🎉 Share Your 2025 Year-End Summary & Win $10,000 Sharing Rewards!
Reflect on your year with Gate and share your report on Square for a chance to win $10,000!
👇 How to Join:
1️⃣ Click to check your Year-End Summary: https://www.gate.com/competition/your-year-in-review-2025
2️⃣ After viewing, share it on social media or Gate Square using the "Share" button
3️⃣ Invite friends to like, comment, and share. More interactions, higher chances of winning!
🎁 Generous Prizes:
1️⃣ Daily Lucky Winner: 1 winner per day gets $30 GT, a branded hoodie, and a Gate × Red Bull tumbler
2️⃣ Lucky Share Draw: 10
I recently came across a news story where a tech mogul announced plans to bear high childbirth costs for specific groups worldwide, with the condition that future benefits would flow back. This story instantly went viral, sparking polarized comments—some saying it’s moral decay, others praising it as innovative charity.
But my focus might be a bit unusual. Watching this public debate, I suddenly thought: when sufficiently wealthy individuals can influence traditional rules with money, those things that seem to be governed by markets and institutions are actually being quietly redefined. Basic concepts like childbirth and blood relations can be reshaped by capital—what about wealth itself? The value of currency?
As soon as this idea occurred to me, I couldn’t sit still. I made a decision—to reallocate part of my assets into decentralized stablecoins.
A friend asked me how these two things are related. I turned the question back to him: when power is sufficiently centralized, do you think your asset rules will always stay the same?
Honestly, in traditional financial systems, rules are made, amended, and interpreted by a few institutions. These institutions may adjust the game for various reasons—sometimes policy bias, sometimes driven by interests. Your wealth exists within this system, essentially betting that these rules won’t turn against you.
But on-chain stablecoins are different. Take the current mainstream mechanism as an example: over 130% over-collateralization is verifiable on-chain in real-time, accessible to everyone. The rules aren’t changed by a CEO’s single statement; they are guaranteed by mathematics, code, and consensus across the network. No founder can redefine the game with a single decision—because no one has that kind of power.
This isn’t to say traditional finance is worse, but that the way risk is distributed is completely different. One relies on centralized trust, the other on mathematical verification. When you see wealth potentially being defined unilaterally, diversification becomes especially meaningful.