Marco Pan

Web3 PR & Community Builder | Connecting ecosystems, people & narratives | $CRCL Holder | Based in Dubai | #Crypto #DeFi #Web3

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

我个人看好稳定币的长期趋势，列入长期定投组合！
$CRCL 现在虽然无人问津，但耐心等它人声鼎沸的那一天，等圈外人开始讲稳定币时，再把筹码卖给他们😄

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

增加信心

[CoinDesk @CoinDesk]

DATA: @Circle’s $USDC accounted for roughly 70% of adjusted stablecoin transaction volume in the first half of 2026, compared with about 25% for @Tether’s $USDT, according to Visa data.

Read the full story by Olivier Acuna on CoinDesk

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

good news，早晚是要通过的。

[Cointelegraph @Cointelegraph]

🚨 LATEST: Major County US sheriffs have dropped their opposition to the CLARITY Act.

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

@Stanleysobest 其实还好，我在迪拜，这边面值也是有1000，500的。很多发工资也是只有几张的，这个很普遍

[Coin Bureau @coinbureau]

🚨BREAKING: KOREAN FIRMS DENY FORMALLY JOINING OPEN USD ALLIANCE

Several Korean companies listed as Open USD partners say they NEVER officially agreed to join, per Chosun Biz.

Samsung Electronics said it had "NO official talks and NO idea of what role" it would play.

Dunamu, K Bank and Shinhan said Open Standard only asked if they were interested, while one company rep said they only learned they were listed through Korean media.

Open Standard’s own site still lists major Korean names among its 140+ OUSD partners.

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

吃瓜了

[Eric SJ @sjbtc9]

没想到这个阵势这么大的OUSD @openstandard 居然有反转

其宣称的130位联盟成员可能含有不小的水分，因为所列出的一部分韩方联盟成员均表示没有正式洽谈并同意加入该联盟

这有点像有的项目方找KOL问有没有出席某某会议或者参与某某KOL轮，但是明明KOL还没同意甚至已经拒绝了，最后仍出现在名单中

这个世界就是个巨大的草台班子 @lanhubiji @UnicornBitcoin @PhyrexNi

三星电子一位官员表示：“没有进行过正式磋商，我们也不知道（在联盟中）我们将扮演什么角色。”

新韩金融控股、Dunamu和K-Bank也透露，OpenStandard曾询问过他们参与OUSD的意向，虽然他们当时只是表示会考虑，但之后他们的名字还是被列入了联盟成员名单

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

@tothemoonjustin @wufantouzi 然后呢，你就对了吗？证明午饭错了你就能发财了还是高潮了？觉得好笑当个笑话看行了，说两句得了，天天盯着人家骂，找到自己的兴奋点了，亏了赚了和你也没关系吧。

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

HOLD $CRCL

[Simply Bitcoin @SimplyBitcoin]

The mission of Bitcoin is the separation of money and state.

[Adam @bullrunalpha]

$CRCL — Cathie Wood and Ark bought 287,609 shares of Circle today. 👀

They’ve bought 421,821 shares in the last 3 days.

$USDC $EURC $USYC #Arc

[Ye Su @allen_su1024]

想法一致
在高速增长结束之前
所有敌人都是盟友

交易所在2024年之前其实都是盟友关系
虽然骂战不断
但是每个交易所拉的新客人 都也是别的交易所的客人

2024年etf上线+特朗普登基
crypto的从增量变成存量博弈
交易所开始互相蚕食对方
最标志性的就是币安推出Binance Alpha
本质上就是开了一个科创板
把之前Bitget，Bybit，MEXC的上币
全部自己上了
让别人没得吃

Visa，Stripe等新做稳定币会加速CRCL见底
CRCL 50-70都是好的买入点位

真正的下跌动机依然是BTC的低迷
btc的熊市预计到中期选举走完
估计也就4-5w最低
珍惜捡筹码的机会

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

稳定币赛道更像是在一起把蛋糕做大，而不是外卖大战。

USDC 用近十年建立起来的开发者网络、流动性、合规能力和全球分发渠道，不会因为一个新联盟、一堆 logo 就一夜归零。

OUSD 真正要证明的，也不是“谁的模式听起来更开放”，而是未来谁能拿到更多真实开发者使用、更多支付场景、更多深度流动性，以及更稳定的全球出入金能力。

接下来肯定会有争议，也会有价格和叙事上的波动。但现在还太早，先让子弹飞一会。

[Jeremy Allaire - jerallaire.arc @jerallaire]

We’ve had lots of questions from our investor community looking for thoughts on OUSD, and so I thought I’d share my direct views here for anyone.

Stablecoin networks are platform and network effect businesses that are established over a long period of time, tend towards winner-take-most market structures, and resemble other internet platform utility markets. There are several layers that drive this.

First, stablecoin networks effectively act as public protocols and software layers on the internet and their network strength is a matter of the number and range of applications and services that integrate to the network. Every time a developer or service provider integrates to the network, it brings more network effects. This attracts more developers and adds more utility and more network effects. This then drives demand for the digital currency itself, which then reinforces these network effects through liquidity network effects.

We have realized this at a massive scale with the USDC network today — thousands upon thousands of services integrate with our network, which in turn provides immense utility not just to each application, but to users as a whole who benefit massively from the reach and interoperability that exists. This drives user and developer preference further. We’ve invested in building that ecosystem over nearly a decade, and now it’s accelerating as mainstream institutions come onto the network, connecting their customers and users.

We add to that utility by building software stacks that further expand and strengthen the network — protocols like CCTP and Gateway, which promote interoperability, safety and liquidity around the world. This expands the target surface area for app builders and developers, making it easy for them to tap into the liquidity and network effects that already exist. We are now seeing that stack get pulled into all kinds of chains, permissioned L2s, networks being built by governments, and so much more.

The second layer is that of liquidity network effects. This is fundamental. Liquidity begets liquidity. For a stablecoin to achieve scale and utility, it needs to be highly liquid, both on a primary basis (e.g., through all the major financial market centers in the world, with world class direct banking liquidity) and on a secondary basis both by being available and tradeable for retail and institutional clients in every geography and against every fiat instrument in the world. People who want to access and move value need to be able to easily get in and out of that digital currency. Here, we’ve invested nearly a decade in building out that liquidity, and it is now entrenched in exchanges, DeFI venues, and with PSPs, payments firms, regional exchanges, and so many others. Establishing these liquidity network effects also involves building global regulatory infrastructure and ensuring that the stablecoin is available under various regimes around the world. Today, USDC is in the top 3 most liquid digital assets in the world, and it falls off sharply after that. BTC, USDT and USDC have extraordinary liquidity. The closest other dollar stables are like 10x smaller and that liquidity tends to be concentrated in promotional books in a single exchange, whereas USDC liquidity is dispersed widely across dozens and dozens of surfaces. Building this liquidity has been a nearly decade-long task that we continue.

A third layer of network strength comes from the deep integration with the policy and regulatory environment — in many cases, years of effort to build licensing (e.g., USDC is the only large global stablecoin currently available in all of Europe or Japan), and more regimes for stablecoins are coming online, with Circle leading the way in ensuring that USDC is officially recognized, registered, licensed and accepted in the most important markets in the world. On the back of this is the work of building global banking, reserve management and treasury and liquidity management that can operate this on a nearly 24/7 basis in markets and banking systems globally. This globalization effort is a massive investment that we have made over the years.

All of these investments by Circle and our global ecosystem of thousands of partners have delivered the net result of providing the world’s most trusted and available digital dollar infrastructure—a utility that any user, developer, or business can freely and easily tap into. And we do not intend to slow down.

All of this compounds and shows in the numbers. In Q1 2026, according to third-party analysts (Artemis) who track stablecoin adoption, USDC handled nearly $30T in onchain transactions, representing 80% of all dollar stablecoin transactions on blockchains. USDT handled the remaining 20% of transactions. All of the combined remaining dollar stablecoins handled a total of 0% of transactions (i.e., < 0.5%). While other stablecoins may have some circulation, most of that is through promotions and incentives, the actual usage is extremely limited—because of the extremely limited liquidity and network utility that exists for these coins.

But my thoughts on the competitive landscape are not just about the strength of our network—there are also considerations around any new initiative.

Several perspectives and positioning have been shared about how something like OUSD improves on something like USDC.

1) Free mint and burn. The argument suggests that existing stablecoins charge burn fees, and payments firms should not need to pay these (despite the fact that the entire payment industry is built on small bps fees on various ingress and egress points on their networks). There are structural market realities built around the fact that some stablecoins impose very large redemption fees and have limited redemption facilities – the impact of this is that stablecoins with strong redemption facilities, good liquidity and no fees become the offramp for their competitor stablecoins. It may seem easy to say one will offer unlimited and free redeems, however market reality likely forces other behavior. This can be addressed – and is addressed by Circle – through contractual mechanisms vs. a blanket fee exemption.

2) Everybody wins and shares. While this sounds good in principle, the reality of the market and market opportunity is quite different. Today, Circle shares the majority of its income with its distribution partners, and we continue to lean hard into expanding those partnerships with leading companies across every sector of the market. However, we also retain significant income that allows us to invest in the massive market infrastructure that makes this such a powerful and valuable utility for the world to build on. Giving away all the income is a recipe for starving an infrastructure, systematically underinvesting and ensuring that your platform will remain limited in scope.

Furthermore, Circle believes that the future stablecoin market is likely several orders of magnitude larger than it is today. We’re actively bringing partners into the USDC ecosystem through a diverse and growing set of partnership models that span our work with exchanges, custodians, payments firms, asset issuers and more. We are excited to continue to build with a “big tent mentality” where the entire ecosystem can grow value together.

3) A consortium where everybody has a voice. Perhaps I have a cynical view, but the track record of consortium products achieving scale, P/M Fit or even basic product agility is absolutely dismal, and while there are examples of financial consortia that operate utilities, they are predictably slow moving. Large groups of large companies coordinate poorly, have misaligned incentives, slow things down and rarely create the space for real durable innovation and competitiveness. They also typically, out of their own self-interest, starve the consortium itself on an operating basis. We actually tried this in the early days of USDC, and even with a very small group, ran into endless challenges and complexity. Smaller, tighter strategic collaborations and commercial partnership arrangements with product and platform builders that can drive forward independently will almost always outcompete large consortiums. But oftentimes when these get formed, everyone feels like they should put their logo on the list, kiss the ring, and make noise about openness. But typically those same firms will turn to their operating units and make the best decisions for their customers, which often means partnering with the market leader and building durable win-win partnerships.

There’s also been a bunch of commentary on Circle's partnership with Coinbase and what this all means. Our stablecoin partnership with Coinbase remains as strong as ever, and I think we both see that enormous opportunity ahead to expand the USDC network.

A final comment: Circle remains committed to supporting a wide range of different products and infrastructures, even when we might compete with different aspects of those partners’ products in other areas of our business. With OUSD, we work closely with many of the founding members, and we expect that those same members will remain large USDC partners and customers. At the same time, as Circle has diversified our product and platform stack, expanding across Arc, CCTP, CPN, StableFX, Agent Stack and many other areas, we continue to expand the partnerships and collaboration with many other stablecoin issuers — dozens of them — to help them launch on Arc, leverage our interoperability infrastructure, get supported in our Wallets and become settlement and FX options on CPN and StableFX.

We are huge believers in growth in the stablecoin ecosystem and welcome OUSD as a new member of the community!

[Ash Crypto @AshCrypto]

Congratulations.

You have managed to waste the first 6 months of 2026 staring at charts 24/7 and chasing green candles.

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

哈哈哈，每日心态日常

[Dr.Hash“Wesley” @CryptoApprenti1]

😭完了
🟥
🟥
🟥
🟥😭完了
🟥😭完了
🟥😭完了
🟥
🟥
🟥
🟥
🟥😭完了 🟩🥳牛回！
🟥😭完了

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

其实他说得很有道理。

欧美菜整体更强调食材本味，核心是新鲜、不过度加工，以及尽量避免用太重的调味去掩盖食材本身。它们当然也有味道丰富的料理，但很多时候是通过酱汁、香草、黄油、奶酪等去辅助，而不是让调味完全压过食材。

中国太大了，不同地区的气候、物产和饮食习惯不同，也因此形成了非常丰富的菜系和烹饪方式。但从主流口味来看，中餐确实普遍更重油、重盐、重香料，也更讲究调味带来的层次感，你看街上满大街的砂锅米线，麻辣烫快餐饭基本都是量大管饱，但很多都是调料包，你吃的不是食材。另外川菜、湘菜、江西菜，没有足够的调味，很多经典菜的灵魂确实出不来。

但另一面也很明显：重口味吃多了，容易口渴，也容易越来越依赖刺激感。久而久之，会觉得清淡的食物没有味道，甚至会抗拒很多本身很新鲜、很健康的食材。

我是四川人，从小吃油辣口味长大，确实很难一下子戒掉。刚开始接触粤菜的时候，我也会觉得太清淡、没有意思。但后来在深圳待了五年，反而越来越喜欢广东菜这种相对克制、舒服的味道。尤其椰子鸡、潮汕牛肉锅这种，食材本身足够新鲜，简单处理反而更能吃出味道。

现在回四川过年再吃老家菜，还是会觉得很好吃，但也会明显感觉到又油又咸。吃的时候很爽，吃完却特别口渴，身体也会有些不适。

后来在迪拜待了四年，也慢慢习惯并喜欢上了不同国家的料理。现在不会再抵触那些简单烹饪的食物，有时候一盘绿叶菜，简单拌一点酱汁，反而也觉得很好吃。关键是吃完不会腻，也没有太强的负担感。

这也让我慢慢理解，为什么日料在欧美会这么受欢迎。很多老外会用筷子，某种程度上也是因为他们会吃寿司，而不一定是因为熟悉中餐。寿司对他们来说很直观，一眼就能看出来里面是什么，鱼、饭、牛油果、黄瓜，接受门槛很低，拿起来直接吃就可以。

相比之下，中餐一大桌菜的丰富感，对很多外国人反而可能是一种选择压力。他们不知道每道菜是什么，不确定里面有没有自己不吃的食材，也不知道该怎么搭配、怎么吃。

从很多主流餐厅也能看出来，尤其是市中心核心区域面向白人客群的餐厅，很多融合菜都会有寿司，但很少会把炒饭、炒面当作核心卖点。身边一些经济条件很好、经常外出吃饭的老外，吃亚洲菜时也大多会优先选择寿司。

他们整体更喜欢简单、精致、直观的小份料理，不太追求一大桌的华丽和复杂，而是更看重食材、氛围、健康感。

[Joruno @wsl8297]

这是为什么呢？

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

投资的至暗时刻

[小熊饼干 . var⛵ @Airdrop_Guard]

我在 CRCL 亏损了 18 万美金，就是 126 万人民币，就短短 3 天时间，我是真的亏伤心了

82 买入，后面补仓想降成本，买了 120 万U，上周四晚上 9 点半开盘，再次暴跌

看到 K 线图，我人都崩溃了，就三个交易日，能跌这么多，沃日他妈，真的是 4 倍杠杆的 BTC

人家大饼都反弹回去了，这垃圾 CRCL 还能跌 18%

那天晚上我 69.2 割肉跑了，第二天就反弹 10%，买定离手我也不后悔

昨天看到爆跌 17.55% ，真他妈的，美股太血腥了

总结来说，怪我自己，去碰不熟悉的领域

我菜，我傻逼

[Lorenzo Valente @LorenzoARK]

Every year we get our consortium style initiative around a stablecoin, we have seen this with Diem, Global dollar and now Open USD. While the set of players here is obviously potent, I remain highly skeptical any of these initiatives can hit scale.

A few thoughts on OpenUSD:

1. Liquidity and the cold-start problem. USDC and USDT have massive network effects across exchanges, payment processors, and brokers. This is always repeated but it's true, there are no BTC/sofiUSD pairs to trade on any of these exchanges or markets. These are not stableocin market makers and participants are willing to hold in size, as you can’t really use them anywhere.
The fair counter is that crypto markets will be far smaller than remittances or equities/bonds. Probably true, I suspect in the medium term, but those markets are still converging on the same stablecoins. Hyperliquid just struck a massive deal with USDC/Coinbase. Every tokenization initiative so far is built around the incumbents too.

2. A consortium of 500 rivals has no precedent for working. The pace of decision-making across 500 competitors is going to be glacial. Not everyone gets a board seat at Open Standard I imagine, so what happens when decisions cut against some of the players? Circle and Tether ship whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero commitment to anyone.

3. Regulatory and antitrust risk at scale. Circle and Tether are willing to absorb enormous pressure, they have being doing so for years. They hold hundreds of licenses they can use to arbitrage markets, Yes GENIUS act gave a lot of breathing room and clarity, but oversees, this is not the same story. The moment this gets hard under regulatory pressure, I think a lot of these partners just walk away. And a bloc of the largest banks and card networks jointly issuing money is an obvious antitrust target.

4. The "socialist" economics starve the issuer. Passing reserve revenue back to partners sounds great in practice, but what does Open Standard actually operate on? Little to no retained capital. People forget Circle doesn't just have marketplace/exchange partnerships; it funds a whole web of rebates across on/off ramps, stablecoin settlement, OTC desks, and more, with each deal being somewhat bespoke depending not he partner. Who funds that at Open Standard? Who decides which deals, on what terms, especially when the counterparty is a rival of an existing member?
Circle GAAP Opex for 2025 were 900M USD, if you strip out one time cost and IPO related cost, its adjusted OPEX is closer to 500M annually. Let’s say open Standard gets 25 bips, which is what other consortium did, At 10B of supply, open standard is making 25M a year… You don’t fund much with that…. You need to become huge very quickly.

5. The announcement is basically a giant LOI. Read the quotes: BlackRock calls it "a constructive step," BNY "looks forward to exploring ways to support," others say it's "interesting." Meanwhile the partners are backing rivals: Stripe owns Bridge and has its own stack, Coinbase is wedded to USDC, banks are building their own deposit tokens, and the card networks support every token out there. They'll hedge across all of them. Distribution only matters if it's exclusive — and it clearly won't be.

6. The "mint/redeem fees are a problem" claim is wrong. In practice every large institution minting and redeeming through Circle and Tether already gets big rebates. The real cost of moving money is FX, not mint/redeem and there's no moat there, because anyone can just match free mint/redeem.
All in all: one to monitor, but I'm deeply skeptical that an organization that looks like a DAO of 500 companies can move fast enough to matter long term. Who decides go-to-market? Capital allocation? Anything?

Ultimately this reminds me of the DAO experiment. The pitch was identical: no single owner, "neutral" governance, aligned incentives, decisions made collectively for the good of the network. In practice DAOs almost universally failed at the thing that actually matters: shipping. Governance turned into endless forum debates and token-weighted voting where nothing decisive got done, capital sat idle because no one could agree how to deploy it, and the projects that won were the ones with a clear owner willing to move fast and take risk. "Owned by everyone" almost always means accountable to no one. Open Standard is a DAO of competitors that are not really committed to anything, and I'd bet on the two operators who can ship unilaterally over a committee that has to ask 500 rivals for permission.

[焦土客 @jiaotuke]

中国底层男性的压抑程度是无法想象的，特别是广大小县城的男性。

我很早以前就有这样的体会和感悟了，在大城市约会谈恋爱跟喝水一样简单，随随便便搭讪成功的概率都很高

在小县城就完全不一样了，我曾经做过挑战，在小县城的商场里连续搭讪三天，还都是穿增高鞋化妆打扮认认真真对待的那种，三天时间内搭讪了20次左右，只有一次成功了，成功的那次还是因为那个女生是玩的很花的精神小妹

而小县城的女性呢？那我前任举例子吧，她的soul、抖音几乎每天的私信都会99+爆满，各种各样的人去骚扰，去撩骚

在这种男女性权力极其不对称的情况下，小县城的男性想要获得性资源怎么办？只要嫖娼和结婚，除此之外几乎没有别的道路可以走了。

我在小县城的时候就会经常走着走着停下脚步，望着钢筋水泥的怪兽和鸽子笼发呆，这些钢铁森林把一整代男性都拴住了，压抑，不自由，这一切都太恐怖了

太病态了，到底是为什么？

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

很多人把 Open USD 和 Circle 看成一场「联盟 vs 公司」的战争。

但我觉得真正的竞争，不是谁发行更多稳定币，而是谁能成为稳定币时代的底层支付网络。

Open USD 的优势是渠道、生态和巨头联盟。
Circle 的优势是产品、开发者体验、合规和已经跑通的基础设施。

联盟可以快速带来分发能力，但也会带来治理成本。单一公司可以更快迭代，但也必须面对巨头联盟的渠道压力。

所以问题不是：

Open USD 会不会杀死 USDC？

而是：
未来企业支付、AI Agent、跨境结算和链上金融，最终会默认接入哪一套基础设施。
稳定币只是资产。
支付网络、清算能力、开发者生态和合规体系，才是真正的护城河。

Stablecoin War 背后，本质是 Infrastructure War.
HOLD $CRCL

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

买了个标的，被骂了半年多。

我承认有在黄金里捡铁块的感觉，旁边的人已捡了一箩筐，而自己袋子里还没捡到啥还漏了。

打打鸡血，走自己的路。投资就是各自的认知博弈，了解不同、观点各异。你走对了路到了大道我恭喜你，也羡慕，那我走山路摔一跤也认。

稳定币这个赛道我继续坚持，反正输了也死不了，还有别的路子赚钱。

祝我好运喽。今日 $CRCL -15% $66

[Marco Pan @marcopan123]

继续持有
我是CRCL思维
众多人进场 一起做大蛋糕

[投资TALK君 @TJ_Research]

Open USD
和USDC会是竞争关系，打个比方，安卓和苹果生态，两者是可以共存的。现在稳定币所在的进展还是停留在建设，谈不上生态和ADOPTION，所以前期需要真正客户需要的产品出来。合作企业多有毛用，CIRCLE财报里合作的企业哪家不出名？所以最终还是看你做出了什么产品。
另外安卓和IOS在美元稳定币的背景下，哪类产品政府更偏好？我认为不是开源。
仍然持有 $CRCL