大多數交易員認為流動性就是他們在交易所訂單簿看到的掛單。然而，市面公開的行情其實只是部分故事。大量場外「影子」流動性——如通過OTC 桌、內部撮合、跨鏈橋及做市商金庫流動的穩定幣大額資金——才是推動加密貨幣交易的主體力量。
例如，Kaiko的數據顯示約94%穩定幣交易量發生在中心化交易所。但這項數據具有誤導性：公開訂單簿內的交易只是冰山一角。幕後，大量 USDT、USDC 及其他穩定幣持續穿梭於錢包、主經紀行及大宗交易間，靜靜地提供維持價格對齊所需的流動性。
這些「影子穩定幣」——即沒在標準行情板列出的代幣或橋接代幣——形成了一個對市場運作至關重要的隱藏基建。事實上，加密貨幣的流動性大多是隱蔽的。根據Kaiko資料，大約94%穩定幣市場動能發生在中心化平台，去中心化平台僅佔很小份額。
但真正的交易量卻通過私人通道流動：OTC 桌、內部對敲及跨鏈調撥。換言之，每一宗可見的USDT 成交背後，其實有多筆場外交易支持。我們將「影子穩定幣」視為所有出現在訂單簿之外，無論是在不太顯眼的鏈上鑄造還是私下流通的錨美元代幣──它們同樣驅動著市場活動。雖然零售客戶在訂單簿看不到這些代幣，但它們卻支撐幾乎每一宗大型加密貨交易的市場深度。
行業數據亦顯示穩定幣已深度滲透OTC領域。穩定幣現已主導機構現貨交易：Finery Markets 報告指2025年上半年有約 75% OTC 交易量完全以穩定幣結算。以Circle USDC網絡為例，僅2025年上半年就實現約8500億美元由法幣轉入區塊鏈，反之亦然。
實際運作中，一位資產經理若要調配5000萬美元比特幣，未必會觸碰公開訂單簿，而是與主經紀行或OTC桌對接，常見的做法是獲得全新鑄造的USDC/USDT，然後迅速換售出市。類似地，交易所的期貨及期權部亦常常在帳外撮合，不會直接呈現在總成交量內。
簡單而言，OTC桌、主經紀網絡和做市商構建的市場基建，產生龐大場外穩定幣流量，成為市場價格形成的根本。
什麼是影子穩定幣？
影子穩定幣是鏈上美元代幣，但從未以獨立代號出現在中心化交易所行情。例如Tether在Tron（TRC-20 USDT），現時近60% USDT供應其實都在Tron鏈上，但主流交易所（如Binance、Coinbase）一般將所有 USDT 合併展示。結果TRC-20 USDT 只會在「USDT」總牌下靜靜流轉。同樣地，Binance的錨定穩定幣（BSC版USDC/USDT）、Circle 於Tron短暫鑄造的USDC，或Avalanche、Base等新鏈推出的穩定幣，大多近乎隱形。
這些影子代幣經 OTC 交換和跨鏈橋流通。例如 FXC Intelligence 指，Tron現時佔有約USDT總供應的51%，即Tron上大概有 516 億 USDT，而Ethereum則為 354 億。假設某亞洲機構直接購買TRC-20 USDT（Tron 手續費只需約 0.01 美元），再賣入 CEX 錢包或與其他資產兌換——對大眾而言，這只是「USDT」池中的一個美元。
影子穩定幣在那些傳統支付渠道薄弱的全球通道尤其活躍。在不少新興市場，居民會以USDT作儲值和匯款媒介。Chainalysis 指出拉丁美洲和撒哈拉以南非洲已廣泛採用穩定幣來對沖通膨和低成本匯款。
有報告指出，Tron已成為亞洲、非洲及拉美地區50個國家中35個最常用於USDT/USDC交易的主要網絡。低手續費是關鍵吸引力：轉帳USDT於Tron只需約0.01美元，對低收入地區極具吸引力。甚至有報告指尼日利亞2024年第一季穩定幣成交量近30億美元，佔當地小額（100萬美元以下）零售支付主導地位。
這些流動性大多依賴Tron等非主流路徑運作，而全部都不會回映在交易所掛單流動性之內，只是默默在不同入金及出金通道間支撐交易。
其他影子穩定幣還包括中介資產和跨鏈橋。交易員或許會在以太坊鑄造USDC，於CEX換成BTC，再橋接USDC到EVM鏈、在Circle贖回或反復循環，全程不產生明顯的交易所交易量。
自動做市商（如Curve 或Uniswap）同樣扮演重要角色：許多時候，穩定幣庫存會在DEX池子裡場外進出，之後再被套利搬運。總體上，影子穩定幣本質是私人結算渠道。包括由受監管銀行或代理發行的代幣（如Paxos的穩定幣），以及所有被OTC或許可渠道交換的錨美元資產。
理論上，它們避開訂單簿上的可見流動性——但實際上非常龐大。事實上，目前最大兩個穩定幣（USDT 和 USDC）每月流轉量以數兆計，而大部分都是經這些場外機制結算。
加密貨幣流動性的底層結構
本質上，加密貨幣流動性就像迷你版的影子銀行體系。機構交易桌和主經紀商把鏈上與鏈下世界縫合在一起。大額交易通常會完全繞過公開市場。Finery Markets發現，現時有高達75%的機構現貨成交量以穩定幣交收，反映加密市場日益依賴美元資金通道。
同時，法幣和加密世界之間的流量驚人：Circle 報告指僅半年USDC在銀行與區塊鏈間結算就高達8500億美元。大部分交易都在OTC或託管服務渠道完成，非公開交易平台。例如，財資經理可直接通過銀行兌換美元與USDC，再即時劃入做市商錢包，隨即於任意接駁交易所運用。外界最終只會見到最後那筆交易所成交。
新型主經紀基建正在將這些流程標準化。像 Copper 和 BitGo 這類供應商已提供實時連接多家交易所的統一託管池。有行業觀察指，機構客戶可將單一金額的USDC或USD存進託管機構，隨時在任何已連接平台直接操作，無需重覆入金。實際等同於背後維持一個統一的穩定幣「銀行帳戶」。
這造就了實質上的內部流動池：如果一家中心化交易所USDT短缺，另一家則存貨過剩，主經紀可即時調度賬戶餘額。這類後台網絡進一步強化場外深度，令流動性表面看來更順暢，即使實際上仍未出現在訂單簿上。
做市商進一步將穩定幣於不同平台循環。他們往往會維持Delta中性的帳面結構：持有等值的波動加密資產和美元代幣，相互對沖。在市場波動時會出現短暫過度或不足的對沖狀況，然後利用穩定幣發行商或DEX池子調整。
他們會於USDC、USDT、DAI等穩定幣之間切換，追逐最低成本的資金或最大流動性的進出口。Kaiko報告就算於大型交易所，深度實際有限：推動USDC 1%價格需報價盤約1億美元；而USDT則約需2億美元。不過大宗交易常常更龐大，因此交易方時常在背景進行穩定幣的鑄造／贖回循環調度。
舉例，當某交易所USDT短缺，做市商可以鏈上將USDC兌換成USDT、或於OTC購買USDT，再補充該交易所庫存而無需下單。當可兌現至L1的贖回開放時，便會將穩定幣燒毀或兌回。這種循環——鑄造、調配至市場、贖回或換回，再有需要就再鑄造——默默將流動性分佈於各處。
這些動作令價格在各市場間保持同步。平常時，套利者及做市商會用場外資金修正微小價差。但若底層運作壓力大時，也會出現效率缺口。例如研究發現，活躍套利者較少的穩定幣，更容易出現兌換價大於$1的情況。
平均來說，USDT成交價約較平價低0.55%，而USDC則只有約0.01%偏差，部分原因是USDT歷來限制一級市場出入金（只有少數套利者能直接贖回USDT）。換句話說，USDT的影子流動性比USDC隱晦得多，故有時會出現較大差價。
個案分析：Tron上的USDT成為全球資金通道
網絡設計師及分析員指Tron鏈價格低廉、傳輸快速，使其成為全球資金傳輸的「鐵路」。據獨立數據，Tron現時USDT流通量遠超其他鏈。實際操作上，資金首先經 Tether 在香港或開曼群島等地入帳，成為 Tron 版 USDT，隨後進入加密市場或跨國通道。
這一變化主要由地區需求帶動。在亞洲和非洲，Tron 版 USDT 已成主要穩定幣。例如在印尼、菲律賓、越南、尼日利亞和加納等重要加密市場，研究顯示Tron是穩定幣調撥的首選網絡。原因很簡單：用Tron傳輸 USDT 手續費只需幾分錢，而 Ethereum 則比這高出很多。Binance 觀察員稱：「USDT於 TRON上0.01美元手續費令其對低收入國家用戶極具吸引力。」
所以新加坡或杜拜匯款至尼日利亞交易者通常繞過傳統電匯，而選擇Tron USDT作資金通道。入金口岸 Africa commonly accept USDT into mobile wallets where Tron is implicit. As a result, stablecoin rails on Tron have become a digital backbone for regions starved of fiat exits: one report notes stablecoins were the largest segment of payments in Nigeria (~$3B) by early 2024, largely via Tron rails.
非洲地區普遍接受將 USDT 存入手機錢包，而這些錢包背後通常隱含支援 Tron 網絡。因此，Tron 上的穩定幣通道已成為缺乏法幣兌換渠道地區的數碼基礎設施。有報告指出，到 2024 年初，尼日利亞最大宗的支付工具就是穩定幣（約 30 億美元），而主要都是透過 Tron 網絡完成的。
Crucially, most of these Tron flows never light up an exchange book. Centralized exchanges typically don’t distinguish on-chain provenance – they simply show “USDT”. When a trader in Chile buys USDT and sells it in Brazil, the underlying tokens could have hopped from Ethereum to Tron to BSC and back, all off-screen. If an exchange runs low on liquidity, internal desks will often top it up by fetching USDT from these alternate rails.
最關鍵的是，這些 Tron 區塊上的流動資金大多從未在交易所訂單簿中出現。中心化交易所基本上不會區分鏈上資產來源——他們只顯示「USDT」。例如，一位智利的交易員買入 USDT，再於巴西賣出，這筆資產背後可曾經在 Ethereum、Tron、BSC 等多條鏈之間轉移，全程在幕後進行。如果交易所發現流動性不足，內部團隊往往會從這些平行通道調動 USDT 充倉。
For example, if Binance’s USDT inventory drained, the exchange might have a warehouse with Tron and Ethereum USDT. A withdrawal to an OTC or a large sell order could be filled by moving coins from Tron inventory into Binance’s wallet. Because the ledger only sees “USDT in, USDT out”, the Tron activity is hidden to outside observers. In short, Tron USDT underpins global trading without ever appearing as “Tron-USDT” on a chart – it flows through the shadow zone.
舉個例子，如果 Binance 的 USDT 存貨告急，交易所有機會從其持有的 Tron 或 Ethereum USDT 庫存調配。場外（OTC）大單提現或大額賣單，可以透過把 Tron 錢包內的 USDT 轉入 Binance 錢包來完成。由於帳面只記錄「USDT 進、USDT 出」，所以 Tron 上的實際活動對外部觀察者完全隱形。總結而言，Tron USDT 構建了全球交易的基礎，但從未以「Tron-USDT」身份出現在圖表上——它一直在暗影區域流動。
Market Makers & Inventory Loops
做市商與庫存循環
Professional liquidity providers orchestrate much of this hidden flow. Large market-making firms carry massive reserves of USD tokens on hand so they can meet demand instantly. To manage risk, they deploy delta-neutral strategies: for instance, buying a portfolio of crypto assets while holding an offsetting value in stablecoins.
專業流動性供應商負責調配這些大量暗中的資金流。大型做市機構常備大量 USD 穩定幣儲備，以隨時應對市場需求。為了管理風險，他們會部署 delta-neutral 策略，例如，同時買入一籃子加密資產，並持有等值穩定幣以對沖。
These firms constantly rebalance: if one stablecoin is in higher demand, they convert their stash accordingly. They exploit tiny pricing differences across venues: if USDC is priced slightly above USDT on one exchange, they swap between tokens (via OTC or DEX) to arbitrage away the gap. In effect, the makers are running internal swap desks that constantly merge and split stablecoin liquidity.
這些公司會不斷進行資產重整：如果某一種穩定幣需求上升，他們就會把庫存兌換成該種穩定幣。同時，他們善於利用不同交易所之間微小的價格差異：假如 USDC 在某交易所價格較 USDT 貴，便可以透過 OTC 或 DEX 兌換套利。實際上，這些做市商類似經營著一個內部交換窗口，不斷合併及拆分穩定幣流動性。
Collateral swaps are routine. Market-makers may park tokens in yield pools (e.g. Curve), borrow against them in DeFi or lend in CeFi, then reallocate. For example, if BUSD supply is needed to arbitrage a bridge, dealers might swap or redeem USDC for BUSD on-chain. Conversely, if USDC demand surges, they’ll mint or buy more USDC, often sourcing it through internal routes (like a connected US bank account via Circle) to avoid impacting public order books.
質押換幣是日常操作。做市商有時會將穩定幣存入收益池（如 Curve），或在 DeFi 借貸，也有些會在 CeFi 放款，然後再重新分配。例如，要用 BUSD 進行橋接套利，交易員可能會選擇把 USDC 在鏈上兌換或贖回成 BUSD。相反，如果 USDC 需求急升，他們就鑄造或買入更多 USDC——通常會透過內部渠道（比如 Circle 相關美國銀行帳戶）入手，減少對公開訂單簿的影響。
This continuous loop of minting, trading, redeeming and reminting keeps liquidity well-distributed. Indeed, public attestations hint at this: Circle’s disclosures show that during stress events, hundreds of millions of USDC were minted and burned daily to balance flows.
這種不斷循環的鑄造、交易、贖回和重鑄，令流動性能保持分散。確實，公開審計也反映出這一點：Circle 的披露數據就顯示，壓力時期每日有數以億計 USDC 被鑄造及銷毀，以調整資金流。
On the ground, these mechanisms translate to tighter spreads and resilient markets. In normal conditions, off-exchange liquidity providers absorb order imbalances so the visible book stays liquid. But when things go awry, limitations can show. For example, Bitcoin-priced traders typically exchange BTC for USDT when selling – a fall in demand for BTC pushes more stablecoins into markets. If arbitrage paths are disrupted (say, redemption channels slow), then even these market-makers can only do so much.
實際上，這些機制讓市場點差收窄，市場變得更有韌性。正常情況下，場外流動性供應商能消化訂單不平衡，令表面的訂單簿依然充足。但一旦形勢有變，局限便會顯現。例如，以比特幣報價的交易員賣出時通常會換成 USDT——當市場對 BTC 需求下跌時，大量穩定幣會湧向市場。如果套利通道受干擾（如贖回暫緩），即使是這些做市商也無法再支撐局面。
USDT typically has fewer authorized arbitrage desks than USDC, which partly explains why USDT can stray a bit further from $1 under stress. In short, market makers use shadow stablecoins as their working capital: their inventory loops underlie the liquidity on exchanges, aligning prices unless a crisis overwhelms the system.
USDT 的授權套利桌通常較 USDC 少，這也導致 USDT 在壓力期間更容易偏離 $1。簡而言之，做市商將暗影穩定幣作為營運資本：他們的庫存循環支撐著交易所流動性，除非危機爆發，否則通常能讓價格保持一致。
Liquidity During Stress Events
壓力時期的流動性
The importance of off-book stablecoins becomes stark during crashes or bank runs. The Terra/LUNA collapse (May 2022) offers one illustration. As UST broke its peg, whales and even Terra backers scrambled to swap vast amounts of UST for fiat-backed stablecoins. Chainalysis reports that before UST failed, unidentified traders purchased over $480 million of UST with USDT in just 48 hours to prop up the peg.
在市場崩潰或出現擠兌時，場外穩定幣的作用變得尤為重要。2022 年 5 月 Terra/LUNA 崩潰事件正是一個例子。當 UST 失去錨定時，巨鯨甚至 Terra 自己的支持者都紛紛用 UST 兌換法幣支撐的穩定幣。據 Chainalysis 報告，UST 崩潰前僅 48 小時內，就有身份不明的交易者用 USDT 買了超過 4.8 億美元 UST，試圖維穩匯價。
This massive bid for USDT–UST swaps was a classic OTC intervention: the trades happened through Curve pools and OTC channels, drawing in Tether from everywhere. Ultimately, though, the convert-and-burn recipe failed and UST crashed. But in those final hours, the hidden flows of USDT were the only thing attempting a rescue.
這場 USDT 與 UST 兌換潮屬於典型場外干預：交易主要通過 Curve 池和場外渠道將 Tether 資金調集過來。最終，這種換幣再銷毀的救市方法失敗，UST 崩盤。但在最後關頭，只有這些隱秘 USDT 流才算是試過救援。
Similarly, after FTX collapsed in late 2022, $3+ billion of USDC and USDT was momentarily trapped on its platform. This sudden loss of liquidity meant other venues had to compensate. Prices on some exchanges briefly widened as desks scrambled to cover positions with the remaining network flows. Though definitive data are sparse, it’s clear that FTX’s demise created a cold storage shock in the stablecoin pipeline – one reason why institutions keep surplus stables off-exchange.
2022 年底 FTX 倒閉後，超過 30 億美元的 USDC 及 USDT 一度被困平台。這突如其來的流動性損失，令其他平台不得不補倉。部分交易所的價格點差短暫拉闊，做市商只能用殘存的資金緊急對沖。雖然確切數據有限，但明顯 FTX 的爆雷對穩定幣供應鏈造成「冷庫衝擊」——這亦解釋部分機構為何長期將過剩穩定幣留在場外。
The USDC de-peg in March 2023 is a concrete case study of arbitrage under stress. When Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) froze, Circle couldn’t process millions of redemption requests immediately. USDC briefly traded as low as ~$0.88. A Fed analysis shows that during that week, USDC’s market cap plunged by about $10 billion while USDT’s grew by ~$9 billion.
2023 年 3 月 USDC 脫鈎事件則是壓力套利的真實案例。當矽谷銀行（SVB）凍結時，Circle 一時難以處理數以百萬計的贖回請求，USDC 一度跌至約 $0.88。根據美聯儲分析，該周內 USDC 的市值大減 100 億美元，同期 USDT 市值約增加 90 億美元。
In other words, many traders dumped USDC for USDT or other liquid stables. Over the weekend, specialized firms organized block trades converting USDC to USDT, and Circle prioritized redeeming $6 billion to restore trust. By Monday, markets stabilized. But in those few days, off-exchange deals and prime broker swaps were the only lifeline: retail orderbooks were thin, and the quick rerouting of capital through OTC channels kept the system from freezing entirely.
換言之，大量交易員把 USDC 兌換為 USDT 或其他流通穩定幣。當週末，專業公司安排大宗交易將 USDC 轉成 USDT，而 Circle 則優先處理了 60 億美元贖回以重塑信心。到週一，市場才告穩定。但在那數天內，場外交易及主經紀交換成為唯一生命線：零售訂單很薄，只有場外資金迅速迴流才避免大規模冰封。
Each episode reinforces the same lesson: public order books only tell part of the story. When UST fell or SVB failed, the actual rebalancing happened through silent, giant transfers of stablecoins that never registered as typical “volume.” Even when DEX orderbooks drained, stablecoin issuance and redemption blunted the blow. After March 2023, USDC’s peg recovered as soon as Circle began redeeming; that process was fueled by the vast shadow liquidity that providers had raised and were holding ready.
這些事件皆驗證同一教訓：公開訂單簿只見冰山一角。無論 UST 崩潰還是 SVB 爆雷，真正的再平衡都是通過一大筆穩定幣無聲地轉移，這些從未被記錄成所謂「成交量」。即使 DEX 的訂單簿都乾涸，穩定幣的鑄造與贖回依然吸收了衝擊。2023 年 3 月後 USDC 能迅速回復錨定，全因流動性供應商持有的大量場外儲備隨時待命。
Arbitrage Flows & Price Discovery
套利流動與價格發現
Shadow stablecoins play a crucial role in aligning prices across venues. Suppose USDT is fractionally cheaper on a small Asian exchange than on a U.S. venue. A trader can use off-exchange channels to rebalance: for example, they could swap USDT for USDC, bridge that USDT out of Asia, and then bring it back on a different rail, netting a small profit. Such arbitrage flows rapidly tighten cross-exchange spreads. In fact, the presence of ample stablecoin liquidity off-book means even retail orders quickly get filled at fair prices.
暗影穩定幣對協調不同交易所的價格起了重要作用。假設 USDT 在某亞洲小型交易所比美國交易所便宜一點，交易員可利用場外渠道進行再平衡：例如把 USDT 兌換成 USDC，把該 USDT 從亞洲跨鏈，再在不同通道帶回來，中間賺個小幅套利。這種套利流動可以迅速壓窄跨交易所價差。實際上，場外充足的穩定幣流動性，亦意味著零售訂單都能以合理價錢迅速成交。
In practice, arbitrage is a multi-stage cycle. A trader might sell ETH for USDT on Exchange A, then send those USDT to Exchange B for BTC, and ultimately bring dollars home by redeeming USDT with Tether. Or they could loop through DeFi: if Coinbase USDC trades above Binance USDC, an arbitrageur might swap USDT→USDC on Curve, move coins on-chain, and profit as prices converge.
現實裡，套利過程經常是多階段循環。一位交易員可能先在交易所 A 用 ETH 換 USDT，再把 USDT 轉去交易所 B 換 BTC，最後用 Tether 贖回帶回美元。亦有可能利用 DeFi 迴圈：若 Coinbase USDC 價比 Binance USDC 高，套利者可在 Curve 把 USDT 換成 USDC，將資金鏈上轉移，等價格回歸時賺取利潤。
These settlement cycles depend on shadow stockpiles: without the large off-exchange reserves in market makers’ wallets, such cross-venue trades would drive bigger price swings. Quantitative analysis underscores this effect. Kaiko finds the on-book depth for stablecoins is limited (roughly $100–$200M for a 1% move), yet actual price impact is usually far smaller thanks to these hidden flows. In other words, shadow liquidity amplifies the apparent depth seen by a retail trader.
這類清算循環全賴暗影穩定幣儲備支撐——若無做市商場外大額庫存，跨交易所操作會導致更大幅度價格波動。數據分析平台 Kaiko 實證，穩定幣在訂單簿的深度有限（1% 變動只需約 1–2 億美元），但實際價格影響卻因背後暗流而遠低於表面。換句話說，暗影流動性增厚了零售用戶看到的「深度」。
However, arbitrage can break down if off-chain rails jam. We’ve already seen one example: the USDC de-peg caused an unusual decoupling of supply. Secondary market prices differed starkly for a few hours as “primary market” redemption lagged. Similarly, if stablecoin issuers pause redemptions (as Tether did in September 2023 during a banking scare), or if blockchain networks congest, stablecoins on one chain can trade at slight premiums to those on another. In such moments, retail order books are not enough: the hidden flows become the arbiter. When they falter, spreads widen.
不過，當場外通道阻塞時，套利亦會失靈。我們正見過一例：USDC 脫鈎時，供應鏈出現罕見斷裂，主次市場價格一度相差極大，因「一級市場」贖回速度滯後。再如穩定幣發行方暫停贖回（Tether 於 2023 年 9 月銀行風波就是一例），或者區塊鏈網絡壅塞時，同一穩定幣在不同鏈上可以出現微幅溢價。在這些時候，零售訂單簿不再足夠——只有隱藏資金流剛好調停，否則點差會迅速拉闊。
Traders learned this in spring 2023: even though stablecoins are supposed to stay at $1, both USDC and DAI dipped under $0.90 after SVB’s collapse. That reflected a temporary failure of the usual off-exchange cycle, not just retail panic. In essence, when OTC and prime-broker pipes clog, arbitrageurs can’t rebalance quickly, and visible prices can deviate until the invisible plumbing is restored.
2023 年春天，交易者徹底感受到這一點：即使理應釘住 $1，SVB 爆雷後 USDC 及 DAI 均曾低於 $0.90，這顯示出場外循環一時斷裂，而非僅僅零售恐慌。簡而言之，當 OTC 及主經紀渠道卡住，套利者難以即時調整，公眾價格就會偏離，直到背後的「隱形水管」修好。
Retail Trader’s Dilemma
零售交易員的困局
For the average trader, on-screen liquidity can be a mirage. A crypto exchange might advertise deep USDT orderbooks, but that depth is only what is posted publicly. Behind it, whole rivers of stablecoins might be poised to enter. Conversely, a seemingly liquid orderbook might disappear if hidden counterparty risk suddenly awakens. How can one gauge the true situation? In practice, savvy traders look at the signals beyond bid/ask.
對普通用戶來說，畫面上的流動性往往只是假象。一間交易所也許宣稱有極深的 USDT 訂單簿，但所謂深度只是多少公開掛單。其背後可能還有大量穩定幣隨時準備進場。相反，一本看似活躍的訂單簿，若隱性的對手方風險一浮現，也可以瞬間蒸發。那麼，如何判斷真正情況？行內精明人往往會看超出票賣價範圍之外的訊號。
One useful check is stablecoin flow metrics. Many analytics firms now track large transfers of USDC/USDT on-chain. A spike in CEX inflows, for example, often precedes volatility: when many coins pour into exchanges, it may indicate sellers lining up, implying worse execution. Conversely, a sudden outflow of stablecoins suggests funds are hiding or moving off-exchange.
其中一項有用的指標是穩定幣流向數據。不少鏈上分析機構已會追蹤 USDC/USDT 大額鏈上流動。例如，CEX 存款額暴增經常預示波動將至：當大量穩定幣湧入交易所，代表賣家準備排隊，成交條件可能會變差。相反，突然出現大量穩定幣提現，說明資金正在轉移到場外或避險。
Public attestations (like Circle’s weekly reports) let traders see net mint/burn flows of USDC; unusually high minting means institutions are hoarding dollars off-chain. Retail can use such data (via crypto data dashboards) to supplement orderbook info.
公開證明（如 Circle 每週報告）也讓用戶查看 USDC 的淨鑄造／銷毀流入。異常高的增發通常意味著機構正在場外囤積美元。散戶亦可透過加密數據面版等查詢這類資訊，輔助判斷訂單簿情況。
Another tip is to treat visible depth with healthy skepticism. If you plan a large trade, don’t rely on the quoted 2% depth on a single exchange. Instead, check multiple venues and on-chain liquidity pools. For instance, Curve’s total USDC/USDT liquidity (tracked by DeFi analytics) gives a rough floor for how much can be swapped on-chain without much slippage.
另一貼士是對表面深度要抱懷疑態度。若計劃大額交易，不要單靠某一交易所標示的 2% 深度，應查核多個平台及鏈上流動池。例如 Curve USDC/USDT 全池流動性（可經 DeFi 分析工具追查）就反映了鏈上大約可以沒太大滑價換幣的極限數字。
If Curve’s pool ...is thin, it might be safer to break orders or use a TWAP strategy. In general, smaller, staggered orders reduce the impact. Many veteran traders avoid “all-at-once” market sells in crypto; they split trades over minutes or hours, letting hidden liquidity from OTC routes slowly soak up the volume.
如果流通量不足，分拆訂單或使用TWAP策略可能會更安全。一般而言，細單、分段下單可以減低市場衝擊。好多經驗豐富嘅交易員都唔會一嘢過市價沽貨；佢哋會將交易分幾分鐘甚至幾個鐘進行，俾場外OTC路徑嘅隱藏流動性慢慢吸收盤量。
Finally, venue selection matters. Centralized exchanges have their limits – sometimes high withdrawal fees or KYC delays. In contrast, if you have access, DEXs or cross-chain routers might offer better price control (at the cost of on-chain gas). For example, swapping USDT→BTC on a DEX like Binance might mean trekking through Tron or BSC bridges, which incur minimal slippage.
場地選擇都好重要。中心化交易所有佢自己嘅限制 —— 有時提款費貴，或者KYC拖延。相反，如果你有途徑，去DEX或者跨鏈Router可能有更理想嘅報價控制（但要付出鏈上Gas費）。例如用Binance呢類DEX換USDT去BTC，可能要經Tron或者BSC橋，但滑點可以好細。
Combining strategies (limit orders on CEX plus strategic on-chain swaps) often yields the best result. The key is awareness: real liquidity lies beyond the visible depth, so measure execution risk in terms of dollar value of needed flow, not just orderbook ticks.
結合唔同策略（例：CEX限價單加埋策略性鏈上換幣）通常效果最好。重點係意識：真正嘅流動性往往唔喺orderbook顯示範圍內，所以要用需要成交額價值去計執行風險，而唔係淨係睇orderbook上嘅粒粒價。
Regulatory & Transparency Challenges
監管與透明度挑戰
The shadowbank-like nature of off-exchange liquidity poses a regulatory puzzle. No global regulator oversees OTC stablecoin trading; it’s largely peer-to-peer and cross-jurisdictional. Traditional on-chain reporting regimes don’t capture these trades. As one observer put it, much of crypto’s dollar flows resemble shadow banking – fast and opaque.
場外流動性有類似影子銀行嘅特點，對監管構成難題。全球暫時冇機構監管穩定幣OTC交易；大部分都係點對點，跨地域運作。傳統鏈上報告制度捉唔到呢啲交易。有分析人士話，依家大量嘅加密美元流，其實就係影子銀行 —— 快速又唔透明。
This raises concerns about hidden systemic risk. If a few institutions concentrate stablecoin funds off-book, their failure could unleash a cascade unseen until too late. Indeed, Congress and regulators have started to notice: for example, the proposed U.S. GENIUS Act would treat large stablecoin issuers as banks, demanding full 1:1 reserves and strict auditability.
呢個情況帶嚟隱藏嘅系統性風險。如果有機構大規模喺賬外集中穩定幣資金，一旦出事，可能會引發連鎖效應，而外界去到最後先知。其實，美國國會同監管機構已經開始留意：例如建議中嘅GENIUS法案，會將大型穩定幣發行商當銀行處理，要求足額（1:1）儲備同嚴格審計。
Circle and Tether would face unannounced reserve reporting, essentially forcing formerly “permissionless” tokens into an on-chain shadow of traditional finance. In Europe, MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) has similarly imposed heavy requirements on asset-referenced tokens, trying to shrink the shadow by bringing stablecoins under a unified framework.
Circle同Tether到時要隨時披露儲備，基本上等同將以往“無需許可”嘅代幣納入一個鏈上嘅傳統金融影子系統。歐洲嘅MiCA法規都據此要求資產掛鈎型代幣加強監管，希望用統一規則收窄影子區域，令穩定幣可控。
Yet enforcement lags. Major exchanges and OTC desks rarely disclose how much stablecoin liquidity they hold off-book. Even Tether and Circle, which offer attestations, only cover aggregate supply, not flows into private channels.
但執行仲未跟得上。主要交易所同OTC平台好少公開佢哋場外持有幾多穩定幣流動性。連Tether同Circle就算有出報告，都只係披露整體發行量，冇計內部同私人頻道流向。
Given this, some analysts liken stablecoins to shadow banking – full of “hidden leverage” that regulators might only see when prices wobble. For policy-makers, the lesson is clear: one must account not just for exchange volumes, but also for the unseen networks of liquidity when assessing stability. Tools like proof-of-reserve contracts or mandatory disclosures could shine light on the shadows, but industry adoption is nascent. Until the off-chain flows are at least partially visible, the system will remain harder to oversee than traditional securities.
所以，有啲分析師形容穩定幣係影子銀行 —— 內裏有好多“隱蔽槓桿”，監管機構到危機時先會見到。政策制定者要明白，唔可以只睇台面交易量，估穩定性時仲要計暗地裡流動性網絡。類似證明儲備（Proof-of-Reserve）協議或者強制性披露，可以照亮部分灰色地帶，但行業採納仍然初步。未來只要鏈下流向未曝光，呢個系統都會比傳統證券難監管。
Looking Ahead: The Future of Shadow Liquidity
展望未來：影子流動性嘅走向
Will the “shadow” in stablecoins ever fade? Some trends suggest creeping transparency. On-chain Proof-of-Reserves or periodic attestations could expand to include mint/redemptions by jurisdiction.
穩定幣嗰層“影子”有冇機會消失？有啲趨勢睇嚟，未來透明度會慢慢提升。例如鏈上儲備證明、定期審計證明，都有可能擴展到包括分地區嘅增發同贖回數據。
Finance firms like Paxos are testing tokenized bank deposits, which could one day allow on-chain proof-of-liquidity: for instance, a bank-issued stablecoin might publish live proof of collateral (as some crypto tokens do now). Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could also reshape the rails: if commercial banks tokenize deposits on a CBDC ledger, they might plug directly into crypto exchanges’ back-ends, partially merging the shadow world with the on-book system.
Paxos等金融公司正試行代幣化銀行存款，將來有機會做到鏈上流動性證明：例如銀行發行穩定幣時，公開即時抵押證明（就似某啲加密代幣而家做法）。央行數字貨幣（CBDC）亦可能改變基建：如果商業銀行將存款代幣化直接記錄喺CBDC台賬，可以直接連接加密交易所系統，影子部分同台面系統有融合空間。
Innovations in analytics may also demystify liquidity. Companies are working on “order flow surveillance” in crypto: tracking large transfers of USD tokens and flagging potential imbalances before they hit markets.
數據分析新科技亦可協助拆解流動性。依家有公司搞緊加密貨幣“訂單流監察”：追蹤大批美元代幣轉帳，預早發現大盤異動，再提示市場風險。
Trading protocols might one day include routing algorithms that tap OTC liquidity pools automatically, essentially internalizing some of the dark trades for retail clients. We may also see stablecoins evolve: so-called “programmable” stablecoins or real-time nets could reduce the need for discrete OTC swaps (e.g. built-in bridging functions). Over time, these features could pull hidden liquidity into view, or at least integrate it more seamlessly.
有一日，交易協議可能自動搵OTC流動池路由，等零售客戶都可以間接用到場外流動性。穩定幣本身都可能會升級——所謂“可編程穩定幣”或即時結算網絡，可以減少OTC換幣需求（例如內置跨鏈功能）。慢慢，呢啲創新會令隱藏流動性浮現，或者至少同主流流動性完美融合。
Yet even with new tools, some shadow will likely persist. The advantages of private negotiations and off-chain netting are too entrenched. What’s clear is that understanding crypto markets requires mapping both the light and the dark. Shadow stablecoins aren’t a glitch; they are a feature of global crypto liquidity.
但就算多咗新工具，有部分“影子”都一定會繼續存在。私人協商、鏈下結算始終有優勢。可以肯定嘅係，要睇清楚加密市場，明白光明面同黑暗面都一樣重要。影子穩定幣唔係失誤，佢其實係全球加密流動性嘅重要部分。
As the ecosystem matures, serious traders and policy-makers must recognize that hidden flows of dollar tokens – from Tron rails to OTC deals – are as much a part of “the market” as exchange orderbooks. Only by acknowledging and, where possible, peering into this underworld can one fully comprehend liquidity, risk, and price discovery in crypto.
隨住行業發展成熟，職業交易員同政策界應該明白，隱藏嘅美元代幣流（無論Tron鏈還是OTC協議）同交易所orderbook一樣都屬於市場一部分。只有認知並盡量洞悉呢個暗角世界，先至可以真正理解加密貨幣嘅流動性、風險同價格形成機制。
Shadow stablecoins underline a paradox: the crypto world builds on visible ledgers, yet its deepest liquidity flows in private. This is not a failure of design but an emergent property of decentralized finance meeting global demand. In practice, these off-exchange stablecoin circuits tighten spreads and fuel trades, but they also pose unique challenges – from execution risk for traders to regulatory blind spots.
影子穩定幣突顯咗一個矛盾：加密市場雖然建立喺公開帳本，但最深層流動性都係私人流動。呢個唔係設計失誤，而係去中心化金融回應全球需求而自然出現嘅現象。實際上，場外穩定幣流通收窄咗買賣差價、帶動交易，但同時令交易員面對新嘅執行風險，也帶嚟監管挑戰。
Appreciating this “liquidity mirage” is essential. For institutions, it means leveraging prime brokerages and careful counterparty choice. For regulators, it means expanding the lens beyond exchanges. For retail, it means learning to read proxies (like stablecoin inflows) rather than just orderbook quotes. In the end, recognizing that liquidity lives off-screen is key. Shadow stablecoins are an invisible plumbing network – one that, when understood, reveals the true dynamics powering crypto markets.
明白呢個“流動性幻象”好關鍵。對機構嚟講，即係要用好主經紀同審慎選對手方；監管層要學識將視角擴大唔止睇交易所；散戶就要識得分析指標（例如穩定幣流入），唔好淨係望orderbook報價。最終，意識到最主要流動性都喺幕後，先係核心。影子穩定幣就好似無形水管網路，諗通咗，先睇到加密市場真正運行力量。