Author | Jack, kkk

Editor | Jack

Zhou Wei's career trajectory, in a sense, reflected the drastic fluctuations of the crypto industry over the past seven years.

In 2018, as the first professional manager without a crypto background to join Binance, he led investment and acquisition, fiat business, and global compliance expansion, witnessing the frenetic era of exchange expansion.

After leaving Binance in 2021, he took over Coins.ph, a local payment and crypto platform in the Philippines, shifting his focus to a more specific yet challenging track—the stablecoin.

Over the past three years, the global stablecoin landscape has undergone profound changes. The U.S. Congress has advanced stablecoin legislation, and Circle successfully IPO'd; Hong Kong has officially established a stablecoin regulatory framework, attempting to leverage stablecoins for cross-border settlement and financial innovation. Stablecoins are transitioning from being a "tool for exchanges" to "infrastructure for the financial system," and a new competitive cycle has begun.

Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, the Philippines has become a unique proving ground. Not only is it the world's fourth-largest remittance market, receiving approximately $40 billion in overseas worker remittances annually.

At the same time, the Philippine central bank approved Coins.ph to issue a peso-pegged stablecoin called PHPC in 2024, and in the summer of 2025, it officially emerged from the regulatory sandbox, becoming one of the first globally compliant stablecoin projects to enter full implementation.

This marks the first time a stablecoin has been institutionally implemented in a "high-remittance, high-dollar-dependence" market. It is not only a regional financial experiment but also a window into observing the future direction of global stablecoins: Can stablecoins truly enter cross-border payments and foreign exchange settlements? Can they challenge the traditional banking system within a regulatory framework?

Therefore, we chose this timing to interview Zhou Wei, former CFO of Binance and current CEO of Coins.ph. His professional identity spans traditional finance and crypto-native institutions, and his personal transition along with the implementation of PHPC might help answer a more macroscopic question: In this new phase of global stablecoin competition, who will define the rules of the future?

From Binance to Coins.ph: How Does Zhou Wei Understand Compliance and Globalization in the Crypto World?

BlockBeats: During your time at Binance, were your investments and acquisitions primarily focused on compliance and fiat-to-crypto companies?

Zhou Wei: Since joining Binance, I have led or spearheaded almost all major internal merger and acquisition cases. At that time, although the company already had a compliance and legal team, there were mainly four paths when implementing new businesses: building a team to do it internally, internal incubation, investment, or acquisition.

Considering that we always prioritize "speed," acquisitions are often the quickest way. Compared to applying for a license from scratch (which usually takes one to two years, and many countries did not even have a crypto licensing system at that time), acquiring an entity with existing qualifications allows us to immediately access the channels needed for business operations.

Especially between 2017 and 2020, financial institutions willing to serve crypto companies were very rare. If a local company already had banking channels or payment gateways, we could enter through investment or acquisition, often much faster than establishing a company, applying for licenses, and then opening a bank account.

For example, when we found a partner who could bridge fiat currency channels for the Euro, Peso, or Yen, this meant providing Binance with more windows for user funds to flow in and out.

Therefore, we tried various methods: establishing fiat exchanges directly in the US, Singapore, South Korea, the EU, the UK, and other locations; in some markets, we connected compliance and payment channels through partners; in regions like Latin America and Africa, we collaborated directly with local subsidiaries and indigenous financial institutions to gain fund movement permissions.

Whether through establishment, investment, acquisition, or partnership, we always choose the fastest and most effective path.

Looking back, this broad and diverse strategy allowed Binance to be at the forefront among Chinese-funded overseas exchanges and US-funded exchanges at that time. Even today, Binance's coverage of fiat channels and the breadth of countries it operates in are still among the most comprehensive in the industry.

BlockBeats: What were the main licenses obtained at the time?

Zhou Wei: Globally, the methods of obtaining exchange and payment licenses vary. Taking the United States as an example, there is still no unified licensing system specifically for crypto exchanges, and many businesses are covered through payment-type licenses (MTL).

By 2025, apart from the 34 countries under unified EU regulation, there are only around twenty countries worldwide that have truly issued crypto exchange licenses.

In some markets, trading services can be conducted with a securities brokerage license, while in other places, entry is through payment licenses.

Each jurisdiction has a different legal framework, which also means that if you want to serve over a hundred fiat currencies globally, you must adopt different approaches and localize the user experience to ensure users can deposit funds into the exchange as quickly as possible.

When I joined Binance in 2018, my first responsibility was handling fiat currency-related operations. I was the company's first full-time employee dedicated to this area. At that time, the process seemed unfamiliar and not very complicated, but as I delved deeper, I realized there was much more complexity involved, and to this day, many people still have not fully grasped it.

During that period, USDT was the primary tool for deposits and withdrawals on global exchanges. As long as you had USDT, you could trade on the exchange, and there were numerous ways to acquire it. Taking the United States as an example, you could purchase it through Coinbase in a compliant manner. From 2018 to 2019, Chinese users mainly relied on the P2P markets of exchanges such as Huobi and OKEx for upstream supply.

In other countries, depending on local conditions, users accessed USDT through compliant channels. For instance, European users often transacted through Coinbase and Kraken at the time, platforms backed by the banking system.

Therefore, we began to explore if we could directly obtain licenses locally, open bank accounts, and establish official fiat onramps for major fiat currencies like the Euro and US Dollar. This was not only an important step in compliance expansion but also a core strategy to enhance user experience and fund flow efficiency.

BlockBeats: What are the costs and challenges in the stablecoin to fiat conversion process? What are some pitfalls that many companies are unaware of?

Zhou Wei: In my opinion, there are many pitfalls in this industry, especially for those from traditional financial institutions or "novice" users from various countries. The user experience and difficulty of using stablecoins vary greatly in different countries and regions.

For example, in markets such as Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, and South Korea, there are relatively mature regulatory systems and financial institutions that can serve the crypto industry. For instance, in Japan, as early as 2017, they introduced a cryptocurrency industry licensing system, allowing users to purchase Bitcoin by depositing Japanese Yen directly into an exchange account regulated by the Japanese Financial Services Agency (JFSA) through a bank, payment institution, or wallet.

However, Japan has relatively strict regulations on stablecoins, with limited channels for obtaining USDT, while USDC is generally more usable.

Thailand is also a similar case. Our business in Thailand started serving local users as early as 2016 and 2017, initially allowing the purchase of Bitcoin with Thai Baht (THB), and today it is still possible to directly purchase USDT with Thai Baht.

Each country has different anti-money laundering laws, with their own management requirements for fiat deposit amounts, purchase limits, and withdrawal destinations. However, generally speaking, as long as you are a legal resident or entity, opening an account on these regulated exchanges and purchasing USDT or USDC with the local currency (such as the Hong Kong Dollar/US Dollar in Hong Kong, or the Singapore Dollar/US Dollar in Singapore) is not difficult.

In the Philippines, our exchange also serves Chinese nationals holding local work visas; the same applies to Singapore and the United States. In the U.S., there are compliant channels like Coinbase, and European users can also deposit USD or EUR through Coinbase or Kraken.

For institutions, there are two ways to exchange stablecoins for fiat currency: first, you can directly open an institutional account at Circle and use their Minting Program to convert USD to USDC, or redeem USDC for USD (with daily limits).

Second, which is more common, is through exchanges. Exchanges not only facilitate the exchange between fiat and stablecoins, but also handle cross-chain exchanges (converting the same stablecoin between different blockchains) and cross-stablecoin exchanges (such as swapping USDT and USDC).

Reflecting on my early experience with the USDT fiat gateway at Binance, the stablecoin ecosystem was relatively simple at the time—few types and few participants. USDC only entered mainstream circulation in 2019.

From 2014 to 2018, most exchanges' core stablecoin was USDT. Acquisition channels included both compliant pathways and non-compliant OTC channels, with relatively high feasibility at the time. Back then, the circulation of USDT was only $10-20 billion, a volume that is incomparable to today's scale.

During my time at Binance, we also issued our own stablecoin, BUSD, which was launched in late 2019 and early 2020 in partnership with the U.S.-regulated trust company Paxos, starting from scratch.

Compared to then, today's stablecoin market is more complex due to the increased number of participants, currencies, blockchains, exchanges, and licensed entities.

Many people associate USDT with the gray industry, partly due to transparency issues with its reserve: initially, outsiders could not confirm whether its reserves were sufficient, and it was unclear which banks held the funds.

However, back in the day, USDT and Bitfinex were part of the same group and had briefly attempted to disclose their bank accounts, only to have them closed within a month. This was also a common early challenge in the crypto industry — a constant cat-and-mouse game with banks. Binance's relationship with regulatory bodies at the time was similar.

USDT's survival in the early days was heavily reliant on this "wild growth" model. Although criticized for its lack of transparency and operating in a gray area, its resilience was remarkable.

In this environment, the team's survival philosophy was simple: survival was more important than anything else. The anonymous nature of the crypto industry reduced the cost of misconduct and increased opportunity gains, so shades of gray and legality coexisted in the early market.

With time, this industry will inevitably move towards compliance, transparency, and institutionalization, and the future development direction of the stablecoin market will gradually become clearer under this trend.

Can Stablecoins Shake the Forex Market? Opportunities and Doubts in Cross-Border Settlement

BlockBeats: Why didn't Binance invest in Coins.ph at the time, and why did you choose to do so?

Zhou Wei: In 2021, I almost looked at all compliant exchanges worldwide and was involved in multiple M&A and investment projects. As for the company's final decision, I am no longer privy to it since my departure.

However, from my perspective, what prompted me to be optimistic about certain targets was a combination of market potential, licensing barriers, brand influence, and historical accumulation.

Take Coins.ph, for example. The company was founded in 2014, possessing both a payment company background and cryptocurrency exchange operation experience.

In the early Philippine market, it could provide a local payment scenario similar to Alipay and a cryptocurrency asset trading experience similar to Coinbase, thus having a very broad user base and usage scenarios. I paid attention to it, not just as an exchange but as a company with a dual gene of payment and trading.

Choosing the Philippine market also had an important opportunity due to the Axie Infinity explosion in 2021. At that time, the Philippines briefly became one of the countries with the highest global cryptocurrency application penetration.

Almost the entire population was participating in this "play-to-earn" game, first by directly purchasing crypto assets and then by "mining" through gaming. This phenomenal trend lasted for two to three years, driving a high level of local grassroots user acceptance of cryptocurrency from 2021 to 2023.

Another attraction of the Philippine market is its status as the world's fourth-largest recipient of cross-border remittances, behind only China, India, and Mexico. Approximately $40 billion in foreign exchange is repatriated by overseas Filipino workers to the country each year.

This large and stable payment market has also made the Philippines one of the earliest countries to explore using cryptocurrency and stablecoins to optimize cross-border settlements. In the early days, the local community used on-chain stablecoins such as Stellar (XLM) for payments, replacing traditional USD wire transfers.

Compared to the banking industry's five-day-a-week, eight-hour-a-day service cycle, the exchange's 24/7 settlement capability has greatly improved the efficiency of payments and exchanges through stablecoins.

Therefore, in my opinion, this company has three main advantages: first, the scarcity of licenses and regulatory qualifications; second, a deep cryptocurrency user base; third, the direct entry into the cross-border payment and B2B settlement market.

Over the past year and a half to two years, we have also transitioned from a simple exchange to a licensed cryptocurrency platform that can serve global payments and cross-border remittances. This is not only an extension of the business model but also the start of a new growth curve.

BlockBeats: The Philippine government is set to implement stablecoin-related policies only at the end of 2024. How does this relate to Coins.ph's business development?

Zhou Wei: I believe that the impact of this policy on our business is not direct; the core reason lies in the increased use cases. From my observation, one of the world's largest single markets is the foreign exchange market, with the Philippines seeing a daily trading volume of about 15 to 20 billion pesos against the US dollar.

For this portion of foreign exchange transactions, if it were replaced by the exchange of USD stablecoins (such as USDT, USDC) for the Philippine peso, a new substitute market would emerge.

However, such transactions must take place on a compliant exchange. First, the exchange needs customer demand: on the one hand, sellers, mostly local or cross-border payment companies.

On the other hand, buyers, including coin traders, and groups needing to transfer funds across borders through stablecoins, such as Chinese e-commerce companies expanding overseas. Our job is to consolidate these demands into one "marketplace" to facilitate transactions and make the exchange their convergence point.

In the Philippines, our exchange has always offered compliant trading of USDT and USDC, which is the basic configuration of a compliant exchange. We follow the same model in markets like Thailand.

A recent development has taken place — with Hong Kong officially integrating stablecoins into its legal and regulatory framework, US-based stablecoin issuers (such as Circle) successfully completing an IPO, and obtaining a clearer regulatory path after the new US government took office, mainstream US financial institutions have begun to legitimize the use of stablecoins.

Simultaneously, cross-border enterprises, e-commerce companies, and payment institutions in Hong Kong can now use stablecoins for settlements without any qualms.

As a result, the cross-border circulation network of stablecoins has been further interconnected, and the Philippines seems to play the role of a "port": incoming funds from overseas, possibly in the form of USDC, may arrive and "unload" here to be converted into pesos.

Local funds may also be exchanged into USDT through the port and sent back overseas. With the growth in demand for cross-border stablecoin settlements, our "port" business volume has rapidly increased.

BlockBeats: Some have questioned the high cost of stablecoins in forex and cross-border payment settlements. For example, the Airwallex founder believes that the cost of stablecoins cannot be lower than traditional forex. What is your view?

Zhou Wei: I have always believed that such businesses fundamentally involve selling the "goods" each party has in hand. Traditional banks hold the goods of forex pools and traditional settlement capabilities, while I hold the goods of stablecoin transactions and digital settlement capabilities — the attributes of the two are completely different.

As an analogy, traditional banks are "maritime shipping," stablecoins are "air freight," and some localized payment methods are like "land transportation." Maritime shipping has the lowest cost but is slow and subject to time constraints; air freight, although more expensive, is available around the clock, flexible, and convenient — even when banks are closed, I can still complete fund transfers from my end.

Currently, the cost of stablecoins is higher than that of traditional forex mainly because the pool's scale is not yet large enough. For example, in the Philippines, banks can handle daily forex exchanges of 1 to 2 billion pesos, and the liquidity and depth of the forex market far exceed that of the stablecoin trading market.

Therefore, at this stage, banks have a clear advantage in forex costs. However, as the liquidity pool for stablecoin-to-peso transactions gradually expands, the cost gap will continue to narrow, and in the future, it may even be in line with traditional forex, at which point the use cases for stablecoins will be more extensive.

The key factor is liquidity — encompassing both the cross-border settlement liquidity between stablecoins and the fiat liquidity for stablecoins. Taking the US dollar as an example, there is almost no cost between the US dollar and a USD stablecoin, while any non-USD fiat to USD conversion will incur a spread.

Currently, the exchange rate difference between the US Dollar and the Hong Kong Dollar is very small. However, the exchange rate difference for USDT to the Hong Kong Dollar is relatively larger because the traditional forex pool is much larger than the stablecoin trading pool. Nevertheless, as the trading volume between the stablecoin and the Hong Kong Dollar gradually increases, the exchange rate difference will also narrow.

The same logic applies to markets such as Thailand and the Philippines: the forex pool for the US Dollar and the local currency is large, while the pool for USDT and the local currency is relatively small, resulting in higher transaction costs.

But once the stablecoin pool expands and liquidity increases, it will be able to handle more trading volume, and naturally, the exchange rate difference will decrease. This is the change currently happening in the market and is a key pathway to enhancing the competitive advantage of stablecoin payment networks.

BlockBeats: Can the stablecoin forex market operate 24×7?

Zhou Wei: Every country has a 24×7 payment system, such as the Philippines' PESONet and InstaPay, the USA's ACH (partially 24×7). What we need to do is to link the 24×7 Crypto with the local 24×7 fiat payment systems.

The Philippines Testbed: Where Will PHPC Go After Exiting the Sandbox?

BlockBeats: What is the difference between issuing a stablecoin and issuing in Hong Kong?

Zhou Wei: There is a fundamental difference in the regulatory approach to stablecoins between Hong Kong and the Philippines. Hong Kong has introduced a comprehensive stablecoin regulatory framework, establishing clear regulatory guidelines and admission requirements, attracting numerous market participants to enter eagerly. On the other hand, the Philippines has not enacted similar legislation but has opted for a more flexible approach, with the central bank granting pilot licenses to some institutions only.

In the Philippines, our stablecoin business initially entered the central bank's "regulatory sandbox" after applying for a license in 2023, where it operated for a year. Upon meeting all KPIs, it officially exited the sandbox this year and received the qualification for issuance in the market. The Philippine central bank selected us as a pilot primarily because we are the largest exchange under central bank regulation.

The issuance and redemption of the stablecoin (Mint and Redeem) are both completed through the exchange: users deposit pesos on the platform and can directly exchange them for PHPC at a 1:1 ratio, free of charge; during redemption, only a 0.01% fee is charged.

Once users obtain PHPC, they can freely circulate it on-chain. Initially, we deployed it on the Ronin blockchain, and many gamers convert their gaming earnings into PHPC, then use the platform's Off-Ramp to transfer it to their fiat accounts.

In the future, we place more emphasis on cross-border payment scenarios, especially the remittance needs of Filipino overseas workers. The Philippines is the fourth largest recipient of foreign exchange globally, receiving approximately $40 billion in cross-border remittances annually, mainly from overseas workers. If they can use PHPC to remit money to their hometowns, the cost is almost only the blockchain Gas fee, and the processing time can also be shortened to seconds.

For example, if a Filipino working in the United States can directly purchase PHPC on Coinbase and then transfer it to the Philippines, the local recipient can instantly exchange it for pesos.

Likewise, if Hong Kong opens up, we plan to register PHPC in Hong Kong, allowing the hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers in Hong Kong to purchase PHPC with Hong Kong dollars and remit it directly back to the Philippines, achieving zero exchange rate differences and low-cost settlements.

This model is also expected to expand to markets such as Singapore, combined with our existing global fiat channel network. If PHPC can be listed on more exchanges (including global platforms like Binance), its cross-border settlement capabilities and market acceptance will be significantly enhanced.

BlockBeats: What are the differences between the profit model of PHPC and traditional stablecoins like USDT and USDC?

Zhou Wei: Earning interest or asset management fees is obviously a direct revenue model for stablecoin businesses. However, from a longer-term perspective, we hope to provide cross-border financial services for overseas workers residing outside the Philippines through this product.

Essentially, stablecoins are a tool for "Financial Inclusion." They allow people around the world to enjoy services that should only be available to those with a US dollar bank account—such as deposit interest, investment opportunities, and loans.

In the past, these benefits were almost inaccessible without a US dollar account; however, the emergence of a US dollar stablecoin has broken through the limitations of geography and banking systems.

The same logic can be fully applied to the Philippine financial system. Many overseas Filipino workers—whether working in Hong Kong, Singapore, or the Middle East—hope to purchase real estate, consume, or invest in their home country.

However, constrained by cross-border fund transfers and local bank account opening, this was extremely challenging in the past. Stablecoins, especially PHPC, have the opportunity to bridge this gap for them, allowing them to participate in domestic economic activities like local residents.

Currently, there are approximately 10 million overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) worldwide. Their financial needs ultimately still point back to their "hometown," but in the past, there has been a lack of suitable tools to meet these needs. PHPC can be such a tool, allowing them to directly access the Philippine domestic financial system on a global scale, enabling cross-border, low-cost, real-time financial participation.

BlockBeats: You just mentioned that the foreign exchange market in the Philippines has an annual volume of $4 billion, is that correct?

Zhou Wei: Yes, annually, mainly comprising personal remittances, which are remittances sent by overseas workers back home, totaling approximately $40 billion annually.

BlockBeats: Looking ahead to 2030, how much market share do you think stablecoins could capture in such a market over the next five years?

Zhou Wei: I think about half of the cross-border funds may settle through stablecoins, around $200 billion.

BlockBeats: How much of that will circulate through Coins.ph?

Zhou Wei: I don't think we should only look at PHPC because PHPC is a transaction volume indicator. Its transaction volume will always exceed its active user count (AU). While the AU may not be that high, the transaction volume will be significant. Overseas workers are just one use case; in fact, there will be many more emerging use cases.

BlockBeats: Apart from native in-game token exchanges like Axie Infinity, there are many digital solutions for bill payments in the Philippines, and using stablecoins may actually increase costs. What is the current percentage of PHPC users for paying life bills?

Zhou Wei: Currently, almost none because the product has been in the sandbox and has not yet gone live on the blockchain. Initially, the chain we issued was not deployed to a mainstream chain because it was still in the testing phase. We just completed the sandbox testing this year and will begin promotion in September.

BlockBeats: What are your expectations then?

Zhou Wei: There are two major usage scenarios—on-chain scenarios and foreign exchange settlements. Further down the line, it might enter the domestic payment sector—such as what you mentioned earlier, truly utilizing stablecoins as a domestic payment product for scenarios like food delivery, utility bill payments, or local payment platforms.

However, I believe this step is actually the most challenging because it requires replacing the existing mature service system. Currently, local payment systems are already able to meet most basic needs, and user habits have been formed. Therefore, I predict that more future applications will focus on the on-chain scenarios mentioned earlier and foreign exchange settlement.

BlockBeats: In the scenario of paying life bills, how would stablecoins be involved?

Zhou Wei: In fact, there is no need for stablecoins to get involved. Traditional payment methods have already effectively addressed these issues, so there is no need to forcibly replace them with stablecoins.

BlockBeats: Are these scenarios globally applicable or only suitable for the Philippines?

Zhou Wei: Any market with cross-border demand has value for stablecoins. However, if it is domestic peer-to-peer transactions, the use cases are very limited.

BlockBeats: This viewpoint differs from many people's thoughts. Many believe that stablecoins are more suitable for payment within the same fiat currency system, especially for domestic B2B or C2C transactions.

Zhou Wei: In my opinion, the role of stablecoins in the domestic payment market is not significant, especially in countries or regions where the payment system is already highly mature. Like most Asian markets, user payment habits have long been established, digital wallet adoption is high, and settlement speed and costs have been optimized to a relatively low level.

Although not all transactions can achieve "T+0" settlement, they can at least be settled within a day or on the same day, with fees already minimized. In such an environment, introducing stablecoins would only add complexity rather than improve efficiency.

Unless it is in regions where some payment systems are not yet well-developed, such as some African countries, stablecoins have the opportunity to enter the domestic payment scene. On the contrary, in countries like India, with a mature local payment infrastructure, it can already provide a highly efficient domestic transfer experience, and the additional value of stablecoins here is almost negligible.

Interestingly, the situation in the United States is quite the opposite. Despite being a global financial center, the U.S. payment system is not as advanced in some aspects as Asia, with many scenarios still relying on checks, interbank settlements, and credit card networks.

Therefore, stablecoins may have a larger application space in the U.S., especially in the payment sector, where they can bring a more significant efficiency improvement compared to the Asia-Pacific market.

Therefore, the real opportunity for stablecoins still lies in cross-border payments—where the pain points are more numerous, barriers higher, and costs heavier, especially with significant optimization potential in settlement cycles and compliance processes.

BlockBeats: So in a region like Asia where digital payments are highly developed, stablecoins have little to no competitive advantage in domestic payments?

Zhou Wei: That's correct. There is no competitive advantage, and it may even make the process more complex. The opportunity lies more in cross-border payments, as there are more obstacles involved, costs are higher, especially in terms of compliance requirements and settlement times.

BlockBeats: Can you provide an example? For instance, what is the cost structure for exchanging 1 million pesos to US dollars through traditional channels versus stablecoin channels?

Zhou Wei: If you try to make a remittance through traditional channels over the weekend when banks are closed, you won't be able to do so. However, stablecoins operate 24x7. While the Philippines has relatively loose foreign exchange controls, in countries with strict controls like Thailand, Brazil, and Indonesia, traditional currency exchange requires approval and is time-consuming. For smaller amounts, converting directly to USDT allows for immediate remittance.

BlockBeats: Currently, is the stablecoin primarily serving the B2C or B2B market?

Zhou Wei: In the Philippines, our business covers both B2C and B2B scenarios. Taking B2B as an example, there are many Chinese cross-border e-commerce merchants—especially those participating in platforms like TikTok Commerce—selling products in markets such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Brazil. However, these merchants often do not have a local legal entity or bank account, posing a challenge for cross-border fund repatriation.

We can provide a complete "collection on behalf + stablecoin settlement" solution: the income from local sales by merchants (in pesos, for example) can be collected by us and directly converted into USDT or USDC within the settlement period, then remitted to the merchant's company account in Hong Kong.

The merchants in Hong Kong can quickly convert the stablecoin into Hong Kong dollars or other fiat currencies for repatriation. This way, companies can smoothly perform cross-border settlements without having to register companies or open bank accounts in multiple countries.

This model is particularly suitable for China's small and medium-sized enterprises going global—they can save both time and compliance costs, leverage the 24/7 instant settlement advantage of stablecoins, and avoid the high fees and delays of traditional cross-border transfers.

BlockBeats: So for large companies, could they use traditional channels during weekdays and stablecoins over the weekend?

Zhou Wei: Yes. Nowadays, some global companies need a "weekend trading account." They use USD to MXN during the weekdays and USDC to MXN on weekends.

BlockBeats: The Central Banks of the Philippines and Brazil are also creating their stablecoins. In this scenario, will there be a competitive relationship between national CBDCs and private issuers?

Zhou Wei: In my opinion, central bank digital currencies and market-driven stablecoins do not have a competitive relationship but rather complement each other and fulfill their respective roles. Central banks are regulators responsible for setting rules, managing the banking system, and the overall money supply; whereas entities like ours work under established rules to build application scenarios and service systems.

This division of labor is prevalent globally. Whether traditional payments or digital currencies, their essence is the digital representation of trust accounts—the difference being that a central bank's digital currency operates on a closed banking system and private ledger, while stablecoins are issued and circulated on an open public blockchain network.

For those familiar with payment or digital currency operations, the logic behind stablecoins is not complicated: it simply migrates the value that was originally confined within the financial system to a globally accessible, programmable blockchain environment, thereby unlocking broader use cases and cross-border settlement potential.

BlockBeats: Many people believe that issuing stablecoins in small sovereign states seems to have little significance. Do you think there is still an opportunity for stablecoins in these small countries?

Zhou Wei: I believe that some extremely small economies with little currency influence will find it challenging to have opportunities in the stablecoin field, such as some island nations. Their autonomously issued stablecoins often lack market foundations and are better off adopting USD-based stablecoins directly. However, for medium-sized countries, especially those that have faced severe inflationary shocks in their economy, opportunities still exist.

Currency issuance and management are integral to national sovereignty. If a country relinquishes control over its currency, it is equivalent to ceding some economic sovereignty.

For example, Argentina has experienced significant inflation in the past years, with the population mostly using USD-based stablecoins to hedge against currency devaluation. However, after a change in government, the new administration strengthened currency management, gradually controlling inflation and restoring the market function of the peso.

In such countries, even when USD-based stablecoins are widely used, they still have the drive and capability to maintain the dominance of their local currency.

Therefore, I do not agree with the absolute argument that "USD-based stablecoins will replace all national fiat currencies." As long as the concept of nation-state exists, the vast majority of governments will strive to uphold the issuance and usage rights of their local currency, as it is not only related to economic operations but also a symbol and bottom line of sovereignty.

Where Does the Imagination of Stablecoins Go After the Heat Cools Down?

BlockBeats: Is There a Great Opportunity for Stablecoins in Hong Kong?

Zhou Wei: I believe that the opportunity for stablecoins brought by Hong Kong is very noteworthy. The reason is that a significant proportion of USDT's core user base comes from the global Chinese community.

In my opinion, perhaps half of the global USDT holders are related to the Chinese community, and Hong Kong is a key node in this capital network. If Hong Kong can attract and accommodate this part of the capital flow, the size and activity of its stablecoin market will be significantly enhanced.

In my view, Hong Kong's biggest opportunity lies in issuing a USD stablecoin. After all, the cross-border use demand for the Hong Kong dollar in international and regional markets is relatively limited unless it is used to promote local financial products, such as Hong Kong stocks or bonds, funds, etc., and these products circulate on the chain in the form of a Hong Kong dollar stablecoin. Otherwise, the demand is difficult to scale up rapidly.

In contrast, the global applicability of a USD stablecoin in cross-border settlement, investment, and store of value makes it almost a direction that Hong Kong must develop.

BlockBeats: What are the motivations for these USDT users to convert to Hong Kong USD stablecoin users?

Zhou Wei: From current observations, these institutions entering Hong Kong to apply for a license are not generally the typical high-frequency users of USDT. Their capital structure and trading habits are different from traditional crypto-native players.

Although I do not have a specific profile of each institution, trends can be glimpsed from public data—for example, in HashKey's transaction records, the trading volume of USDT to USD has remained stable at around $50 to $100 million daily, showing a consistent demand for cross-currency exchange.

BlockBeats: Apart from your work at Coins.ph, in what other directions do you want to drive stablecoin development? Or what other opportunities do you think exist?

Zhou Wei: In my opinion, the current U.S. government is undergoing a self-revolution. What it is driving is not just fine-tuning the financial system but directly replacing traditional cross-border settlement systems like SWIFT with a USD stablecoin. Behind this action reveals a rare attitude—an active embrace of technology and innovation.

Whether it's the White House's policy direction or the SEC's regulatory adjustments, they are continually sending the same signal: the United States is paving the way for the digital asset industry.

Just today, the President also signed an executive order requiring sanctions on banks if they repeatedly refuse to provide services to the cryptocurrency industry. This is undoubtedly a seismic shift.

In the past, we were unable to open bank accounts in many places precisely because local banks were concerned that serving crypto companies would lead to the loss of their U.S. dollar accounts. Now, the U.S. is addressing this barrier at the source, essentially unleashing the entire industry.

This is not just a boon for the payment and foreign exchange market. With the establishment of channels and liquidity pools, the use cases of stablecoins will expand from cross-border payments to a broader range of areas such as investment, asset management, and lending.

For emerging markets, once efficient conversion with U.S. dollar stablecoins is possible through compliant channels, local users will have the opportunity to directly access more U.S. dollar-denominated investment products.

What I am currently doing is establishing U.S. dollar stablecoin exchange pools and channels in emerging countries so that local people can purchase more U.S. dollar investment products through us.

BlockBeats: Visa and Stripe are also promoting the adoption of stablecoins in emerging markets. Where do you see the opportunities?

Zhou Wei: First and foremost, it is essential to conduct clean exchange operations. Only on this basis can we attract international payment networks like Visa and Stripe to enter into partnerships.

Compliance integration brings greater transaction volume, and the increase in transaction volume, in turn, reduces the exchange costs, further attracting more users and funds.

This is a typical virtuous cycle: compliance leads to integration, integration leads to scale, scale reduces costs, and cost advantages then feed back into scale. In the Philippines, our platform has already entered this positive feedback loop, where market growth is beginning to self-propel and is no longer dependent on a single external stimulus.

BlockBeats: If the U.S. dollar stablecoin replaces SWIFT, will Visa be replaced?

Zhou Wei: No. Visa's merchant network is too vast to be replaced quickly. Moreover, Visa does not want to deal with hundreds or thousands of banks. If using USDC can replace settlement across 500 bank accounts, Visa would be willing to do it. In the Philippines, we are like a stablecoin hub, and all stablecoins in and out have to be exchanged through here because we have the largest liquidity pool.

BlockBeats: How can this be achieved?

Zhou Wei: Regardless of the settlement process, the essence is essentially the same: access funds through an API, complete secondary applications and transactions, and then distribute funds to any account as needed. Leveraging a payment license, we can not only make fiat payments to any payee's account but also achieve instant buying, selling, withdrawal, and conversion of funds.

This means that as long as a market connects the fiat channels of the "first mile" and "last mile" and combines exchanges, various stablecoins, and multi-chain support, it can fully cover the entire cross-border fund flow process. In this system, exchanges play a key role in the "last mile," directly connecting local users to the global financial network.

In fact, if stablecoins can be API-integrated with international payment companies like Visa, the entire payment and settlement process will no longer have technological barriers— and not limited to Visa, any globalized payment network that can access and recognize transactions can achieve seamless cross-border fund transfers.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia