STBL (STBL)

Instant cross-border payments are no longer a “future” problem - they’re an infrastructure one. That’s exactly the conversation unfolding at @DAF_Global, with STBL’s CCO Joe Vollono joining leaders shaping how value moves across borders in real time. The infrastructure shift is already underway. @rjvollono

Exciting times ahead! \n\nNext month, STBL will be present at major industry events - Ondo Summit, Digital Assets Forum, Consensus, RWA Summit, and more, engaging with thought leaders and institutions driving the future of tokenized assets and programmable stablecoin infrastructure.\n\nStay tuned for updates and insights from these pivotal moments shaping the next era of on-chain finance.

Nasdaq’s continued progress on asset tokenization signals a deeper structural shift in capital markets. Global securities markets represent $100T+ in value, spanning equities, bonds, and other financial instruments. As even a small portion of this market moves on-chain, the implications for issuance, settlement, collateral mobility, and liquidity management are significant. Tokenization improves access, settlement efficiency, liquidity and capital utilization - but only if the monetary layer is built for institutional use. Stable settlement assets must be compliant, transparent, and clearly separated from yield or investment features. STBL is designed for this environment: RWA-backed, over-collateralized stablecoin infrastructure with explicit yield separation, auditability, and regulatory alignment, built to support tokenized asset settlement, treasury operations, and cross-market liquidity. Tokenization scales only when compliant money rails exist. That’s the infrastructure shift now underway.

Community campaign update: Due to recent changes on X that impact reward-based community campaigns, our ongoing Community Rewards program(run via Kaito) has been paused and is now cancelled. We’re in discussions with the Kaito team and will share updates as soon as we have more clarity.

STBL @stbl_official Key points of the statement Again, regarding the Genius Law, STBL has issued an official position. Below, I will summarize the core contents together with the posts I have published across parts 1‑3! https://t.co/nK5j4Z4DXG Core points of STBL’s official stance The Genius bill currently under discussion in the U.S. Senate includes a provision that bans “passive earnings” from holding stablecoins. This represents a change that could directly restrict interest‑bearing/yield‑bearing stablecoin models. STBL’s position is as follows. USST is not a yield‑bearing stablecoin. The USST token itself does not promise or pay interest. USST is a neutral monetary layer used for payment/settlement, and the earnings come from the on‑chain real‑world asset (RWA) layer that serves as collateral, not from the token itself. In other words, USST holders do not receive any form of promised return; earnings arise from the productivity of the collateral assets, and the token remains focused solely on the role of money. This structure naturally aligns with regulators’ direction to clearly distinguish stablecoins as accounting units rather than investment products. STBL explains that this gives it a structurally safe position in future regulatory environments. From now on, based on the posts I have previously shared, here is my perspective! I see this statement as once again clearly stating why STBL has emphasized the concept of Stablecoin 2.0. The regulatory direction currently under discussion effectively grants legitimacy to the existing stablecoin model (Stablecoin 1.0). Models like USDT and USDC already have a structure where the issuer retains all reserve earnings and does not distribute earnings to users, placing them in the most advantageous position regarding the current ban on passive earnings. If the current system persists, the judgment that existing stablecoin issuers are advantaged without competitive dynamics is structurally sound.

this framing makes sense to me because slowing expansion early often signals confidence in the underlying rails, not hesitation. with @stbl_official, it feels like they’re choosing constrained environments first so behavior, liquidity, and risk are understood before scale forces compromises. that mindset reminds me of @ferra_protocol; structure first, then growth. build systems that don’t break when attention shows up. @MemeMax_Fi goes the opposite direction by design, embracing speed, volatility, and constant activity, turning momentum itself into the product. different philosophies, same test: whether the system still works once real users start pushing it.

💪STBL unlock upcoming! The fact is the project is getting healthier. @stbl_official will disclose all token activity transparently. Although $stbl unlock is planned, token unlock does not mean the team will immediately sell tokens. The vesting planned through Q2 is mainly used for exchange listings and market adjustments, as well as ecosystem Grants and staking support. ----- Many Web3 projects sell tokens opaquely, and intentionally cause token prices to drop unilaterally. In fact, STBL also suffered a large drop after TGE, once leading to doubts about its sincerity. Future STBL treasury token activity will be announced in advance according to plans and consensus, always reviewed under a sustainable and long‑term perspective. Each wallet will have a label for easy identification, and quarterly wallets are managed separately. There have been no changes to the allocation and unlock schedule planned at TGE. ----- The only thing is that they slightly modified the previous plan in November, stating they will hold the tokens operating the treasury until the end of Q1 2026. This means the tokens are allocated to wallets but not separately circulated in the market. STBL's Stable coin 2.0 is based on strict RWA collateral, trusted partners, and a supporting community. Most importantly, it pursues transparency and sustainability.

this framing makes sense to me because slowing expansion early often signals confidence in the underlying rails, not hesitation. with @stbl_official, it feels like they’re choosing constrained environments first so behavior, liquidity, and risk are understood before scale forces compromises. that mindset reminds me of @ferra_protocol; structure first, then growth. build systems that don’t break when attention shows up. @MemeMax_Fi goes the opposite direction by design, embracing speed, volatility, and constant activity, turning momentum itself into the product. different philosophies, same test: whether the system still works once real users start pushing it.