雖然像 USDC 和 USDT 這樣有法幣支持的代幣目前仍以共計 2,500 億美元的市值主導市場，但一種全新類型的追蹤美元資產正在迅速崛起。
這類資產並非依賴銀行儲備或托管關係，而是通過鏈上的信貸機制運作，模擬傳統金融市場，卻完全建立於去中心化基礎設施之上。
這些合成美元不僅僅是技術創新的體現，更象徵去中心化金融從實驗性試驗場逐漸成熟，發展成能複製甚至改進全球金融體系中關鍵貨幣市場功能的平行信用系統。
隨著監管壓力加劇集中式穩定幣發行者，以及機構資本尋求有收益的替代方案，合成美元資產正成為傳統金融與 DeFi 的橋樑——同時帶來巨大變革潛力及必須嚴肅審視的系統性風險。
穩定價值鏈上化的演進
合成美元之旅起始於一個認知：若要實現加密貨幣金融自主的承諾，必須有穩定的計價單位可用。比特幣波動過大，無法滿足日常交易或財務規劃所需。於是，業界很快提出：發行跟銀行一對一儲備支持的數字代幣。Tether 於 2014 年推出首款產品，2018 年 Circle 推出 USDC，確立了中心化穩定幣的主導地位。
然而，這種做法存在核心矛盾：這些「去中心化」金融工具完全依賴中心化金融托管、傳統銀行關係及不透明的儲備管理。每一枚 USDC 或 USDT 的發行皆仰賴 Circle 或 Tether 維持銀行賬戶、遵循監管要求及抵禦凍結資產等風險。雖然該模式運作尚可，但其本質就是系統瓶頸——去中心化的理念最終仍受傳統守門人制約，這正是 DeFi 想要規避的問題。
2017 年 MakerDAO 推出 DAI，為市場帶來另類構想——DAI 不將美元存入銀行，而是以加密資產超額抵押生成。用戶可將以太幣鎖入智能合約，鑄造以美元為價錨、完全由鏈上透明抵押品支撐的 DAI。還款後，DAI 被銷毀，實現供應平衡。此舉證明：穩定價值可由信貸機制而非托管模式產生。
但 DAI 也有侷限。例如極端波動時，維繫價錨就需要愈加複雜的治理干預。為了保障穩定，協議最終也納入了法幣支持的抵押品及現實資產，純鏈上特性被稀釋。問題仍然存在：去中心化的穩定資產能否達到與中心化穩定幣相提並論的可靠性和規模？
答案如今逐漸浮現，新一代協議在 DAI 奠下基礎後，結合更先進的金融工程。例如 Ethena 發行的 USDe，截止 2025 年中市值已達約 53 億美元，成為生態中最大穩定幣之一。Aave 的 GHO 發行量達數億，預計將擴展至 3 億美元，作為協議戰略擴張的一環。Curve 的 crvUSD 利用創新的清算演算法，在市場壓力下維持穩定。這些協議共同證明：合成美元能兼顧規模效應與誕生時堅持的去中心化精神。
合成穩定價值的機制
合成美元如何維持價錨，需從三種架構模式分析，各自對資本效率、風險暴露與去中心化程度作出不同取捨。
Delta 抵消模式：Ethena 的 USDe
Ethena 的合成美元接受加密資產作為抵押，同時在衍生品市場建立空頭部位，以維持資產對沖中性的狀態，抵消抵押品波動帶來的風險。運作方式如下：當用戶用價值 1,000 美元的以太幣鑄造 USDe，協議同時在永續合約市場開設等值 1,000 美元的以太幣空單。若以太幣價格下跌 10%，多頭部位損失 100 美元，空頭部位則賺取約 100 美元，總值保持穩定。
這種對沖策略源自傳統金融的「delta 中性」操作，機構投資者透過管理多空頭寸平衡暴露風險。創新之處在於，這一切全在鏈上自動完成，使用 24 小時運作、無需中介的加密衍生品市場。協議主要透過兩項收入：像 stETH 這類資產的質押獎勵以及永續合約的資金費率（funding rate）。
資金費率是多空雙方於永續合約市場中定期支付的費用。若市場看漲，多頭需支付空頭（即空方獲益）；市場看跌則相反。歷史上，加密永續市場長期呈現資金費率正值，許多交易者願為槓桿多單支付溢價，導致做空者定期收取支付。再配合抵押品質押利息，USDe 有時年化收益率超過 30%。
價錨穩定機制主要靠套利維繫。如果 USDe 價格高於 1 美元，套利者可 1 美元鑄造新 USDe，再高價賣出，增加供給並壓低價格；若價格低於 1 美元，則可低買 USDe 贖回 1 美元抵押品，減少供給並拉高價位。這種鑄造-贖回套利，加上對沖增強的資產背書，使 USDe 能穩定靠近目標價。
超額抵押模式：Aave 的 GHO
Aave 推出的 GHO 是一種去中心化超額抵押穩定幣，用戶提交抵押品至 Aave 協議後即可鑄造 GHO，同時仍可獲得標的資產利息。不像傳統借貸市場統一資金池，GHO 採「facilitator」機制，受批准的實體在預定額度內可鑄造和銷毀代幣。
超額抵押原則明確：要鑄造價值 100 美元的 GHO，須存入價值高於該數額的抵押品（通常依不同資產風險參數為 150% 至 200%）。若抵押品價值因價格波動低於清算線，該倉位自動被清算。清算人會償還 GHO 負債並獲得抵押品，獲取清算獎勵。
GHO 的特色在於借款人支付的利息流向 Aave DAO 國庫，而非存款人，藉此讓協議治理獲得收入，並將穩定幣機制與傳統借貸池運作區分。GHO 的預言機價格始終鎖定 1 美元，協議內每 1 GHO 固定等同一美元，而不受二級市場價格影響。
用戶將 AAVE 代幣質押於「安全模組」，可享有 GHO 借貸利率折扣，形成治理持有者與穩定幣採用之間的激勵對齊。自 2025 年起，Aave 進一步推出包含 sGHO 在內的新機制，允許 GHO 持有者透過協議收入獲取收益。
軟清算模式：Curve 的 crvUSD
Curve 的 crvUSD 採用截然不同的抵押風險管理思路——即借貸-清算自動化做市商演算法（LLAMMA）。傳統清算機制是「全有全無」：一旦抵押品價格低於門檻，清算人便瞬間償還債務、收走資產，造成微小價格波動也可能引發巨額清算損失。
LLAMMA 會根據價格設置區間，在價格下跌時，抵押品會逐步轉為 crvUSD，若價格回升則再自動買回原抵押資產。因此，並非單一清算點，而是整個區間內資產在抵押品與 crvUSD 之間轉換。以太坊抵押品進入清算區間時，LLAMMA 會按比例出售部份以太換取 crvUSD，若價格復原則再用 crvUSD 買回以太。
這種「軟性清算」大幅降低傳統清算帶來的巨額損失，同時維持協議資產安全。用戶的損失在價差區間內只類似無常損失，不再有突發清算事件。根據測試，價格三日內下跌 10% 時，LLAMMA 使用者損失僅約 1%，遠低於常規清算大幅減損。
但代價是機制變複雜，用戶需了解價格區間、轉換機制，及大幅波動下資產可能陷於部分清算狀態。對於願意監控頭寸的進階用戶而言，LLAMMA 帶來的風險管理比硬清算嚴格度低，也更人性化。
架構哲學之比較
這三種模型反映鏈上穩定價值創造的不同理念。Ethena 藉由衍生品市場對沖波動，並擷取資金費率與質押收益，追求資本效率與收益最大化；用戶可用 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.
以太坊這種操作方式，並不會犧牲對以太坊價格上漲的曝險機會，因為空頭頭寸能進行對沖。但這種複雜性也帶來了對衍生品交易所的依賴，並使協議暴露於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.
當衍生品市場出現持續負資金費率時，協議必須支付資金以維持空頭頭寸，這可能侵蝕甚至消除收益生成。在極端情況下，若保險基金耗盡，甚至可能威脅協議的償付能力及USDe的鎖定匯率。
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的平台幣GHO選擇了保守路線。過度抵押提供了對抗波動性的直接緩衝。如果抵押品價值為負債的150%，那麼價格可下跌33%才會啟動清算。這種簡單性讓GHO在市場壓力下的行為更加可預期。代價則是資本效率較低——用戶必須鎖定遠多於其能借出的資產價值，限制了協議在面對更高效率方案時的擴展能力。
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則採取折衷方案，接受一定複雜性來換取更平滑友善的清算機制。Soft-liquidation（軟性清算）策略在高波動時期，當傳統系統走入清算漩渦，可能展現價值。但LLAMMA這種機制在真正大規模的黑天鵝事件中尚未經歷驗證，特別是在流動性枯竭與價格劇烈波動時。
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.
每一種模式在其原生協議中皆有存在道理。Ethena鎖定於追求收益型穩定資產且願意接受複雜性的進階用戶。Aave則善用其現有基礎設施和深厚流動池，讓保守型的過度抵押模式顯得合理。Curve在穩定幣兌換和自動化做市方面的專長，使LLAMMA的漸進式兌換機制成為現有能力的自然延伸。
Bridging DeFi and Traditional Finance
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.
合成美元的最大意義不在於其技術機制，而在於其作為去中心化金融（DeFi）與傳統金融連結紐帶的角色。這些協議實質上正在鏈上重現傳統金融的貨幣市場職能——同樣的回購市場、貨幣市場基金、短期信用工具，這些都是傳統金融底層架構的關鍵環節。
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.
至2025年9月，包含美國國債和貨幣市場工具在內的代幣化基金，已經在鏈上累積了大量資產管理規模，估算金額達數十億美元。這是因為主要的傳統金融機構陸續推出基於區塊鏈的產品。包括Apollo、BlackRock和Janus Henderson等主要資產管理公司，已在區塊鏈網路上發行代幣化信用產品，將傳統固定收益工具帶入DeFi生態系統。
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.
這種收斂正在產生回饋循環。像Aave與MakerDAO等協議已接受美國國債代幣作為穩定幣鑄造的抵押品。機構投資人正在鏈上投入數十億美元於代幣化私募信貸及CLO（擔保貸款債券）策略，意圖結合傳統信用收益與DeFi的組合性與效率。最終形成一種混合資本結構，由傳統資產供應穩定性和合規舒適度，而DeFi協議提供可程式化與全球可接近性。
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相似性十分明顯。在傳統金融中，機構利用國債等高質資產作為抵押進行隔夜借貸，以取得短期流動性。合成美元協議則透過智能合約本質上複刻這一機制——用戶存入高質抵押品，換取穩定的美元計價資產。借款人所支付的利率，亦如回購利率一般，既提供短期融資，也維持抵押品支持。
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.
私募信貸的代幣化正打破1.7兆美元市場的藩籬，使全球投資人能參與、實現可編程的二級市場交易，亦可與穩定幣等DeFi基礎模組整合。合成美元在這一基礎架構中自然而然成為穩定的交換媒介——即鏈上的商業本票或貨幣市場基金份額，在更廣泛的信用生態系中提供短期穩定價值。
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.
傳統金融業者的調查顯示，近九成積極投資或研究如何運用公有鏈技術，他們將DeFi視為解決營運效率問題的方案，而不是競爭威脅。這種機構需求來自真正的價值主張：全天候結算、可自訂合約條件、透明的抵押管理、以及消除中介成本。
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.
然而，傳統與去中心化金融間的橋樑依然搖搖欲墜。例如，德國BaFin於2025年4月因MiCA法規之合規問題，勒令Ethena停止營運，凸顯各地針對穩定幣監管環境正不斷演變甚至趨於敵對。每個司法管轄區建立不同架構，造成碎片化，這也可能限制合成美元達到全球規模、真正與中心化產品競爭的能力。
Systemic Risks and Fragility Points
The sophistication that enables synthetic dollars to function also creates novel risk vectors that could trigger cascading failures during market stress.
支撐合成美元運作的高度複雜性，同時也帶來全新風險路徑，這些路徑在市場壓力下可能引發連鎖性失靈。
Peg Stability Under Extreme Conditions
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月的一次重大市場崩盤期間，USDe價格一度跌至$0.65，隨後回升至其匯率目標，同時協議供應量因用戶撤離而縮減35%。這一事件證明，即使設計優良的合成機制，在流動性危機下也會面臨嚴峻考驗。雖然匯率最終恢復，但此次風波讓人質疑，在贖回壓力和市場流動性枯竭時，這類系統的行為模式。
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.
所有合成美元穩定匯率都仰賴套利機制。當USDe低於$1.00交易時，套利者應該買入USDe並用其兌換$1.00等值抵押品。但該機制假設套利人手頭資本充足、贖回機制暢通、抵押品仍保有流動性。於嚴重市場斷裂時，這些假設常常崩潰；套利人自身可能在虧損中、手中無閒資、交易所暫停提款，甚至抵押品價格變化過快導致套利無法及時修復價格差。
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.
避險機制越複雜，潛在失靈點就越多。Ethena的中性避險策略需持續接入衍生品市場；如果主要交易所凍結交易、實施倉位限額或發生破產，協議即失去管理避險的能力。若交易所技術失靈、破產或遭監管措施，Ethena可能無法關閉或重平倉位，進而造成重大損失或錨定失效。
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.
過度抵押模型則有不同壓力。在價格急劇下跌時，清算系統可能不堪負荷。若以太幣一小時內暴跌40%，自動清算人必須將大量抵押品賣入下跌的市場，這增加賣壓，進而觸發進一步的連環清算，將抵押品價格壓低至理論清算線以下。此時，協議可能形成呆帳——也就是穩定幣持有者的資產抵押不足。
Oracle Dependence and Manipulation
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.
所有合成美元系統皆仰賴價格預言機來判斷抵押品是否應該清算或調整倉位。預言機通常匯集多個交易所價格，形成一個較不易被單一來源操縱的綜合報價。然而，預言機系統本身會有延遲——市場實際價格與預言機回報數據之間存在時間差。
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.
在極端波動期間，這種延遲讓人有機可乘。例如，有交易者可能在某個交易所操縱價格，利用過時的預言機價格觸發清算或套利，然後趁預言機更新前賺取利潤。雖然預言機供應商實施了諸如熔斷與異常偵測等機制，根本矛盾依然存在：預言機必須既能快速反映市場，又要能過濾操縱與異常數據。
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
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.
區塊鏈具備不可更改性的特質雖然讓其適合金融應用，但當程式碼存在漏洞時，便成為風險。傳統金融基礎設施可以暫停、更新甚至修正。而智能合約一旦部署，只會依程式執行——即使其中有錯。儘管主流協議都經過嚴格審計，DeFi圈過去依然發生多起重大攻擊事件，攻擊者往往能利用協議間意外連動或審計疏漏的邊界條件，吸走數億美元資產。
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.
合成美元協議經常涉及多合約複雜互動：包含鑄造機制、清算引擎、預言機整合、治理系統、收益分配邏輯等。每一個結合點都可能形成潛在漏洞。系統越精密，攻擊面積就越大。
Leverage and Contagion
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.
合成美元提升了組合性——即可以將一個協議的產出作為另一個協議的輸入。此舉帶來強大協同效應，但也產生風險傳染路徑。例如，用戶可先存入以太坊鑄造GHO，再用GHO作為另一協議的抵押借出USDC，再以USDC回頭買更多以太坊並反覆循環。這種遞迴槓桿放大了收益，也放大了損失。
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
當多個協議都接受同一種合成美元作為抵押品時，一個系統的失效可能會在生態系中引發連鎖反應。例如，若GHO失去錨定，所有接受GHO作為抵押的協議將同時面臨抵押品不足的風險，多個協議就會一起觸發清算……platforms can create selling pressure that overwhelms markets, triggering additional failures in an expanding circle.
平台有可能造成龐大的賣壓，導致市場無法承受，引發更多接連的失敗，問題範圍由此擴大。
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.
這種相互連結反映出傳統金融體系的系統性風險——2008 年金融危機就是活生生的例子，當時按揭證券的失敗，透過信貸違約掉期、貨幣市場基金及商業本票市場一連串蔓延開來。DeFi 的可組合特性，讓類似的傳導機制出現，並且由於自動化執行以及全球 24 小時無休的市場，傳播速度甚至更快。
Governance Centralization
治理中央化
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.
許多合成美元協議雖然標榜去中心化，但實際上仍然保留大量治理權限。例如 Aave 的 GHO 利率和風險參數由 Aave DAO 決定，協議中的促進者核准和資金池上限等決策也是透過治理投票控制。這種治理權限有助於危機處理，但同時也帶來中央化的風險。
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.
代幣式治理往往讓多數權力集中在大戶手中。如果少數幾個地址掌控大多數投票權，就可能修改協議參數，使少數人獲益、犧牲他人利益。具備快速應變的緊急權力，雖然有助於因應漏洞，但當代幣分配過於集中時，也可能被用來進行治理攻擊或是讓監管機構劫持。
The Regulatory Reckoning
法規大考驗
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，美國總統川普簽署了《GENIUS 法案》，設立美國首個聯邦級穩定幣監管框架。這項里程碑式的立法徹底重塑了合成美元的市場格局，並對它們的未來提出了根本性的疑問。
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用於支付或結算，並能以預先約定的固定金額贖回的數位資產。發行機構必須至少一比一備抵儲備，且僅能由特定資產擔保，包括美國美元、受保銀行存款、短期國債及政府核准的貨幣市場基金。
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?
像 USDC、USDT 這類法幣擔保的穩定幣，GENIUS 法案提供了明確的監管指引——這些協議可以申請聯邦執照，並在既定規範下運營。但合成美元屬於模糊地帶。它們並非以銀行持有的法幣儲備發行，而是透過加密貨幣抵押、創造信貸生成。這樣的機制算是「支付型穩定幣」嗎？還是會落入監管灰色地帶？
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?
法案另行暫停所有「內生性擔保的穩定幣」——這類資產維持固定價值，但主要由發行方自己的代幣或關聯資產作為擔保。這項規定針對過去幾輪市場崩潰時曾轟然倒下的演算法穩定幣。不過，法案對「內生性」的界線仍然模糊。例如，以以太坊超額抵押的穩定幣，是否屬於內生系統？如果擔保資產來自去中心化協議而不是法幣儲備，規定是否適用？
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.
聯準會理事 Christopher Waller 把穩定幣形容為「合成美元」，它們在加密生態系中作為交換媒介和帳戶單位。Waller 指出，這種私人貨幣的角色意味著其面臨與歷史銀行擠兌類似的流動性風險。這也顯示監管當局將這些工具視為貨幣創造與金融穩定的問題，而不是單純的支付工具。
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.
預期監管回應將創造分層系統。合乎儲備規定並取得執照的法幣型穩定幣，將成為零售用戶及主流採用的「安全」類別。合成美元則可能被限制在專業用戶群體，可能需要風險揭露、認證資格或使用限制，降低其規模化機會。
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.
全球各地監管規範分歧。歐盟的《加密資產市場規則》（MiCA）將電子貨幣代幣與資產參照型代幣加以區分，香港《穩定幣條例》則要求所有以港元擔保的發行人必須申領牌照。這種碎片化，對於希望全球發展的協議構成合規挑戰。
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.
然而，監管壓力有可能反而促使合成美元在特定用途加速採用。當中心化穩定幣發行者被要求凍結資產、進行制裁篩查或限制交易時，追求抵抗審查的用戶自然會選擇去中心化替代方案。合成美元提供了中心化穩定幣無法達成的東西：可信的中立性。智慧合約會以程式方式自動執行，不用人工決定是否凍結或回溯交易。
Market Outlook and Strategic Implications
市場展望及策略意涵
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折點。雖然目前總市值在整個穩定幣體系中仍屬小眾，但成長曲線非常陡峭。USDe 已躍升為全球市值第三大的穩定幣，鎖倉總價值超過百億美元。
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.
有幾個催化劑可望推動進一步成長。首先是在傳統 DeFi 借貸利率下跌的情境下，投資人尋求收益。那些能產生資金費率回報、質押獎勵或協議收益的合成美元，提供了比無息法幣穩定幣更具吸引力的選擇。隨著機構資本湧入加密市場追求穩定利潤，這些收益型產品能提供熟悉的風險報酬特性。
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.
第二是監管套利。當中心化穩定幣發行者面臨越來越重的合規負擔時，部分用戶和應用會偏好合成替代方案，因其能維護交易隱私且抗審查。這樣的需求可能來自資本管制嚴格地區的用戶、重視隱私的個人，或是需要無許可交易的應用場景。
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 的可組合性。合成美元原生支援借貸協議、去中心化交易所及收益聚合器。這種可組合性帶來網路效應：整合合成美元的應用越多，作為金融原生資產的價值就越大。Ethena 的合作策略清楚展現了這種趨勢：USDe 已適用於全球 45 個以上國家的新型數位銀行支付和儲蓄應用，並規劃串接 Telegram 及 TON 區塊鏈。
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，是機構級基礎設施。Ethena Labs 正透過如 iUSDe 這類產品鎖定傳統金融通路夥伴，在代幣層加入轉帳限制，以滿足機構合規需求，同時又能保有合成美元本身的收益生成機制。這種機構級包裝層，有機會搭起 DeFi 創新和傳統金融規範之間的橋樑。
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.
但市場成長也遇到不少阻力。可擴展限制決定了這些系統能做到多大。Ethena 模型取決於衍生品市場的深度——永續合約的未平倉量用於對沖是有限的。隨 USDe 體系膨脹，它將佔用越來越多總永續市場的空單部位，有可能影響其仰賴的資金費率平衡機制。超額抵押模型也因資本效率受限，在某些應用上競爭力不佳。
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.
對手風險依舊嚴峻。合成美元在架構上或許去中心化，但某些關鍵功能仍需依賴中心化實體，例如衍生品交易所、預言機提供商和清算機器人，這些都可能出錯或遭受監管干預。真正的去中心化需要全鏈上衍生品市場、去中心化預言機網路，以及能不依賴中心化干預、於壓力情境下自動化清算的系統。
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.
競爭正日益激烈。隨合成美元協議證明市場需求，既有 DeFi 協議及傳統機構正陸續加入戰局。Aave 的競爭分析指出，隨著 BlackRock 的 BUIDL 基金、世界自由金融計畫及 Ethena 市占提升，維繫 GHO 競爭力，需更積極的收益策略與市場定位。
Final thoughts
總結思考
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.
合成美元展現出一種無需仰賴傳統銀行基礎建設，即可創造和維持穩定價值的創新方式。它們證明只要設計得當，信貸機制也能鏈上重現貨幣市場的功能，同時保有去中心化金融的透明性、可組合性與抗審查特點。
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.
這些協議所展現的技術高度令人讚嘆。自動執行的中性對沖策略、於波動時降低用戶損失的溫和清算算法、既能產生協議收入又維持穩定價值的超額抵押信貸工具，都說明 DeFi 正從實驗階段邁向精密金融工程。
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.
但這種精密也有兩面刃。能提升效率、創造收益的複雜設計，也會帶來脆弱性。合成美元引入全新風險——如資金費率依賴、連鎖清算、預言機操弄、傳染效應——這些都可能引發具系統性影響的危機。2025 年 10 月短暫脫鉤事件，便是系統在極端壓力下發出的警告。
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, between
監管環境增添了不確定性。GENIUS 法案對法幣擔保穩定幣提供清晰指引，但對合成美元卻留有模糊空間。監管機構最終如何定性這類工具，將決定其未來是只為專業用戶小眾存在，還是有機會進入主流。這攸關創新與消費者保護間，以及…去中心化與問責制，依然未有定論。
展望未來，合成美元很可能會開闢出特定的利基市場，而不會完全取代由法幣支持的替代方案。對於尋求有收益的穩定資產、抗審查能力或原生 DeFi 整合的用戶來說，合成美元具有明顯的優勢。至於大眾支付、符合法規以及在危機期間保持最大穩定性的需求，法幣支持的穩定幣可能仍然具有競爭優勢。
傳統金融與去中心化金融的融合仍在持續進行。代幣化的國庫券、私人信貸工具、貨幣市場基金正逐步搬上鏈上。合成美元則成為這些基礎設施中的原生穩定媒介——一種可編程貨幣，使複雜的金融策略得以在不脫離區塊鏈運作下實現。隨著傳統機構實驗代幣化，DeFi 協議整合現實世界資產，合成美元提供了打造這種混合系統的穩健基石。
合成美元最終是重新定義了穩定性，還是暴露出 DeFi 的新缺陷，取決於多個尚未解答的問題。這些系統能否實現擴展而不走向中心化？能否在真正的黑天鵝事件中維持掛鉤？能否應對並不為可編程信貸設計的監管框架？下一個市場週期，很可能會給出明確的答案。
可以確定的是，透過信貸機制來創造穩定價值，是任何有志於脫離傳統基礎設施的金融體系不可或缺的基本能力。合成美元已證明這個概念可行。至於這套執行機制是否足夠健全、能被廣泛採用，仍然是那個價值兆美元的終極問題。