2026-01-03 15:23:46

Looking at the idea behind the StandX project, it's quite different. Instead of starting with a complex ecosystem right away, it first focuses on establishing a stablecoin and laying the trading infrastructure, then gradually increasing leverage.

The interesting thing about the DUSD stablecoin is that — it doesn't exist in isolation. The entire system's fund flow must pass through it, making it the main hub of the platform's funds. Most importantly, it earns fees and charges generated from real trades, rather than relying on external subsidies or air income.

In other words, as long as trading continues on the platform, DUSD won't be idle. With trading volume, its value support is maintained. This forms a relatively healthy self-sustaining cycle.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WhaleSurfer

· 01-04 17:45

This approach is indeed clear-minded, not following the trend to blindly create some ecosystem narrative. DUSD is stuck at a key liquidity hub, with transaction fees directly reinvesting, which is much stronger than stablecoins that rely on air support.

View OriginalReply0

EntryPositionAnalyst

· 01-04 01:04

This logic is indeed interesting, neither overly hyped nor overly critical. Real fee support is much more reliable than air projects; I'm just worried that they might cause some trouble later on. Trading volume is the core; without it, everything else is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

FunGibleTom

· 01-03 15:53

I think the idea of stablecoins serving as a capital hub is good; real cost-driven mechanisms are more reliable than air subsidies.

View OriginalReply0

StrawberryIce

· 01-03 15:50

Hey, wait a minute, real transaction fees support? If this can be maintained, it would be amazing.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-c802f0e8

· 01-03 15:44

Hmm, this line of thinking is indeed clear-headed, unlike some projects that immediately boast about a trillion-dollar ecosystem. I believe in DUSD earning fees—it's much more reliable than stablecoins that rely on mining subsidies to survive. Trading volume = value support; how far this logic can go depends on how much real trading volume the platform can attract. Build the foundation first, then play with leverage—at least it's not that typical rookie scam.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterX

· 01-03 15:29

Hmm, this approach does have some interesting points. First, solidify the infrastructure before expanding, unlike some projects that hype their ecosystem right from the start. The design of DUSD consuming transaction fees is okay; not relying on subsidies is indeed more stable. It all depends on whether trading volume can support it later on. Wait, isn't this just trying to copy the Uniswap model... just with a different stablecoin? Honestly, I'm a bit tempted, but I need to see user growth first. Currently, those entering are all gamblers. It's a bit risky; the stablecoin market is almost saturated. At least there's real revenue backing it, which is much better than those air projects.

View OriginalReply0