I was eating instant noodles when I came across the news that a certain public chain community was going to vote for the issuance of a euro-pegged stablecoin. The veteran players in the group were extremely excited, and some had already started modeling the valuation of a "dual stablecoin ecosystem." But as I looked at the screen, my bowl suddenly lost its appeal.

A chain that hasn't even sorted out its own USD stablecoin is now trying to play with a Euro stablecoin? It's like the foundation of the house is still leaking, yet the landlord is anxious to add a swimming pool on the top floor.

What's even more heartbreaking is the details of the proposal—the funding source section says "to be determined." Translated, that means: first draw the pie, and we'll figure out the money later. My mind instantly flashed back to May 2022, that night that will forever be remembered. LUNA plummeted from 80 to 0.0001. UST completely decoupled. Back then, the team also said similar things: "We have a backup plan." Now they're launching a new coin, but the script is the same, just with a different currency name.

This conditioned reflex coming from historical trauma forced me to make a decision: to clear all positions and turn to a project that incorporates "anti-peg" into its code. The stablecoin I have been researching deeply lately is simply like using past failures as a counterexample—some projects use algorithms to maintain the peg, only to fall into a death spiral; whereas this one guarantees that every coin is backed by real money with 150% over-collateralization and real-time on-chain audits.

In contrast, the difference is indeed significant. One follows the algorithmic faith route, and as a result, the faith has collapsed; the other follows the route of asset-backed endorsement, which lacks a bit of flair but offers more solidity.