Current capital management departments are facing unprecedented challenges — they need to manage liquidity across multiple public chains, various cross-chain bridges, and different environments.



Cross-chain stablecoins are changing this situation. Why? In traditional models, transferring funds between different chains is inefficient, costly, and risky. However, stablecoin solutions based on cross-chain protocols enable fund managers to seamlessly move funds between mainstream public chains like Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, and others, while maintaining price stability.

What does this mean? Liquidity allocation has evolved from isolated single-chain islands to a truly full-chain layout. Exchanges, lending protocols, and market makers can use the same stablecoin to arbitrage and hedge across different ecosystems, greatly reducing operational complexity and slippage losses.
ETH-2.32%
SOL0.76%
ARB-2.06%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SatoshiHeirvip
· 01-07 23:52
Still talking about cross-chain stablecoins? I have only one question—has the fundamental problem of liquidity fragmentation been solved? --- According to the white paper, this方案 has actually been proven long ago, but most people haven't read it. --- So basically, it's still using more complex technology stacks to cover up the inherent flaws of single-chain performance. Interesting. --- Seamless liquidity? Ha, let's wait until a public chain actually crashes once before talking. --- It should be pointed out that slippage loss hasn't disappeared; it has just shifted into the risk premium of cross-chain bridges. --- It's 2024 and we're still discussing this. The community should have already evolved to the next stage.
View OriginalReply0
SilentAlphavip
· 01-07 23:48
Cross-chain stablecoins sound great, but how many can actually be implemented? It always feels like just hype. In fact, the real test lies in liquidity depth, not just seamlessness. Arbitrage opportunities are indeed tempting, but the risks are concentrated at the bridging layer, and no one dares to speak loudly about it. A governance collapse of a stablecoin could be catastrophic, even more dangerous than a single-chain island. The liquidity on Solana can't compare to Ethereum at all. Why talk about a full-chain deployment?
View OriginalReply0
CrossChainBreathervip
· 01-07 23:48
Cross-chain stablecoins are essentially a solution to the pain points of the multi-chain era. Finally, no more repeated bridging hassles. Honestly, the experience improvement with cross-chain is obvious, but we have to wait for the market to truly accept it. It's about arbitrage and hedging, but will slippage really decrease? It still seems to depend on the specific protocol. Seamless liquidity sounds great, but does it increase risk concentration instead? If the Solana ecosystem takes off, this solution will indeed be easy to promote. However, the audit and security of cross-chain stablecoins are the key points. Without solid security in this area, everything else is pointless.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoDouble-O-Sevenvip
· 01-07 23:45
Cross-chain stablecoins sound good, but I wonder if using them in practice will come with a bunch of risk points --- To put it nicely, in reality, it's still various bridging solutions fighting each other. Which one is truly "seamless"? --- Laying out liquidity across the entire chain, it feels like you have to step on some landmines to figure it out --- If we really want to hedge with the same stablecoin across the board, the premise is to survive the next rug risk, right? --- Multi-chain integration sounds great, but can slippage really be significantly reduced? I'm a bit skeptical --- So essentially, it's still solving the old problem of multi-chain fragmentation, not really innovative --- The exchange folks have been doing cross-chain arbitrage for a while, isn't this solution already available? --- Wait, does that mean stablecoins themselves also need to be cross-chain? Wouldn't that double the risk? --- All-chain, seamless, cost reduction—sounds like marketing copy --- By the way, how many truly feasible cross-chain stablecoin solutions are there now?
View OriginalReply0
ArbitrageBotvip
· 01-07 23:41
Sounds good in theory, but once a cross-chain bridge has an issue, it's a bloodbath. Are you still willing to go all in now? --- A full-chain deployment sounds great, but I'm just worried that one link might get stuck... Arbitrage opportunities and risks are often two sides of the same coin. --- Seamless liquidity? Let's wait until a chain's gas fees explode or a major bug occurs before talking. --- Cross-chain stablecoins have been hyped for a while, but the key is actual usage; otherwise, it's all just on paper. --- Reducing slippage and losses is indeed tempting, but can liquidity really be that evenly distributed? I always feel there's a chance to cut the leeks. --- That said, which current cross-chain stablecoin solution truly solves the problem of liquidity fragmentation? --- Here we go again with the pie-in-the-sky plans. Let's wait until mainstream exchanges adopt it. --- The root cause is too many risk points. Until it's thoroughly solved, it's just walking a tightrope at high altitude.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)