There is a lot of discussion about stablecoins, but most perspectives still focus on ordinary users. In fact, those who can truly drive industry change are often large institutions—their demands are completely different from retail investors.

For large institutions, transaction speed is just basic functionality. What they care about most are three things: whether costs can be accurately predicted, whether settlement is reliable, and whether the system is sufficiently neutral. Slow speed is not a problem, but the worst thing is "uncertainty."

This is precisely the pain point for many general-purpose public chains. Gas fees fluctuate wildly, confirmation times are unpredictable, and networks occasionally get congested. For individual users, it's an experience issue, but for institutions, it directly translates into risk.

Some new public chain ideas are quite interesting—they are clearly designed from an institutional perspective in a reverse manner. Finality at sub-second levels is not for show, but to ensure settlement can be truly trustworthy; optimizing gas costs around stablecoins to keep fees close to a fixed amount; plus Bitcoin anchoring, which is like giving the entire system a long-term credit endorsement.

The smarter part is that these designs do not burden users with complexity. The underlying coordination and security mechanisms are handled internally, so not everyone needs to participate in the game.

If many chains are building "more free experimental grounds," these projects actually aim to become "infrastructure that can be integrated into existing processes." It may not sound as glamorous, but it is more practical. When stablecoins truly enter institutional ledgers, everyone might realize—sometimes, the character of a chain is more important than technical parameters.