多數交易者以為流動性是他們在交易所訂單簿上看到的掛單，其實，公開市場只揭露了故事的一部分。場外的「暗影」流動性——大量穩定幣透過場外交易（OTC）、內部撮合、跨鏈橋與做市商金庫流轉——才是加密貨幣交易的真正動力來源。
例如，Kaiko數據顯示約94%的穩定幣交易量發生在中心化交易所，但這個數字有誤導性：公開訂單簿上發生的交易規模遠不及場外流動。幕後數十億美元的USDT、USDC及其他穩定幣在錢包、主經紀商與大宗交易間流動，默默供給市場的流動性，使價格得以協調一致。
這些「暗影穩定幣」——未上市或跨鏈發行、從不出現在標準行情上的代幣——組成了維持市場運作關鍵的隱形基礎設施。表面上看，幣圈流動性大部分都隱身於幕後。Kaiko指出，大約94%的穩定幣市場活動都在中心化平台，去中心化市場份額微乎其微。
然而，實際的交易量則通過私人通道流動：OTC場外交易、內部對沖與跨鏈轉移。事實上，每一次可見的USDT交易，背後可能有數次未登帳面交易。這裡所謂「暗影穩定幣」，泛指所有在公開訂單簿之外流通——在不易察覺的鏈上鑄造或私下兌換——卻仍驅動市場的美元掛鉤代幣。對於只盯著訂單簿的散戶而言，這些隱藏的穩定幣提供了幾乎每一筆大型加密貨幣交易的深度。
行業數據顯示，穩定幣已深入OTC體系，並主導機構現貨交易。Finery Markets報告顯示，2025年上半年OTC交易有約75%通過穩定幣結算。具體來說，Circle的USDC網路僅在2025年前半年就完成了約8,500億美元的法幣與區塊鏈之間轉移。
在實務運作中，資產管理人若需移動5,000萬美元的比特幣，往往不會在公開訂單簿上操作，而是與主經紀商或OTC桌直接交易，通常會先收到場外新鑄造的USDC/USDT，再透過快速兌換賣出。交易所的期權、期貨部門同樣會將客戶單內部撮合，真正顯示在市場總成交量裡的極少。
簡言之，OTC、主經紀商網路與做市商構築出龐大的場外穩定幣流動，這正是加密價格形成的幕後動力。
什麼是暗影穩定幣?
暗影穩定幣是在中心化交易所(CEX)行情中從未出現過單獨代號的擬美元資產。例如Tether發行於Tron（TRC-20 USDT），現今近六成USDT流通於Tron，但多數交易所（如幣安、Coinbase）將所有USDT歸於同一代號。因此，TRC-20 USDT悄然流經統一的「USDT」行情，甚少被注意。同樣，幣安的掛鈎幣（BSC鏈USDC/USDT）、Circle過去也曾試進Tron鑄USDC，或是在新鏈（如Avalanche、Base等）部署的穩定幣也很難被察覺。
這些暗影代幣通常在OTC換幣及跨鏈橋傳遞。例如FXC Intelligence指，Tron現時佔USDT總供應約51%，即約516億枚流通於Tron，僅有354億枚於以太坊。一家亞洲機構可能直接購買TRC-20 USDT（Tron鏈手續費僅0.01美元），隨後在CEX錢包賣出或兌換；對外部市場來看，不過是一般USDT的一筆流轉。
暗影穩定幣最常活躍於傳統結算系統薄弱的全球通道。許多新興國家居民以USDT作為儲值與匯款工具。Chainalysis觀察到拉丁美洲與撒哈拉以南非洲正廣泛採用穩定幣用於避險與低成本跨境支付。
報告顯示，在亞洲、非洲和拉美等50個國家裡，有35個的USDT／USDC往來最頻繁於Tron網路。低廉的手續費成為最大誘因：Tron鏈上轉帳USDT僅需0.01美元，對低收入區域用戶極具吸引力。報導指出，2024年第一季奈及利亞穩定幣交易量已接近30億美元，成為當地零售千萬美元以下支付的主流型態。
這部分流動性多數通過Tron或其他場外路徑進行，基本不會直接反映在交易所流動性上，而是默默地支撐了不同通道間的交易。
其他暗影穩定幣還包括中介資產與跨鏈橋。一位交易員可能在以太坊上鑄造USDC、於CEX用USDC兌BTC，再跨鏈移至EVM鏈，最後向Circle贖回，循環重複。這些流程創造或銷毀代幣，但並無公開交易量的反應。
自動化做市商（AMM）如Curve或Uniswap也有類似作用：穩定幣庫存常在DEX池內外轉換，然後被套利者搬磚至其他地方。整體來說，暗影穩定幣實質是一套私人支付軌道，涵蓋了由受監管銀行或代理人發行的代幣（如Paxos發行的穩定幣），以及所有以美元為本、通過OTC或授權渠道流通的資產。
這些代幣本質上規避了訂單簿上可見的流動性——但它們真實且充裕。事實上，目前兩大穩定幣（USDT與USDC）每月流量都達兆美元等級，其中大多透過場外機制結算。
加密流動性的隱形水管
從本質上說，加密流動性如同一個微型影子銀行體系。機構交易台與主經紀商將鏈上與鏈下世界串聯。在實務上，大額交易經常全程繞過公開市場。Finery Markets最新估計，機構現貨成交量有四分之三經由穩定幣結算，反映幣圈對美元軌道依賴日益加深。
同時，法幣與加密資產之間的流動規模驚人：Circle報告僅六個月USDC在銀行與區塊鏈間轉移約8,500億美元，但大多數途經OTC或託管機構而非公開交易所。例如資金管理人可能通過銀行直接以美元兌換USDC，然後馬上傳至做市商錢包，後者再於連結的市場進行交易。外部世界只會看到最終的交易所成交。
新型主經紀設施開始正式化這種體系。像Copper和BitGo等提供整合託管池，可即時支援多家交易所。產業說明指出，機構可將單一筆USDC或美元資產存入託管方，便可在任一連結平台上執行訂單而不需重複入金。實際上，幕後好比擁有一個穩定幣「銀行帳戶」。
這就創造了一個虛擬的內部流動性池：一旦某CEX USDT短缺，主經紀商能立即調動資金至該處。這類後台網路增強場外流動深度，讓表面流動似乎更順暢，但其實仍在帳外運行。
做市商更會於各場館重用穩定幣。他們常以中性倉位操作：同時持有等值的高波動幣及美元穩定幣，互相對沖。市況波動時，可能會短暫過度或不足對沖，隨後藉發行商或DEX池資源調整部位。
他們在USDC、USDT、DAI等間靈活切換，以追逐最便宜資金或最佳流動入口。Kaiko指出，即便在主流交易所，深度也有限：USDC價格移動1%平均需約一億美元的掛單，USDT則為兩億美元；而大宗交易規模則更巨大。因此，場外經銷商常背後協調鑄造與贖回。若某交易所USDT短缺，做市商可將USDC場外兌換USDT補充庫存，無須掛單。兌付管道恢復時再將穩定幣銷毀或換回，這個循環——鑄幣、投入交易、贖回或換回、必要時再鑄——悄然將流動性供應到市場所需之處。
這些要素的互動，使市場價格得以維持一致。正常情況下，套利者與做市商會藉場外資金拉平微小價差。如果後台體系受阻，則可能出現短暫失衡。研究發現，當活躍套利者較少時，穩定幣與一美元的偏差會變大。
平均來說，USDT成交價通常比一美元低約0.55%，而USDC約僅低0.01%，部分原因是USDT過去主市場參與受到限制（只有少數套利者能直接贖回USDT）。結果，USDT的暗影流動性相較USDC透明度略低，因此偶爾會產生更大價差。
個案分析：Tron鏈USDT作為全球支付鐵道
網路架構師與分析師認為，Tron的速度快、費用低，成為全球資金移動的「鐵道」。第三方數據顯示，如今Tron承載的USDT規模遠勝其他區塊鏈。具體流程中，美元先進入Tether帳簿（如於香港或開曼群島），隨後轉為Tron鏈USDT，最後進入加密市場或跨境結算通道。
這一變化主要由區域需求驅動，在亞洲與非洲，Tron鏈USDT已成首選穩定幣。相關研究發現在印尼、菲律賓、越南、奈及利亞和迦納等地（皆為加密重鎮），Tron是穩定幣匯款的主要網路。原因很簡單：Tron鏈USDT每筆交易手續費僅一至兩美分，遠低於以太坊。幣安評論員指出「0.01美元的手續費讓TRON上的USDT對低收入國家用戶具極大吸引力」。
受此推動，新加坡或杜拜匯往奈及利亞的零售支付往往優先選擇Tron USDT匯路，而非傳統電匯系統。出金對接... 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.
非洲普遍接受將 USDT 存入支持 Tron 的行動錢包。因此，Tron 上的穩定幣通道已成為那些缺乏法幣出金管道地區的數位命脈：有報告指出，到 2024 年初，尼日利亞的穩定幣支付規模已達約 30 億美元，主要都是經由 Tron 鏈路完成的。
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 通路上的大部分資金流都不會直接出現在交易所的訂單簿上。中心化交易所通常不會標示鏈上的資金來源——只會顯示「USDT」。例如，一位智利交易者買入 USDT、然後在巴西賣出，這些 USDT 其實可能在底層從以太坊轉到 Tron，再到 BSC，然後返回，全程都不經公開市場。如果交易所的流動性不足，內部櫃檯通常會從這些其他通路調用 USDT 來補充庫存。
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.
舉例來說，如果 Binance 的 USDT 庫存用盡，交易所可能還有一個包含 Tron 和以太坊 USDT 的「倉庫」。當有場外OTC提領或出現大規模賣單時，可以直接把 Tron 鏈上的 USDT 轉入 Binance 錢包來應付。由於帳本上僅紀錄「USDT 進出」，Tron 鏈上的活動對外部觀察者來說是隱形的。簡單來說，Tron USDT 雖然撐起了全球交易，卻從未以「Tron-USDT」的型態出現在行情圖上——它一直流動在「影子地帶」。
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.
許多隱形資金流都是由專業流動性供應商在背後調度。大型做市機構持有大量美元穩定幣準備金，以便隨時應對流動性需求。為了管理風險，他們通常施行 Delta Neutral（中性部位）策略：像是持有一包加密資產，同時配置同等價值的穩定幣作對沖。
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.
這些公司會持續動態調整：如果某種穩定幣需求特別高，他們就會相應換倉。同時，他們會利用不同平台間的微小價格落差，例如某交易所上的 USDC 價格略高於 USDT，他們就會在場外或者 DEX 兌換套利。換句話說，做市商本質上在運作內部兌換櫃檯，不斷混合與拆分各種穩定幣的流動性。
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.
抵押品互換也很常見。做市商會將代幣存在收益池（如 Curve）、透過 DeFi 質押借款、或在 CeFi 放貸，然後靈活調度。例如，若需 BUSD 來進行跨鏈套利，經銷商可能會在鏈上將 USDC 兌換或贖回為 BUSD。反過來說，若 USDC 需求暴增，他們就會新增鑄造或買進 USDC，通常也都是走內部路徑（例如透過 Circle 連接的美國銀行帳戶）來避開公開訂單簿的衝擊。
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.
這種不斷的鑄造、交易、贖回與再鑄造循環，確保了流動性分布均衡。公開聲明也佐證了這一點：Circle 的資訊披露顯示，在市場壓力事件期間，數億美元級的 USDC 每天被鑄造和銷毀，以平衡資金流。
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.
就實務面來說，這一系列機制使得價差收斂、而市場更具韌性。在正常情況下，場外流動性商會吸收訂單不平衡，讓掛在表面的訂單簿始終流暢。但一旦遇到突發事件，局限就會顯現。例如，習慣以比特幣計價的交易者賣出時通常是與 USDT 兌換——當 BTC 需求下降，更多穩定幣便流入市場。如果套利管道中斷（比如贖回管道延遲），就算是這些做市商也無能為力。
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.
相較於 USDC，USDT 的授權套利專櫃數量通常較少，這也部分解釋了為何 USDT 在壓力情境下，價格偏離 $1 的幅度會更大。簡言之，做市商把「影子穩定幣」用作營運資金：他們的內部庫存循環就是交易所上流動性的基礎，通常能讓價格維持一致，直到系統遭遇壓倒性的危機。
Liquidity During Stress Events
壓力事件下的流動性
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.
每當市況崩潰或類似擠兌事件爆發時，場外穩定幣的關鍵角色就會凸顯。2022 年 5 月 Terra/LUNA 崩潰就是經典例子。當 UST 脫鉤時，大戶與 Terra 背後支持者都爭先恐後把巨量 UST 兌換成法幣支持型穩定幣。據 Chainalysis 報告指出，UST 崩壞前短短 48 小時內，不明身份的交易者就用 USDT 收購了超過 4.8 億美元的 UST 來試圖維持釘住匯率。
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.
這場大規模的 USDT-UST 交換堪稱經典的場外干預：交易大都發生在 Curve 流動性池和 OTC 管道，把四面八方的 Tether 吸進來。最終，這種兌換＋銷毀手法未能挽救 UST 崩潰。但在最後時刻，這些隱形流動的 USDT 成為唯一試圖救市的力量。
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.
同樣地，在 2022 年底 FTX 崩潰後，超過 30 億美元的 USDC 和 USDT 一度被鎖在該平台。這種突如其來的流動性損失，使得其他市場不得不補上空缺。部分平台價格一度出現劇烈擴大，大家都在爭搶剩餘的穩定幣資金流。雖然沒有完整的數據，但很明顯，FTX 下線造成了穩定幣管道的「冷庫存」衝擊——這也是機構習慣把多餘穩定幣留在場外的原因之一。
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 脫鉤事件就是壓力情境下套利的實際案例。當時矽谷銀行（SVB）凍結，Circle 無法即時處理數百萬筆贖回請求，USDC 一度跌到約 $0.88。根據美聯儲分析，那一周 USDC 流通市值降約 100 億美元，而 USDT 則增加約 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.
換句話說，數不清的交易者把 USDC 兌換成 USDT 或其他流動性更佳的穩定幣。那個週末，專業機構主導了批發兌換，把 USDC 換成 USDT，而 Circle 也優先償還 60 億美元的贖回請求以挽回信心。到了週一，市場終於恢復正常。但那幾日，真正的救命索其實是場外協議與主經紀商代理的穩定幣調度：零售訂單簿流動性稀薄，唯有透過 OTC 管道高速分流資金，才讓系統沒完全凍結。
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.
每一場危機都強化同一件事：公開訂單簿只反映了冰山一角。無論 UST 崩潰還是 SVB 倒閉，真正的資金平衡都是透過未曾作為正常「成交量」記錄的龐大穩定幣轉移完成的。即便 DEX 訂單簿消耗殆盡，穩定幣的鑄造與贖回仍有緩衝效果。2023 年 3 月後 USDC 能迅速回穩，就是因為 Circle 啟動了大規模贖回——而驅動這一切的，是做市商們提前就備好的巨量「影子流動性」。
Arbitrage Flows & Price Discovery
套利流與價格發現
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.
「影子穩定幣」在全球場域對齊價格方面發揮著關鍵作用。舉例來說，USDT 若在某家亞洲小型交易所比美國平台便宜一點，交易者就能透過場外通道來重新平衡：比方說，他們可以把 USDT 換成 USDC，然後將 USDT 橋接出亞洲，再用其他路徑轉回來，賺取小小的套利空間。這類套利資金流能迅速壓縮跨平台價差。其實，只要場外穩定幣流動性充足，就能讓零售下單也更容易以合理價格成交。
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.
實際操作上，套利往往是一連串的多階段循環。一個交易者可能在 A 交易所把 ETH 賣給 USDT，然後把 USDT 送到 B 交易所換回 BTC，最後還可能直接用 Tether 贖回美元出場。或是透過 DeFi 做環路套利：如果 Coinbase 上的 USDC 高於 Binance USDC，套利者就能在 Curve 把 USDT 換 USDC，然後鏈上搬幣，等待價格收斂賺價差。
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.
這些結算循環仰賴著隱形的巨大庫存：若沒有做市商錢包裡的場外備貨，這類跨平台交易會導致更大幅度的價格波動。量化數據也證實這點。例如 Kaiko 機構發現，穩定幣訂單簿上的可見深度有限（僅約 1~2 億美元能造成 1% 波動），但實際價格的反應通常遠比這小，都是托了背後這些隱形資金流的福。換句話說，「影子流動性」擴大了散戶用戶看到的顯性深度。
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，只要場外通道卡住，套利鏈就會失效。我們已經見過了：如 USDC 脫鉤時，供應端出現異常分離，主市場贖回跟不上，次級市場價格一度幾小時內劇烈分歧。同理，若穩定幣發行商暫停贖回（如 Tether 2023 年 9 月在銀行危機時就曾如此），或鏈上塞車時，不同鏈上的穩定幣也會短暫拉開溢價。在這些時候，光靠表面訂單簿已不夠看，影子流動才是裁判。一旦這些暗流動搖，價差就會擴大。
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 年春天許多交易者都學到這一課：本應緊盯 $1 不走的穩定幣（USDC 與 DAI），在 SVB 倒閉後都曾跌穿 $0.90，這其實是場外資金循環短暫失效的結果，而非僅僅是散戶恐慌盤。核心是，一旦 OTC 和主經紀商管道阻塞，套利者無法快速調倉，顯性價格就會出現偏離，直到這套「無聲水管」被修好為止。
Retail Trader’s Dilemma
散戶的流動性困境
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.
對多數散戶而言，螢幕上的流動性其實可能是海市蜃樓。某些加密貨幣交易所可能標榜自家 USDT 訂單簿超深，但那其實只是公開掛單的表層實力，背後還有整條「穩定幣之河」準備隨時灌入。反之，看似很有流動性的掛單也可能因為隱蔽的對手風險驟然消失。要判斷實際情況該怎麼辦？實務上，老練交易者會觀察報價牌以外的信號。
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.
一個好用的指標就是穩定幣流向數據。現在許多分析機構都會追蹤 USDC/USDT 的大宗鏈上轉帳。比如，中心化交易所大規模流入通常會預示波動：當大量穩定幣湧進交易所時，可能意味著賣方即將出籠，成交效率就會惡化。相反，若突然觀察到穩定幣急速流出，則表示資金在隱藏或轉往場外。
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.
公開聲明（例如 Circle 每週報告）讓交易者可以查到 USDC 的淨鑄造／銷毀流量；異常的高鑄造量往往意謂著機構在場外大量囤積美元。散戶可善用這些鏈上數據（借助加密數據儀表板），用來補充訂單簿的資訊。
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.
另一個訣竅是，用懷疑的眼光看待表面的深度。如果你要下大單，千萬別只看單一交易所宣稱的 2% 深度，而是應該同時查核多個平台與鏈上流動性池。舉例來說，Curve 上 USDC/USDT 的總流動性（由 DeFi 分析工具追蹤）大致能反映在鏈上換幣時不易滑價的底線規模。
If Curve’s poolis 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.
如果流動性較薄，將訂單拆分或採用 TWAP 策略可能更安全。一般來說，較小且分批下的訂單能降低市場衝擊。許多資深交易者都會避免在加密貨幣市場中「一次賣光」的市價單；他們會將交易拆散在數分鐘到數小時內執行，讓 OTC 路徑中的隱藏流動性慢慢吸收成交量。
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.
最後，交易場所的選擇也很重要。中心化交易所本身有其限制——有時會有高額提現手續費或 KYC 延誤。相對而言，如果具備存取權限，去中心化交易所（DEX）或跨鏈路由器可能在價格控制上效果更佳（但需支付鏈上 Gas 費用）。例如，在像幣安這樣的 DEX 上將 USDT 兌換成 BTC，可能會經過波場或 BSC 橋接，這樣可以讓滑點降到最低。
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.
結合多種策略（例如在中心化交易所掛限價單，加上策略性鏈上兌換），通常能獲得最佳效果。關鍵在於認知：真正的流動性遠超過可見的深度，因此評估執行風險時，應以所需流量的美元價值來衡量，而不僅僅是看訂單簿的成交格數。
Regulatory & Transparency Challenges
監管與透明度的挑戰
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」類似影子銀行體系，帶來監管難題。全球並沒有監管機構針對場外穩定幣交易進行全面監督；這些交易大多是點對點而且跨越法域。傳統的鏈上舉報機制無法覆蓋這些交易。正如某位觀察者所說，加密貨幣市場中的美元流動多數類似影子銀行——快速且不透明。
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.
這引發了關於隱藏系統性風險的憂慮。如果少數機構將大量穩定幣資金集中於帳外，一旦發生倒閉，就可能引發一連串難以即時察覺的連鎖效應。事實上，國會和監管機構已開始重視：例如，美國擬議中的 GENIUS 法案，打算將大型穩定幣發行商視同銀行，要求 100% 儲備及嚴格可審計性。
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 與 Tether 未來需面對突襲式儲備稽查，實質上是把過去強調「無准入」的代幣導向傳統金融體系的鏈上影子。在歐洲，MiCA（加密資產市場法案）也對資產掛鉤型代幣施加嚴格規範，嘗試將穩定幣納入統一規範，以縮小這個「陰影空間」。
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.
但執法進展緩慢。主流交易所和 OTC 櫃檯很少公布場外持有多少穩定幣流動性。即使是提供屋證的 Tether 與 Circle，也只披露總供給量，並未揭露流入私人通道的部分。
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.
因此，有分析師認為穩定幣猶如影子銀行——充滿「隱藏槓桿」，監管者往往只有在價格劇震時才驚覺其存在。對於政策制定者來說，啟示很明確：必須同時考慮交易所成交量與看不見的流動性網絡，來衡量穩定性。像儲備證明合約或強制披露等工具也許能照亮陰影，但產業落地尚處初始階段。在場外流動至少部分透明前，這套體系還是會比傳統證券監管難度更高。
Looking Ahead: The Future of Shadow Liquidity
展望未來：影子流動性的前景
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.
穩定幣的「陰影」會逐漸消散嗎？一些發展趨勢透露出透明化的曙光。鏈上儲備證明或定期驗證，未來也許會納入各法域的鑄造與贖回記錄。
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.
像 Paxos 這類金融企業正在測試銀行存款代幣化，未來有望實現鏈上流動性證明：例如，銀行發行的穩定幣或許可即時公布抵押品證明（類似部分加密貨幣現行作法）。中央銀行數位貨幣（CBDC）同樣可能重塑基礎設施：若商業銀行將存款在 CBDC 帳本上代幣化，或許可直接串接到加密交易所後端，讓影子世界部分融入帳面體系。
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.
資料分析的創新亦可能揭開流動性迷霧。有公司正在開發加密市場的「訂單流監控」工具：追蹤大額美元穩定幣轉移，在進入市場前預警潛在失衡。
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.
未來，交易協議可能會內建自動對接 OTC 流動性池的路由演算法，實質上將部分暗盤交易「內部化」給散戶用戶。我們也有望看到穩定幣進一步演化：所謂「可編程穩定幣」或即時結算網，可能減少零散 OTC 互換（像內建跨鏈橋接），逐步將隱藏流動性拉到檯面上，或者至少做到更無縫的整合。
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.
但儘管工具日新月異，「陰影」依然可能長存。私下協商與場外淨額結算的優勢過於根深蒂固。可以肯定的是，理解加密市場就是要同時描繪明面與暗面。影子穩定幣並不是缺陷，而是全球加密流動性的本質之一。
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.
隨著生態體系日臻成熟，專業交易者和政策制定者都必須正視這些隱藏的美元代幣流動——無論來自波場鏈、還是 OTC 交易——它們與交易所訂單簿同樣屬於「市場」本體。唯有承認並盡可能窺探這片地下世界，才能真正理解加密流動性、風險與價格發現的全貌。
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.
影子穩定幣凸顯了一個悖論：加密世界建立在「可見帳本」之上，但其最深厚的流動性卻是在私下流動。這不是設計失誤，而是去中心化金融順應全球需求、自然而然產生的特質。實務上，這些場外穩定幣網絡能有效收窄價差、促進交易，但同時也帶來了獨特的風險挑戰——從交易者的執行風險，到監管上的盲區。
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.
認識這個「流動性海市蜃樓」至關重要。對機構投資者來說，這代表必須善用一級經紀及選擇可信交易對手；對監管者而言，則要將觀察視野擴大到交易所以外；而一般散戶，也該學會解讀各種代理指標（如穩定幣流入量），而非只看訂單簿報價。最終，關鍵在於意識到流動性往往存在於螢幕之外。影子穩定幣本質上是隱形的水管網——一旦了解其運作機理，便能洞悉驅動加密市場的真正動力。