local stablecoins don’t have a demand problem. they have a liquidity problem while all local stablecoins combined sit around $1.2B market cap, USDT alone is at $190B+ with < $4.4T quarterly onchain volume < 22M daily transactions < avg fee around $0.02 < 585M users globally most people frame this as USDT crushing local stablecoins wrong framing USDT is actually the liquidity layer making local stablecoins possible here’s the proof after MiCA regulations hit europe, USDT got delisted from major exchanges. result? EUR stablecoin volume exploded from $383M → $3.83B EURC volume surged 1139%+ demand was always there regulation + liquidity unlocked it same thing can happen for ~ IDRX (indonesia) ~ MXNB (mexico) ~ ZARP (south africa) because cross-border local stablecoin transfers still rely on one common settlement asset USDT without deep USDT liquidity, most routes fall back to: - thin pools - huge slippage - SWIFT that’s why brazil works 90%+ of brazilian crypto flows now involve stablecoins, powered by deep USDT/BRL liquidity rails. the future is not local stablecoins vs USDT it’s local stablecoins built on top of USDT liquidity and this is where Utexo becomes interesting instead of building endless bridges between every local stablecoin pair, Utexo uses < Bitcoin as settlement layer < RGB for private issuance < Lightning for fast + fixed-fee execution < USDT as the liquidity rail making cross-border B2B settlement cheaper, predictable, and scalable USDT isn’t the wall it’s the infrastructure layer local stablecoins can scale on top of @Lyt_web3 @utexocom