I recently came across a news story where a tech mogul announced plans to bear high childbirth costs for specific groups worldwide, with the condition that future benefits would flow back. This story instantly went viral, sparking polarized comments—some saying it’s moral decay, others praising it as innovative charity.



But my focus might be a bit unusual. Watching this public debate, I suddenly thought: when sufficiently wealthy individuals can influence traditional rules with money, those things that seem to be governed by markets and institutions are actually being quietly redefined. Basic concepts like childbirth and blood relations can be reshaped by capital—what about wealth itself? The value of currency?

As soon as this idea occurred to me, I couldn’t sit still. I made a decision—to reallocate part of my assets into decentralized stablecoins.

A friend asked me how these two things are related. I turned the question back to him: when power is sufficiently centralized, do you think your asset rules will always stay the same?

Honestly, in traditional financial systems, rules are made, amended, and interpreted by a few institutions. These institutions may adjust the game for various reasons—sometimes policy bias, sometimes driven by interests. Your wealth exists within this system, essentially betting that these rules won’t turn against you.

But on-chain stablecoins are different. Take the current mainstream mechanism as an example: over 130% over-collateralization is verifiable on-chain in real-time, accessible to everyone. The rules aren’t changed by a CEO’s single statement; they are guaranteed by mathematics, code, and consensus across the network. No founder can redefine the game with a single decision—because no one has that kind of power.

This isn’t to say traditional finance is worse, but that the way risk is distributed is completely different. One relies on centralized trust, the other on mathematical verification. When you see wealth potentially being defined unilaterally, diversification becomes especially meaningful.
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
GasWranglervip
· 9h ago
technically speaking, if you actually analyze the mempool dynamics here—centralized control over monetary policy is demonstrably sub-optimal. the math just doesn't lie. most people miss this because they're not doing the base layer analysis.
Reply0
MerkleDreamervip
· 9h ago
Can't hold it anymore, capital really is omnipotent.
View OriginalReply0
token_therapistvip
· 10h ago
Centralizing power to a certain extent can indeed backfire on the overall credibility of the system.
View OriginalReply0
hodl_therapistvip
· 10h ago
I'm a bit confused. How do reproductive rights and stablecoins relate... but there is indeed some substance to it.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeNightmarevip
· 10h ago
Wow, looking at this logic, it's pretty incredible. The big shot defines reproductive rights with money, and you directly infer that currency itself will be redefined, then all in on stablecoins... I need to ponder this train of thought.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 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)