I noticed a very interesting phenomenon: early blockchain projects always boast about performance, ecosystems, and various technical tricks, but once it comes to the words "payment" and "settlement," the atmosphere becomes more realistic.

Why? Because the essence of settlement is handling the flow of funds, and when funds start moving, people want to participate, charge fees, and control the direction. The more successful a settlement network is, the easier it is for various parties to keep an eye on it. This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but anyone who has dealt with cross-border payments, OTC trading, or merchant settlements knows that this is not a conspiracy—it's the reality.

So recently, when I was researching stablecoin settlement-related topics, I paid special attention to one word: neutrality. The crypto world often talks about this word as if it’s very mysterious, as if shouting "decentralization" automatically grants it. But what I care more about is its true meaning—when you become the settlement layer, can you make participants with different backgrounds and interests believe that you won’t tilt the scales, won’t be controlled by a certain group, and won’t kick certain users out due to external pressure? In the payment world, trust is not a feeling; it’s a stable expectation.

I talked with a friend who works in foreign trade. His biggest fear isn’t the high fees, but a sudden "uncontrollable rule" being imposed, cutting off his payment channels directly. Such things happen often in traditional finance, but ordinary people don’t see it. Stablecoins are used as digital dollars in many parts of the world, and a key reason is that they can maintain this neutral expectation—you don’t know how much power is behind the scenes, but you trust that the rules won’t change without reason. This is the core competitiveness of the settlement layer.