雖然由法幣支持嘅穩定幣如 USDC 同 USDT 依然主導市場，總市值高達 2,500 億美元，但一種新型追蹤美元價格嘅資產正急速崛起。
佢哋唔係靠銀行儲備或託管關係，而係用鏈上信貸機制，模擬傳統金融市場，但全部喺去中心化基礎設施上運作。
呢啲合成美元資產唔只係技術革新，更代表 DeFi 由實驗階段，真正晉升到能夠複製甚至提升全球金融基礎——貨幣市場功能——嘅新信用體系。
隨住監管壓力加劇，中心化穩定幣發行人倍感壓力，機構資金又積極搵有回報嘅替代方案，合成美元逐步成為傳統金融同 DeFi 之間嘅橋樑——同時帶嚟顛覆性潛力與必須審慎評估嘅系統性風險。
穩定價值鏈上演變
合成美元起步來自對加密貨幣金融自主承諾尚未完善的認知。比特幣價格大幅波動，唔適合日常交易或理財。解決方法表面簡單：發行由銀行美金 1:1 支持嘅數碼代幣。Tether 2014 年開創此模式，Circle 旗下 USDC 亦於 2018 年登場，確立中心化穩定幣主流地位。
但此方法自帶矛盾。表面係去中心化金融工具，實質全靠中心化託管人、銀行關係同不透明儲備管理。每一粒 USDC 或 USDT 都要靠 Circle 或 Tether 保持銀行戶口、符合法規要求並面對凍結資產壓力。雖然制度運作有效，但帶嚟一個最大敗筆——當 DeFi 試圖避開既有金融守門人時，實則進入咗單一失敗點風險。
2017 年推出嘅 MakerDAO DAI 帶出新視野。冇銀行美金支撐，而係以加密貨幣作超額抵押，透過聰明合約鑄造 DAI。用戶可以鎖住 Ether，然後對應鑄出等值 DAI。還款後 DAI 會被銷毀，確保供應平衡。呢個方法證明：穩定價值唔一定要靠託管，可以用信貸機制實現。
然而 DAI 都有局限。極端市況下要維持價格掛鈎，需靠日益複雜治理措施。最後協議為求穩定，引入法幣資產與現實資產，淡化咗原本純鏈上性質。於是問題仍在：真正去中心化嘅穩定幣，真係可以做到穩定性同規模，媲美中心化穩定幣？
答案隨著新一代協議出現。佢哋借鏡 DAI 經驗，加上更精細金融工程設計。Ethena 嘅 USDe 於 2025 年中市值已達 53 億美元，成為生態系最大穩定幣之一。Aave 嘅 GHO 已流通過億，並計劃隨協議擴張至 3 億。Curve 嘅 crvUSD 運用嶄新清算算法，於市場波動期維持穩定。合體成效證明，合成美元產品既可保持去中心化精神，亦能規模化。
合成穩定幣之運作機制
了解合成美元如何維持價格掛鈎，要逐一檢視三大不同架構設計，各有不同嘅資本效率、風險承擔及去中心化程度。
Delta-Hedged 運作模式：Ethena USDe
Ethena 嘅合成美元會接受加密資產抵押，同時喺衍生品市場開設對應嘅賣空倉位（short），打造抵銷抵押波幅嘅 delta-neutral 策略。即係話，用戶用 $1,000 以太坊鑄造 USDe，協議同時喺永續合約開 $1,000 空單。以太坊跌10%，多頭倉損失 $100，但空單獲利 $100，淨值穩定。
呢個對沖手法類似傳統金融 delta-neutral 策略，券商靠平衡長短倉以管理風險。創新之處係全程鏈上執行，利用全天候運作、無中介嘅加密衍生品市場。協議有兩大主要收益來源：來自 stETH 等資產嘅質押獎勵，以及永續合約市場 funding rate 收益。
Funding rate 係長短倉持有者周期性交付，每當市場樂觀、做多需求高過做空，長倉要俾錢短倉（造就正 funding）；反之則短倉俾長倉。加密永續市場長期 funding rate 傾向為正，做空倉獲定期收益。加埋抵押品質押收益，USDe 年息一度高達 30%。
挂钩機制靠套利實現。如 USDe 高過 $1.00，套利者可用 $1 鑄新 USDe，再高價沽出賺差價，增加供應並壓低價錢。反之如低過 $1.00，買入平價 USDe 換回等值抵押品，減少供應推高價格。呢個「鑄造－贖回套利」配合對沖組合，令 USDe 貼近目標價。
超額抵押模式：Aave GHO
Aave 嘅 GHO 係一款去中心化、超額抵押穩定幣。用戶可以將資產抵押到 Aave，並持續賺取利息，再鑄造 GHO。唔同於其他借貸市場，GHO 採用 facilitators 制度，即認可實體以封閉「桶」形式鑄造同銷毀 GHO。
超額抵押條件簡單：鑄 $100 GHO，需抵押 $150-$200 資產（視乎資產風險而定）。如抵押品因價格下跌而低於清算門檻，頭寸自動清算。清算人代付 GHO 債務並奪得抵押品，過程中可獲清算獎勵。
GHO 特色在於，借款人利息直接流入 Aave DAO 金庫，而非交給存款人，為協議治理帶來收入，同時將穩定幣機制與傳統借貸池區隔開。GHO 鍊上價值一律被當成 $1 處理，不理會二級市場價。
持有治理代幣 AAVE 嘅用戶參與安全模組，可享 GHO 借貸利率折扣，將治理與穩定幣採納度連結。2025 年 Aave 推出新功能包括 sGHO，讓 GHO 持有人可透過 Aave 儲蓄利率賺協議收入。
柔性清算模式：Curve crvUSD
Curve crvUSD 引入嶄新風險管理方法——LLAMMA（Lending-Liquidating AMM Algorithm）。傳統清算一般屬二元邊界：只要抵押品價值低過門檻，清算人一次過歸還債務並奪得全部抵押，令用戶常因細微變動遭受巨額清算損失。
LLAMMA 則是設有價格區間，抵押品價格下跌時逐步將其兌換成 crvUSD，回升時又會自動換返做原來資產。不再設一個死亡線，而係價格範圍內漸進式交換。例如以太坊抵押跌入清算區時，LLAMMA 會逐步賣出一部分換成 crvUSD；價格回升時自動用 crvUSD 換返以太坊。
「柔性清算」大幅減低傳統一次過清算導致的頓變損失，維持協議償付能力。用戶經歷較似無常損失，而冇即時大規模清算。在 3 天下跌 10% 測試情景下用 LLAMMA 只損失 1%，遠遠好過傳統系統必然大幅扣減。
缺點是運作較複雜。用戶需理解價格區間、兌換規律及漫長波動下抵押品可能長期部分賣出。對能主動管理倉位嘅高級用戶，LLAMMA 提供更有人性化嘅風險管理。
架構理念對比
呢三個模式各自建立唔同穩定幣架構理念。Ethena 著重資本效率同收益，善用對沖策略將波動中性色化，抵押同時獲取 funding rate 及質押收益。呢種方法複雜但極具資本效益，用戶可用加密資產鑄造 USDe。 Ethereum without sacrificing exposure to Ethereum's upside because the short position offsets it. But this sophistication introduces dependencies on derivatives exchanges and exposes the protocol to funding rate volatility.
以太坊無需犧牲對以太坊上升潛力的曝險，因為空倉可以對沖這個風險。但這種複雜性同時帶來對衍生品交易所的依賴，並令協議面臨資金費率波動的風險。
When derivatives markets experience persistently negative funding rates, the protocol must pay to maintain its short positions, potentially eroding or eliminating yield generation and, in extreme cases where insurance funds become depleted, threatening the protocol's solvency and the USDe peg.
當衍生品市場持續出現負資金費率時，協議必須支付額外費用去維持其空倉，這可能會侵蝕甚至完全抹去利息收入。在極端情況下，如果保險基金被耗盡，更可能威脅協議的償付能力和USDe的價格錨定。
Aave's GHO takes the conservative route. Overcollateralization provides a straightforward buffer against volatility. If collateral is worth 150% of the debt, prices can fall 33% before liquidation triggers. This simplicity makes GHO behavior more predictable during market stress. The cost is capital efficiency - users must lock significantly more value than they can borrow, limiting the protocol's ability to scale against more efficient alternatives.
Aave的GHO則選擇保守路線。超額抵押為波動性提供直接緩衝。如果抵押品價值為債務的150%，價格可以下跌約33%才會觸發清算。這種簡單性令GHO在市場壓力下表現更可預期。其代價是資本效率較低——用戶必須鎖定遠高於借貸金額的價值，限制了協議在面對更高效方案時的擴展能力。
Curve's crvUSD splits the difference, accepting some complexity in exchange for more user-friendly liquidation mechanics. The soft-liquidation approach could prove valuable during high volatility when traditional systems cascade into liquidation spirals. But LLAMMA remains untested at scale during true black swan events where liquidity disappears and price ranges move dramatically.
Curve的crvUSD採取折衷方案，接受某程度的複雜性來換取對用戶較友善的清算機制。軟性清算手法在高波動期間，傳統系統陷入清算連鎖反應時，可能發揮價值。不過，LLAMMA這一機制在真正流動性消失和價格劇烈波動的黑天鵝事件下，仍未經過大型驗證。
Each model makes sense within its originating protocol's context. Ethena targets sophisticated users seeking yield-bearing stable assets and willing to accept complexity. Aave leverages existing infrastructure and deep liquidity pools, making conservative overcollateralization natural. Curve's expertise in stablecoin swaps and automated market makers makes LLAMMA's gradual conversion mechanism a logical extension of existing competencies.
每種模式都符合其所屬協議的背景。Ethena針對願意接受複雜性、追求有息穩定資產的高階用戶。Aave擁有現成基建和深厚流動池，因此採用保守的超額抵押十分自然。Curve在穩定幣兌換及自動做市方面具豐富經驗，LLAMMA的漸進式轉換機制就是對現有能力的邏輯延伸。
Bridging DeFi and Traditional Finance
Skip translation for markdown links.
The most significant implication of synthetic dollars lies not in their technical mechanics but in their role as connective tissue between decentralized and traditional finance. These protocols are effectively recreating money market functions on-chain - the same repo markets, money market funds, and short-term credit facilities that form the plumbing of traditional finance.
合成美元最重要的意義，並不在於技術細節，而是在於它們作為連接去中心化金融（DeFi）和傳統金融（TradFi）的橋樑。這些協議實際上就是將貨幣市場的功能搬到鏈上——包括回購市場、貨幣市場基金及短期信貸設施，這些都是傳統金融的核心基建。
By September 2025, tokenized funds including tokenized U.S. Treasuries and money market instruments have accumulated significant on-chain assets under management, with estimates reaching into the billions as major traditional finance institutions launch blockchain-based products. Major asset managers including Apollo, BlackRock, and Janus Henderson have launched tokenized credit products on blockchain networks, bringing traditional fixed-income instruments into DeFi ecosystems.
到2025年9月，包括美國國債和貨幣市場工具的代幣化基金在鏈上的資產管理規模已相當可觀，有估算指達至數十億美元。主流傳統金融機構推出區塊鏈產品，主要資產管理人如Apollo、BlackRock和Janus Henderson都在區塊鏈上發行了代幣化信貸產品，把傳統的固定收益工具引入DeFi生態。
This convergence is creating feedback loops. Protocols like Aave and MakerDAO are accepting tokenized U.S. Treasuries as collateral for stablecoin minting. Institutional investors are allocating billions to tokenized private credit and CLO strategies on-chain, seeking to combine traditional credit returns with DeFi's composability and efficiency. The result is a hybrid capital structure where traditional assets provide stability and regulatory comfort while DeFi protocols provide programmability and global accessibility.
這種融合正在產生反饋迴圈。例如Aave和MakerDAO等協議開始接受代幣化美債作為鑄造穩定幣的抵押品。機構投資者向鏈上代幣化私人信貸和CLO策略投入數十億資金，希望將傳統信貸回報與DeFi的可組合性和效率結合。最終產生一種混合資本結構：傳統資產帶來穩定和合規信心，而DeFi協議提供可編程性和全球可及性。
The parallels to traditional repo markets are striking. In traditional finance, institutions create short-term liquidity by using high-quality assets like Treasuries as collateral for overnight loans. Synthetic dollar protocols essentially replicate this through smart contracts - users deposit high-quality collateral and create stable dollar-denominated assets against it. The interest rates paid by borrowers serve similar functions to repo rates, providing short-term financing while maintaining collateral backing.
其與傳統回購市場的雷同之處非常明顯。在傳統金融體系，機構通過質押國債等高質量資產獲得隔夜貸款，以創造短期流動性。合成美元協議本質上就是用智能合約複製這一機制，用戶存入高質抵押品，據此創造出穩定、以美元計價的資產。借款人支付的利息與回購利率功能近似——在保障抵押的同時，提供短期融資。
Private credit tokenization is breaking down barriers in the $1.7 trillion market, enabling global investor access, programmable secondary markets, and integration with DeFi primitives like stablecoins. Synthetic dollars slot naturally into this infrastructure as the stable medium of exchange - the on-chain equivalent of commercial paper or money market fund shares that provide short-term stable value within the broader credit ecosystem.
私人信貸代幣化正打破這個1.7萬億美元市場的壁壘，令全球投資者可參與，支持可編程二級市場，並可與穩定幣等DeFi基元整合。合成美元在這個基建中自然而然扮演穩定交換媒介的角色，相當於鏈上版的商業票據或貨幣市場基金單位，在更大信貸生態內提供短期穩定價值。
Surveys of traditional finance professionals show nearly 90% are actively investing in or researching ways to leverage public blockchains, viewing DeFi as a solution to operational efficiency problems rather than a competitive threat. This institutional interest is driven by genuine value propositions: 24/7 settlement, programmable terms, transparent collateral management, and elimination of intermediary costs.
對傳統金融從業員的調查顯示，接近九成正積極投資或研究如何利用公鏈，把DeFi視為提升運營效率的方案，而非競爭威脅。這種機構興趣來自真正的價值主張：全年無休結算、可編程條款、透明的抵押管理，以及省卻中介成本。
Yet the bridge between traditional and decentralized finance remains precarious. Regulatory actions such as Germany's BaFin ordering Ethena to cease operations in April 2025 due to MiCA compliance issues highlight the evolving and sometimes hostile regulatory landscape for stablecoins in various jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is developing different frameworks, creating fragmentation that could limit synthetic dollars' ability to achieve the global scale necessary for them to truly compete with centralized alternatives.
但傳統金融與去中心化金融之間的橋樑仍然脆弱。監管事件如德國BaFin於2025年4月因MiCA合規問題勒令Ethena停止運作，突顯穩定幣在不同司法權區面臨不斷變動甚至敵視的監管環境。各地法規各有不同，導致市場支離破碎，可能限制合成美元實現全球規模、真正與中心化產品競爭的能力。
Systemic Risks and Fragility Points
Skip translation for markdown links.
The sophistication that enables synthetic dollars to function also creates novel risk vectors that could trigger cascading failures during market stress.
令合成美元得以運作的複雜性，同時帶來新型風險點，在市場壓力下有機會觸發連鎖失效。
Peg Stability Under Extreme Conditions
Skip translation for markdown links.
During a major market crash in October 2025, USDe briefly dropped to $0.65 before recovering its peg, with the event accompanied by a 35% reduction in supply as users withdrew from the protocol. This episode demonstrated that even well-designed synthetic mechanisms face severe stress during liquidity crises. The peg recovered, but the event raised questions about how these systems behave when redemption pressure meets illiquid markets.
在2025年10月大型市場崩盤期間，USDe短暫下跌至$0.65，之後才回到錨定，期間協議供應量收縮了35%，因用戶紛紛退出。這件事證明，即使設計良好的合成機制，在流動性危機下亦會面臨極大壓力。雖然最終回復平穩，但這次事件令市場質疑，在兌換壓力遇上市場缺乏流動性的情況下，這些系統會有甚麼表現。
All synthetic dollars rely on arbitrage to maintain their pegs. When USDe trades below $1.00, arbitrageurs should buy it and redeem it for $1.00 worth of collateral. But this mechanism assumes arbitrageurs have capital available, redemption mechanisms function smoothly, and collateral remains liquid. During severe market dislocations, these assumptions break down. Arbitrageurs may be dealing with their own losses and lack available capital. Exchanges may pause withdrawals. Collateral prices may move too quickly for arbitrage to close gaps.
所有合成美元都依賴套利來維持錨定。當USDe低於$1.00時，套利者應買入並以$1.00價值的抵押品贖回。然而，這個機制假設套利者有可用資本，贖回流程順暢，以及抵押品保持流動性。在嚴重市場混亂時，這些假設都會失效。套利者自身可能出現損失，沒有資本行動；交易所可能暫停提現；抵押品價格波動過快，套利無法及時平抑價差。
The more complex the hedging mechanism, the more points of potential failure. Ethena's delta-neutral design requires continuous access to derivatives markets. If major exchanges freeze trading, implement position limits, or face insolvency, the protocol loses its ability to manage hedges. If exchanges experience technical failures, insolvency, or regulatory action, Ethena may lose the ability to close or rebalance critical hedge positions, potentially causing significant losses or depegging events.
對沖機制愈複雜，潛在失效點愈多。Ethena的中性對沖設計，需要持續訪問衍生品市場。若主要交易所凍結交易、實施倉位限制或自身破產，協議就會失去管理對沖的能力。倘交易所技術故障、倒閉或因監管行動受阻，Ethena可能無法平倉或重新調整重要的對沖倉位，隨時導致重大損失或脫鉤事件。
Overcollateralized models face different pressures. During rapid price declines, liquidation systems can become overwhelmed. If Ethereum drops 40% in an hour, automated liquidators must sell vast quantities of collateral into falling markets. This sells pressure accelerates the decline, triggering additional liquidations in a cascade that can push collateral prices well below theoretical liquidation thresholds. When this happens, protocols can accumulate bad debt - undercollateralized positions that leave stablecoin holders with insufficient backing.
超額抵押模式會面對不同壓力。在價格急速下跌時，清算系統可能難以應對。如果以太坊一小時內暴跌40%，自動化清算人便要在下跌市況下大量拋售抵押品。這種拋壓加劇跌勢，觸發新一輪清算，進一步令抵押品價格跌穿理論清算線。一旦如此，協議就會累積壞賬——即底層抵押不足，導致穩定幣持有人資產無足夠支持。
Oracle Dependence and Manipulation
Skip translation for markdown links.
All synthetic dollar systems rely on price oracles to determine when collateral requires liquidation or rebalancing. These oracles typically aggregate prices from multiple exchanges, creating a composite view that's resistant to manipulation from any single source. But oracle systems introduce latency - there's always a gap between actual market prices and what the oracle reports.
所有合成美元系統都依賴價格預言機，決定何時抵押品要被清算或再平衡。這些預言機通常彙集多個交易所的價格，形成較難被單一途徑操控的綜合指標。但預言機本身會有延遲——即現實市場價格與預言機輸出會有時間差。
During periods of extreme volatility, this latency creates opportunities for exploitation. A trader might manipulate prices on one exchange, triggering liquidations or arbitrage opportunities based on stale oracle prices, then profit before the oracle updates. While oracle providers implement safeguards including circuit breakers and outlier detection, the fundamental tension remains: oracles must update quickly enough to reflect real market conditions while filtering out manipulation attempts and anomalous data.
當市場極度波動時，這種延遲就成為可被利用的漏洞。有交易員可能在單一交易所操控價格，觸發落後的預言機數據造成清算或套利機會，再在預言機更新前獲利。雖然供應者加入了保護措施，如熔斷和異常值偵測，但根本矛盾仍然存在：預言機要夠快反映現實市況，同時又要過濾操控和異常數據。
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
Skip translation for markdown links.
The immutability that makes blockchain attractive for financial applications becomes a liability when code contains bugs. Traditional financial infrastructure can be paused, updated, and corrected. Smart contracts, once deployed, execute exactly as programmed - including when they contain errors. While major protocols undergo extensive auditing, the history of DeFi includes numerous high-profile exploits where attackers drained hundreds of millions of dollars by exploiting unexpected interactions between protocols or edge cases that auditors missed.
區塊鏈的不可更改性本來令其成為金融應用的理想平台，但如果代碼含有漏洞，也成為風險所在。傳統金融設施可以暫停、更新乃至糾正；智能合約一旦部署就會自動執行，包括有錯誤時。一些大型協議即使進行過多次審計，DeFi界歷史上依然出現過數以億元美元計的漏洞被駭案例，多數源於協議間意外互動或審計者遺漏的邊緣情況。
Synthetic dollar protocols often involve complex interactions between multiple contracts: minting mechanisms, liquidation engines, oracle integrations, governance systems, and yield distribution logic. Each integration point represents potential vulnerabilities. The more sophisticated the system, the larger the attack surface.
合成美元協議通常涉及多個合約的複雜互動：包括造幣機制、清算引擎、預言機對接、治理系統及利息分配邏輯。每一個對接點都有潛在弱點。系統越複雜，可被攻擊的面就越廣。
Leverage and Contagion
Skip translation for markdown links.
Synthetic dollars enable composability - the ability to use one protocol's outputs as inputs to another. This creates powerful synergies but also contagion paths. A user might deposit Ethereum to mint GHO, use that GHO as collateral on another protocol to borrow USDC, then use that USDC to buy more Ethereum and repeat the cycle. This recursive leverage amplifies both gains and losses.
合成美元令協議可組合——即一個協議的產物可用於另一個協議。這帶來強大協同效應，但同時打開了傳染風險。例如用戶先存Ethereum鑄造GHO，再用GHO於其他協議作抵押借USDC，然後再用USDC買入以太坊，循環使用，形成遞歸性杠桿。這既可以擴大收益，亦會放大虧損。
When multiple protocols accept the same synthetic dollar as collateral, failures in one system can cascade across the ecosystem. If GHO loses its peg, every protocol accepting GHO as collateral suddenly faces undercollateralized positions. Liquidations across multiple
當多個協議接受同一種合成美元作為抵押品時，某一系統失效可以在整個生態系統引發連鎖效應。如果GHO脫鈎，所有接受GHO作擔保的協議將立刻面對抵押不足的風險，多協議清算隨即觸發……platforms can create selling pressure that overwhelms markets, triggering additional failures in an expanding circle.
平台有機會創造龐大賣壓，壓倒市場，引發更多故障，形成不斷擴大的連鎖反應。
This interconnectedness mirrors traditional finance's systemic risk, where the 2008 financial crisis demonstrated how failures in mortgage-backed securities cascaded through credit default swaps, money market funds, and commercial paper markets. DeFi's composability creates similar transmission mechanisms, though with faster propagation speeds due to automated execution and global 24/7 markets.
這種互聯網絡正反映傳統金融的系統性風險，正如2008年金融危機般，按揭證券爆煲如何經信貸違約互換、貨幣市場基金及商業票據市場產生連鎖效應。DeFi（去中心化金融）的可組合性同樣製造類似的傳遞機制，但由於自動執行及全球24/7市場，傳播速度更加迅速。
Governance Centralization
治理中心化
Many synthetic dollar protocols retain significant governance control despite their decentralized rhetoric. Aave's GHO has interest rates and risk parameters determined by the Aave DAO, with decisions about facilitator approvals and bucket limits controlled through governance votes. This governance authority can respond to crises but also introduces centralization risks.
雖然不少合成美元協議都宣稱去中心化，但仍然保留大量治理權力。以 Aave 的 GHO 為例，其利率和風險參數由 Aave DAO 決定，而有關協議協助者的審批及桶限額同樣透過治理投票操控。這種治理權雖能應對危機，但同時帶來中心化風險。
Token-based governance often concentrates power among large holders. If a small number of addresses control majority voting power, they can modify protocol parameters in ways that benefit themselves at others' expense. Emergency powers that allow rapid response to exploits can also enable governance attacks or regulatory capture if token distribution becomes too concentrated.
基於代幣的治理往往令大戶集中權力。如果少數錢包地址掌控大部分投票權，他們可以更改協議參數，令自己受益，犧牲其他人。賦予緊急決策權，雖為應對偷步攻擊，但如果代幣分佈過度集中，同樣有機會出現治理攻擊或被監管機構操控。
The Regulatory Reckoning
監管清算時刻
On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, establishing the first federal regulatory framework for stablecoins in the United States. This landmark legislation fundamentally reshapes the landscape for synthetic dollars and raises existential questions about their future.
2025年7月18日，特朗普總統簽署了《GENIUS法案》，令美國首次有聯邦級穩定幣監管框架。這項具里程碑意義的法例，徹底改變了合成美元的發展空間，並為它們帶來生死攸關的未來問題。
The GENIUS Act defines payment stablecoins as digital assets issued for payment or settlement and redeemable at a predetermined fixed amount, requiring issuers to maintain reserves backed on at least a one-to-one basis consisting only of specified assets including U.S. dollars, insured bank deposits, short-term Treasuries, and approved government money market funds.
《GENIUS法案》將支付型穩定幣定義為：發行目的是作為支付或結算用途，且可以按固定價格贖回的數碼資產；發行機構必須以至少一比一比例保持儲備，這些儲備只可包括美元、受保銀行存款、短期美國國債，以及認可的政府貨幣基金等指定資產。
For fiat-backed stablecoins like USDC and USDT, the GENIUS Act provides regulatory clarity - these protocols can apply for federal licenses and operate within defined parameters. But synthetic dollars occupy ambiguous territory. They are not issued against fiat reserves held in banks. They are created through credit mechanisms using cryptocurrency collateral. Do they qualify as "payment stablecoins" under the law? Or do they fall into a regulatory gap?
對於USDC、USDT等由法定資產支持的穩定幣，《GENIUS法案》帶來明確監管標準——這些協議可以申請聯邦牌照，在規定範圍內運作。但合成美元則處於模糊地帶。它們並不是以銀行法儲作支持，而是用加密資產作抵押，通過信用機制創造。它們算不算法律所指的「支付型穩定幣」？還是落入監管真空？
The legislation includes a moratorium on "endogenously collateralized stablecoins" - digital assets that maintain a fixed value but are backed primarily by the issuer's own token or related assets. This provision targets algorithmic stablecoins that imploded spectacularly in previous market cycles. But the definition's boundaries remain unclear. Is an overcollateralized stablecoin backed by Ethereum an endogenous system? Does it matter that the backing comes from decentralized protocols rather than fiat reserves?
法例亦禁止「內生性抵押穩定幣」：即以自身或相關資產作主要支持、維持固定價值的數碼資產。這條款針對過往週期內爆煲的算法穩定幣。但這定義的界線仍然模糊，例如：以乙太坊超額抵押的穩定幣算不算「內生系統」？它的支持來自去中心化協議而非法定儲備，是否構成分別？
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller has described stablecoins as "synthetic dollars" that serve as medium of exchange and unit of account in the crypto ecosystem, noting that their status as private money subjects them to run risk similar to historical bank runs. This characterization suggests regulators view these instruments through the lens of money creation and financial stability rather than mere payment rails.
聯儲局理事Christopher Waller曾將穩定幣形容為「合成美元」，承擔加密生態中交易媒介和計價單位功能，並強調它們屬於私人貨幣，面臨類似銀行擠提的風險。這種定性顯示，監管者是以貨幣創造和金融穩定角度審視這類資產，而不止是作為支付渠道。
The regulatory response will likely create a tiered system. Fiat-backed stablecoins that comply with reserve requirements and obtain licenses become the "safe" category for retail users and mainstream adoption. Synthetic dollars may be relegated to sophisticated users, requiring disclaimers, accreditation requirements, or usage restrictions that limit their ability to scale.
監管措施預計會產生分級制度。符合法定儲備要求及獲得牌照的穩定幣會成為散戶和主流用家的「安全」類別；而合成美元則可能只能被規限於精英用戶，需加上風險提示、資格審查，或用途受限，大大削弱其規模增長可能性。
Globally, jurisdictions are developing divergent frameworks, with the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation distinguishing between e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens, while Hong Kong's Stablecoin Ordinance requires licensing for all stablecoin issuers backed by the Hong Kong dollar. This fragmentation creates compliance challenges for protocols seeking global reach.
全球各地監管框架出現分歧。歐洲聯盟的《加密資產市場條例》區分電子貨幣代幣與資產掛鈎代幣；香港的《穩定幣條例》則規定所有以港元作為支持的穩定幣發行人必須申領牌照。這種規則分裂為協議拓展全球市場帶來合規難題。
Yet regulatory pressure may inadvertently accelerate synthetic dollar adoption among specific use cases. If centralized stablecoin issuers face requirements to freeze assets, implement sanctions screening, or restrict transactions, users seeking censorship resistance will gravitate toward decentralized alternatives. Synthetic dollars offer something centralized stablecoins cannot: credible neutrality. Smart contracts execute programmatically without human discretion to freeze assets or reverse transactions.
不過，監管壓力亦可能在特定使用情境下加速合成美元的普及。如果中心化穩定幣發行人必須配合凍結資產、制裁審查或交易限制，部分追求抗審查的用戶會傾向選擇去中心化穩定幣。合成美元正正具備中心化穩定幣無法提供的「可信中立性」——智能合約按程式自動執行，沒有人工裁量權去凍結資產或撤銷交易。
Market Outlook and Strategic Implications
市場展望與策略含意
The synthetic dollar market stands at an inflection point. Current combined market capitalization remains a small fraction of the broader stablecoin ecosystem, but growth trajectories are steep. USDe has climbed to the world's third-largest stablecoin by market capitalization with total value locked exceeding $10 billion.
合成美元市場正處於轉捩點。現時總市值僅佔整體穩定幣生態很小部分，但增長速度驚人。USDe已晉身全球第三大穩定幣，TVL（鎖倉總值）超過100億美元。
Several catalysts could drive continued expansion. First, yield-seeking behavior in a environment where traditional DeFi lending rates have compressed. Synthetic dollars that generate returns from funding rates, staking rewards, or protocol revenue offer attractive alternatives to zero-yield fiat-backed stablecoins. As institutional capital enters cryptocurrency markets seeking stable returns, these yield-bearing instruments provide familiar risk-return profiles.
多項推動力有助進一步擴張。首先，在傳統DeFi借貸息率已被壓縮的環境下，用戶追求收益變成主流。合成美元能從資金費率、質押回報或協議收入中產生收益，成為零息法定幣穩定幣之外的吸引選擇。當機構資金湧入加密市場追逐穩定回報時，這類帶息產品讓風險回報結構更貼近傳統產品。
Second, regulatory arbitrage. As centralized stablecoin issuers face increasing compliance burdens, certain users and applications will prefer synthetic alternatives that preserve transaction privacy and resist censorship. This demand may come from users in jurisdictions with capital controls, privacy-conscious individuals, or applications that require permissionless transactions.
其次，是監管套利效應。當中心化穩定幣發行人面臨愈來愈多合規負擔，一部分用戶和應用會選擇具隱私、防監控特性的合成替代品。這種需求可能來自資本管控地區、重視私隱的個人，或要求無需許可交易的DeFi應用。
Third, DeFi composability. Synthetic dollars integrate natively with lending protocols, decentralized exchanges, and yield aggregators. This composability creates network effects - the more applications integrate synthetic dollars, the more valuable they become as financial primitives. Ethena's partnerships demonstrate this trajectory, with USDe being added to neobank applications for payments and savings across 45+ countries, plus planned integration with Telegram and the TON blockchain.
第三，是DeFi可組合性。合成美元可原生整合至借貸協議、去中心化交易所、收益聚合器，產生網絡效應——愈多應用採用合成美元，作為金融底層元件就愈有價值。Ethena的合作案例證明了這趨勢，USDe已被應用於45個國家以上的新型網銀支付及儲蓄，並計劃與Telegram和TON區塊鏈接軌。
Fourth, institutional infrastructure. Ethena Labs is targeting traditional finance distribution partners through products like iUSDe, which introduces transfer restrictions at the token level to meet institutional compliance requirements while maintaining the synthetic dollar's yield generation mechanisms. This institutional grade wrapper approach could bridge the gap between DeFi innovation and traditional finance requirements.
第四，是機構級基建。Ethena Labs正透過如iUSDe等產品，針對傳統金融分銷夥伴，於代幣層面加設轉讓限制以滿足機構合規要求，同時保留合成美元的收益生產機制。這種機構級包裝方式或可打通DeFi創新和傳統金融的需求。
But growth faces substantial headwinds. Scalability constraints limit how large these systems can become. Ethena's model depends on derivatives market depth - there's only so much perpetual futures open interest available to hedge against. As USDe grows, it commands an increasing share of total perpetual market short positions, potentially affecting the funding rate equilibrium it relies on. Overcollateralized models face capital efficiency limits that make them less competitive for certain use cases.
但增長亦面對重大阻力。擴展性限制着這些系統的規模上限。Ethena模式依賴衍生品市場的深度——可對沖的永續合約未平倉量始終有限。USDe規模越大，就佔用更多永續市場空頭部位，或者破壞其倚賴的資金費率平衡。超額抵押模型亦受資本效率限制，在某些場景下缺乏競爭力。
Counterparty risk remains persistent. Synthetic dollars may be decentralized in architecture, but they often depend on centralized entities for critical functions. Derivatives exchanges, oracle providers, and liquidation bots create points of centralization that can fail or face regulatory action. True decentralization would require fully on-chain derivatives markets, decentralized oracle networks, and automated liquidation systems that can withstand stress without centralized intervention.
對手風險仍然長存。合成美元的架構或許去中心化，但實際上很多關鍵環節仍依賴中心化平台——衍生品交易所、預言機供應者、清算機械人，這些單點故障可導致失效或遭受監管打擊。真正去中心化的方案需有純鏈上衍生品市場、去中心化預言機網絡及可自動應對壓力測試的清算系統，全程毋須中央干預。
Competition is intensifying. As synthetic dollar protocols demonstrate market demand, both established DeFi protocols and traditional finance institutions are entering the space. Aave's competitive analysis notes that with the emergence of players like BlackRock's BUIDL fund, World Liberty Financial initiatives, and Ethena's growing market share, maintaining GHO's competitiveness requires aggressive yield offerings and strategic positioning.
市場競爭亦日趨激烈。隨着合成美元項目證明市場需求，不論大型DeFi協議還是傳統金融巨頭均積極入場。Aave的市場分析指出，面對BlackRock的BUIDL基金、World Liberty Financial計劃，以至Ethena市場份額不斷擴大，GHO若要保持競爭力勢必針對收益及策略定位作出大膽調整。
Final thoughts
結語
Synthetic dollars represent a genuine innovation in how stable value can be created and maintained without relying on traditional banking infrastructure. They demonstrate that credit mechanisms, properly designed, can replicate money market functions on-chain while preserving the transparency, composability, and censorship resistance that make decentralized finance compelling.
合成美元是真正的創新，證明了穩定價值可以無需依賴傳統銀行體系而成立和維持。它們展現出，合理設計的信用機制可以在鏈上複製貨幣市場功能，同時保留了去中心化金融吸引人的透明度、可組合性及抗審查特質。
The technical sophistication behind these protocols is impressive. Delta-neutral hedging strategies that execute automatically across derivatives markets. Soft-liquidation algorithms that reduce user losses during volatility. Overcollateralized credit facilities that generate protocol revenue while maintaining stable value. These mechanisms show that DeFi is maturing from experimentation into sophisticated financial engineering.
這些協議背後的技術細緻度令人驚豔——自動於衍生品市場執行的Delta中性對沖策略、於波動市況下減少損失的柔性清算算法、能在維持穩定價值下產生協議收入的超額抵押信貸設施，皆顯示DeFi正從單純實驗演化成成熟的金融工程。
But sophistication cuts both ways. The same complexity that enables efficiency and yield generation also creates fragility. Synthetic dollars introduce novel risks - funding rate dependency, liquidation cascades, oracle manipulation, contagion effects - that could trigger failures with systemic implications. During the brief October 2025 depegging event, the market received a warning shot about what happens when synthetic stability mechanisms face extreme stress.
不過，複雜帶來效率與創收的同時，也帶來脆弱。合成美元引入了全新風險——資金費率依賴、清算連鎖、預言機操控、傳染效應——隨時引發系統性危機。2025年10月短暫脫鉤事件，就為市場發出警號：在極端壓力下，合成穩定方案會發生什麼情況。
The regulatory environment adds uncertainty. The GENIUS Act provides clarity for fiat-backed stablecoins while leaving synthetic dollars in ambiguous territory. How regulators ultimately classify these instruments will determine whether they remain niche tools for sophisticated users or can achieve mainstream adoption. The balance between innovation and consumer protection, betweendecentralization and accountability, remains unresolved.
去中心化同問責性，依然未有解決方案。
Looking forward, synthetic dollars are likely to carve out specific niches rather than displace fiat-backed alternatives entirely. For users seeking yield-bearing stable assets, censorship resistance, or native DeFi integration, synthetic dollars offer clear advantages. For mainstream payments, regulatory compliance, and maximum stability during crises, fiat-backed stablecoins may retain their edge.
展望未來，合成美元好大機會會開闢出自己專屬市場定位，而唔會完全取代由法幣支持嘅替代品。對於追求有收益穩定資產、抗審查能力或者原生DeFi整合嘅用戶嚟講，合成美元明顯有優勢。不過，喺主流支付、符合法規要求或者危機時期追求最大穩定性方面，由法幣支持嘅穩定幣或者依然有佢哋嘅優勝之處。
The convergence of traditional and decentralized finance continues regardless. Tokenized Treasuries, private credit instruments, and money market funds are moving on-chain. Synthetic dollars serve as the native stable medium within this infrastructure - the programmable money that enables sophisticated financial strategies without leaving blockchain rails. As traditional institutions experiment with tokenization and DeFi protocols integrate real-world assets, synthetic dollars provide the stable foundation upon which this hybrid system can build.
傳統金融同去中心化金融嘅融合仍然持續。國債代幣化、私人信貸工具同貨幣市場基金都陸續搬上區塊鏈。合成美元就成為咗呢套基礎設施入面嘅原生穩定媒介——一種可編程貨幣，令複雜嘅金融策略都可以全程喺鏈上實現。隨住傳統機構開始試驗資產代幣化，而DeFi協議又逐步整合現實資產，合成美元就提供咗呢個混合系統所需嘅穩定基礎。
Whether synthetic dollars ultimately redefine stability or expose new fault lines in DeFi depends on questions that remain unanswered. Can these systems scale without centralizing? Can they maintain pegs during true black swan events? Can they navigate regulatory frameworks that weren't designed for programmable credit? The next market cycle will likely provide definitive answers.
合成美元最終可唔可以重新定義穩定性，定係會揭露DeFi新一輪漏洞，都要視乎一啲未解決嘅問題。呢啲系統究竟可唔可以無中心化咁擴展規模？遇到黑天鵝事件嘅時候，仲守唔守得住掛鈎價？又可唔可以適應唔係為可編程信貸而設嘅監管框架？下一個市場周期好大機會會帶來決定性答案。
What seems certain is that stable value creation through credit mechanisms represents a fundamental capability for any financial system aspiring to independence from traditional infrastructure. Synthetic dollars prove the concept works. Whether the execution is robust enough for widespread adoption remains the trillion-dollar question.
唯一可以肯定嘅係，用信貸機制去創造穩定價值，對於任何想脫離傳統基建嘅金融系統都係一個最基本嘅能力。合成美元證明咗呢個概念的確可行，但係執行落嚟夠唔夠堅固，足唔足夠支持大規模採用，呢個仲係值幾千億美元嘅大問題。