock tokenization have been discussed above, so we will focus on RWA and on-chain asset management.  

### RWA (Real-World Assets)  

RWA is an intriguing track: unpopular last year, it has regained popularity this year but faces new challenges:  

1. Misalignment of purpose: Most assets or platforms entering RWA treat it as a fundraising tool, ignoring post-issuance issues such as asset liquidity, exit mechanisms, purchasing power, interest generation, market making, and sustainability;  

2. Lack of valuation and oracle mechanisms: Failing to establish or consider methods for evaluating the fair value of RWA assets or implementing oracle processes;  

3. Absence of composability and programmability: Beyond fundraising, there is no economic design or ecological development for composability and programmability—making RWA indistinguishable from Web2 P2P and crowdfunding models.  

Over the past few months, we have engaged with numerous RWA partners. In essence, RWA is building a "quasi-primary market" for non-standard assets. This is a classic "do as you would be done by" dilemma: assets lacking sufficient consensus, purchasing power, and liquidity cannot achieve full tokenization through RWA alone. The tokenization of real-world assets still requires a process of standardization, fair valuation, marketization, and financialization of the assets themselves.  

The biggest challenge for RWA assets is solving the problem of large-scale, mid-term tradable liquidity—a challenge historically faced by structured finance structures and liquid asset disposal institutions in traditional markets. Currently, the Crypto tokenization market still lacks effective solutions to this issue.  

Contrary to the intuitive focus on real estate, digital collectibles, and art, the most suitable RWA assets for tokenization at this stage are Supply Chain Fi and PayFi. The characteristics of their underlying liquid assets support the feasibility of tokenized transaction flows.  

### On-Chain Asset Management  

On-chain asset management is a comprehensive track for classifying and managing various assets amid the stablecoin wave. Essentially, it is a systematic project connecting liquid assets and liquid funds. From economic model design to platform products, and from asset selection to operational management, it is more complex than traditional finance (TradFi) and requires multi-disciplinary expertise in actuarial science and quantitative analysis.  

Over the past six months, amid the growth of Crypto’s second curve, CICADA Finance has rapidly iterated its on-chain asset management capabilities and established new standards for the track. We welcome collaboration with various assets and ecosystems.  

## 7. Industry and Cultural Fragmentation After the Launch of Crypto’s Second Growth Curve  

After the SEC launched Project Crypto in August, the rapid growth of Crypto’s second curve accelerated the fragmentation of the global Crypto market. Markets in North America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa have begun to show distinct differences:  

- New York and the U.S. East Coast lead in Native DeFi and stablecoin ecosystem development;  

- RWA and crypto-stock linkage offer opportunities in global financial cities but are shaped by regional policy differences and the inertial thinking of mainstream market participants, leading to varied interpretations;  

- Africa, South Asia, and South America are developing from the perspective of Supply Chain Fi and PayFi applications—representing true emerging mainstream markets that have not yet been fully priced into the Crypto market but hold significant long-term potential;  

- Southeast Asia has become a "hub for the residual growth of Crypto’s first curve," attracting centralized exchanges and narrative-driven projects to build new purchasing power.  

Differences in social environments across regions have led to the fragmentation and stratification of the Crypto market. Global finance is facing multi-dimensional reforms and subversive changes to asset pricing methods—and stablecoins are just the first step.  

## Disclaimer  

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, originality, or timeliness of the information contained herein, nor shall it be liable for any losses arising from the use of or reliance on such information.