花太香

如果中国允许人民币稳定币和虚拟货币交易，会发生什么？
为什么如果中国放开加密行业会有巨大风险,而欧美等国却不会有?

The answer is actually quite simple, but many people can't think of it.
In one sentence, let's establish the overall context:
China has never been able to implement free convertibility from the very beginning, because China's economic model, political model, and national development path all started from an 'inwardly closed' approach, rather than a 'market-open' approach.
Next, I will explain the root cause of this 'inability to freely convert from the very beginning' in four layers.

如果中国允许人民币稳定币和虚拟货币交易，会发生什么？
I will explain why, even though both are liberalizing virtual currencies and stablecoins, China will experience a serious systemic outflow of funds while other countries will not, from five dimensions: differences in institutional foundations, capital structure, population wealth structure, regulatory enforcement, and political incentives.
This is not 'Chinese people are foolish', but structural reasons; the result is the same for any ethnicity under the same system.
1. The 'trump cards' of different countries are different: China's currency is essentially a 'controlled currency'.

In the summer of 2023, YGG officially announced the closure of six SubDAOs, including parts of YGG Turkey, YGG Korea, and YGG Brazil. The announcement was written with restraint: 'After community voting, due to inactivity and ROI not reaching the threshold, operations will be terminated.'

But the community erupted. Some questioned: 'Is this the promise of decentralization? Just close it when you want?'

Others sneered: 'Expand by making grand promises, and when contracted, shift the blame to 'community voting'.'
On the surface, this is a strategic contraction; on a deeper level, it is YGG's most honest lesson: it acknowledges that not all places are suitable for the same model, and not all enthusiasm can be converted into a sustainable economy.

Hello, digital finance 'Sherlocks'!
We talked about the over-collateralization of USDf, the addition of RWA, and the yield generation of sUSDf. However, these wonderful mechanisms all require a behind-the-scenes **'protocol wizard'** to ensure their stable operation and profit sources. This wizard is the 'Delta-Neutral Trading Strategies'.
In traditional finance, this is a high-level strategy commonly used by professional hedge funds; in Falcon Finance, it is used to manage collateral risk and generate yield buffers, which is a key technology to ensure the 'no liquidation' commitment.

Among the many chains in the Cosmos ecosystem, Injective has inherent "uniqueness" since its inception—it does not focus on public chain infrastructure or generalized DApps like most Cosmos chains; instead, it precisely targets the financial sector, becoming the "financial core hub" of the entire Cosmos ecosystem. Data from 2025 shows that Injective's financial trading volume accounts for 68% of the total financial trading volume in the Cosmos ecosystem, with RWA and Pre-IPO sectors standing out uniquely. It deeply leverages the underlying advantages of Cosmos' IBC cross-chain ecosystem, consensus mechanism, etc., while also breaking through the ecological limitations of Cosmos through multi-VM compatibility and financial-specific modules, carving out a differentiated path of "leveraging without dependency."

The core competition of oracles essentially boils down to a contest of 'data validation capability'—traditional oracles rely on node voting to determine data authenticity, often falling prey to hackers exploiting 'majority malfeasance'; while APRO directly deploys AI algorithms, equipping data validation with an 'intelligent brain'. Where does this dimensionality reduction strike strong?
Today, we will use a 'practical comparison' approach to thoroughly analyze the core differences between AI data validation and traditional validation, and then break down the unique advantages of APRO's self-developed algorithm. After reading this, you'll understand why AI is said to be the future of oracles.
First, let's set the stage: traditional validation vs AI validation, revealing the truth in 3 scenarios.

You may have heard that Kite is an L1 network specifically designed for real-time payments and coordination for AI agents. But it has another important identity: it is a network compatible with EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine).
EVM compatibility may sound like a term exclusive to tech enthusiasts, but for the AI agent economy, it is simply a **'passport' and 'universal key'**.
In simple terms, EVM is the **'Mandarin'** of the blockchain world. The Ethereum ecosystem has developed over many years, possessing the largest developer community, the most mature toolkit, and the most numerous smart contract standards. If a new public chain is not compatible with EVM, it is like locking itself in a small dark room, requiring developers to relearn an entirely new language and set of tools.

People in the cryptocurrency world understand that the airdrop before a new project launches is known as the 'ceiling of free benefits'! When APRO landed on Binance Alpha, it directly offered substantial benefits—20 million exclusive AT airdrop tokens, which caused a stir in the community, with many cryptocurrency enthusiasts eagerly waiting to grab a spot.
However, many people complained about 'not getting a spot', 'not knowing the rules', and 'not holding on after receiving'. Today, we will comprehensively review this airdrop event: who can participate, how to participate, how rewards are distributed, and the hard lessons learned by those who got and didn’t get a spot, so beginners can avoid pitfalls in the next airdrop!
First, a review: the Binance exclusive AT airdrop, breakdown of core rules

When we talk about crypto investing, most people's thinking remains linear, stuck in the "bullish" or "bearish" mindset. However, for top quantitative funds, the real profits in the market are often hidden in volatility.
Volatility, simply put, is the degree of volatility in asset prices. A smart strategy can profit even when the market is experiencing sharp rises and falls, or even sideways movement. This kind of strategy is called a volatility strategy.
As an asset management platform, one of the greatest values ​​of Lorenzo Protocol is bringing these complex and advanced strategies to ordinary investors through OTF (On-Chain Trading Fund).

Kwenta (a derivatives protocol based on Synthetix) is facing an awkward reality:

Users want to trade sUSD but are unwilling to hold it—because there's nowhere to spend it.
sUSD can only be used within Kwenta and cannot be used for lending, payment, or cross-protocol interactions.

Leading to liquidity exhaustion and high slippage.
And the emergence of USDf provides the key to breaking the deadlock:
USDf is a universal stablecoin that can freely enter and exit Curve, Aave, GMX;
If Kwenta switches its settlement currency from sUSD to USDf,
users will be able to

seamlessly transfer profits into other corners of DeFi
.
Technically completely feasible:

“Annualized 20%”——When you first see this number on the YGG official staking page, your heart might skip a beat. But upon closer inspection, you find that the rewards are not paid in YGG, but in “vault earnings sharing”, distributed in USDC or game tokens. Strangely, the longer the lock-up period, the lower the APY.
This is completely different from the 100% mining APY often seen on Uniswap.

So many people conclude that staking YGG is not worth it, and it's better to trade meme coins.
But perhaps the issue is not with the level of returns, but with using the wrong measurement standards.

In most Web3 + AI scenarios, people habitually assign each AI agent a 'wallet address' and private key. But this brings about a fundamental contradiction: once the private key is given, it cannot be revoked; while the behavior of AI must be constrained and revocable.
The answer given by Kite is: completely abandon the paradigm of 'AI owning private keys.' AI agents do not need wallets and do not hold keys—they are merely logical entities driven by policy contracts.
Users define by deploying a policy contract:
Which agents can act on their own behalf;

In the Web3 financial sector, developers have long faced the 'high threshold dilemma'—to build a compliant financial DApp, one not only needs to be proficient in the underlying blockchain technology but also must master the product design logic of traditional finance, while solving complex issues such as cross-chain asset interoperability and oracle data integration. This has led to development cycles for an ordinary derivative DApp often exceeding six months. However, the developer ecosystem of Injective presents a starkly different picture: in Q3 2025, the number of new DApps in its ecosystem increased by 42% quarter-over-quarter, with over 60% of new developers coming from traditional fintech, and the average development cycle shortened to 1 month. The core of this change is Injective's modular architecture, which has transformed the development of financial DApps from 'full-stack challenges' to 'modular assembly,' fundamentally reconstructing the development logic of financial Web3.

Many small and medium-sized businesses want to trace their goods, but as soon as they hear "blockchain" or "on-chain," they back off—thinking the barriers are high, the costs are expensive, and the operation is complex. They worry they won't be able to learn it or afford it. However, Lorenzo Protocol has long tailored a "lightweight tracing solution" for small and medium-sized businesses, allowing them to avoid investing huge sums to transform their existing systems, without needing to hire a professional technical team. With just a mobile phone, they can operate it and complete the first order of goods on-chain in 5 minutes, and the costs are reduced by more than 50% compared to traditional tracing solutions. Today, I am sharing this exclusive practical guide with small and medium-sized businesses, making it easy for you to manage goods tracing.

The bear market in the blockchain gaming industry often sees a 'muddy waters' scenario—most projects either shut down or run away, or significantly reduce user earnings, leaving players with nothing. However, during the 2024 blockchain gaming bear market, the YGG ecosystem not only did not shut down or reduce earnings but achieved a dual growth in user numbers and ecosystem pool funds, with monthly user earnings fluctuating no more than 10%. Behind this is the 'three-tier risk resistance barrier' constructed by the YGG ecosystem, allowing it to stand firm during the industry's winter.

YGG ecosystem's 'risk resistance capability'
The first barrier is 'diversified revenue generation capability', freeing itself from dependence on a single income source. During a bear market, many blockchain games face funding chain breaks due to relying solely on in-game purchases as a revenue source, leading to user loss; however, the YGG ecosystem has four major revenue channels: Launchpad revenue sharing, brand collaborations, paid items, and maternal fund reinvestment. During the bear market in 2024, although in-game revenue decreased by 20%, Launchpad revenue sharing and maternal fund reinvestment increased by 30%, ensuring that the ecosystem pool funds not only did not decrease but instead increased by 5 million $YGG , stabilizing user earnings.

Latest cryptocurrency news:
📈 Market overview (as of December 6/7, 2025)
Bitcoin (BTC) price has recently experienced fluctuations, briefly falling below the $90,000 mark, hitting a key support level around $88,000, and then recovering somewhat but still showing weakness. The current volatility reflects a rapid switch in market sentiment between 'panic-recovery-caution.'
Price trend: Bitcoin is currently fluctuating around $89,000 to $91,000.
Liquidation situation: Price drop triggered large-scale liquidations, with over $425 million liquidated across the network within 24 hours.

On traditional blockchains, developers have to build financial products from scratch: writing their own order books, connecting their own oracles, and handling their own settlements.

Injective abstracts these high-frequency reusable financial functions into protocol layer modules, allowing dApps to simply call interfaces to gain professional-level capabilities—like upgrading from "building wheels" to "driving a complete vehicle."
Native protocol layer modules vs Contract layer simulations

Native protocol layer modules vs Contract layer simulations

"We launched a complete RWA platform on Injective in 3 weeks, while it takes at least 6 months on Ethereum."
—Neptune Finance Engineer