That period, I was somewhat indifferent to stablecoins. Not that they weren't needed, but I was using them so frequently that I started questioning the very purpose of their existence. When the market was bad, I would switch to stablecoins; when it was good, I would switch back. I repeated this cycle for many years. I wouldn't say it was wrong, but it certainly wasn't particularly clever. In my view, stablecoins are more like a transit station rather than a tool for asset allocation.

It wasn't until I started frequently interacting with USD1 that my perspective gradually changed.

What initially attracted me wasn't super high returns. It was the design of USD1's position within a certain ecosystem that was particularly reasonable. Within this protocol framework, USD1 is not an isolated entity. Unlike other stablecoins, after you exchange, you don't know what to do next. Here, USD1 is deeply integrated with collateral, lending, and liquidity management, which made me reconsider a question: what exactly should stablecoins do?

When I used USDT or USDC before, it was purely a defensive mindset. Selling assets to switch to stablecoins, and waiting for clearer market signals. This process was essentially passive response. But the experience with USD1 is different. I started to plan more actively. Because I am not just selling assets to switch to stablecoins, but rather converting part of the value into USD1 through collateralization. The key is, this conversion didn't cause me to lose my original asset exposure; instead, it added a layer of liquidity options.

This shift is very important. One is passive defense, the other is active allocation, and their mindsets and expected returns are completely different.