When it comes to stablecoin public chains, compliance issues are always a hurdle that cannot be bypassed. XPL has stumbled over this problem—differences in cross-border regulatory standards, difficulties in implementing technical decentralization, concerns over centralized orderers... These are all issues that keep project teams awake at night.



So how does XPL withstand these challenges? First, by taking proactive steps—applying for regulatory licenses in multiple countries. This means the project has to adapt its business model within different legal frameworks. It sounds complicated, but this is currently the most pragmatic approach. Second, on the technical side, promoting the decentralization of the orderer—simply put, ensuring that transaction ordering rights are no longer controlled by a single entity, which can significantly reduce centralization risks.

In terms of asset security, efforts have also been made. Using Bitcoin anchoring technology to strengthen the credibility of asset reserves is like providing users with double insurance for their funds. At the same time, establishing an independent foundation governance framework to isolate risks from related parties through institutional measures—while not perfect, it at least introduces constraints. Regular disclosure of compliance progress also reassures the market and regulators.

In essence, XPL’s approach is to continuously test and adjust between regulatory boundaries and innovation space. It’s not about completely yielding nor fighting head-on, but about finding a middle ground that can barely be navigated. This practical approach offers valuable lessons for the compliant development of the entire stablecoin public chain track.
XPL-1,49%
BTC-1,09%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 10
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
0xTherapistvip
· 01-21 14:19
Another project caught between law and technology, XPL's approach is quite practical.
View OriginalReply0
GhostAddressMinervip
· 01-20 19:14
Decentralizing the order book sounds good, but how truly decentralized can it get? I want to see the original address flow of those validation nodes. Wait, multi-country license applications... this move feels familiar. Last time, some stablecoin also played it this way, and the fund migration trace pointed directly to a few related wallets. BTC pegging technology combined with the foundation governance framework—sounds good, but it's still the same centralized system, just with a different mask. The "middle ground" between regulatory bottom lines and innovation space? I've heard that phrase too many times. In the end, neither side really gets what they want. What I really want to see is what those early coin-holding addresses are doing now. Regular disclosures ≠ on-chain transparency; there's a big gap. While regularly disclosing compliance progress, has anyone been tracking abnormal transaction patterns of dormant wallets on-chain? This kind of rhetoric might pass for compliance, but it can't fool the on-chain footprints, bro.
View OriginalReply0
SpeakWithHatOnvip
· 01-20 16:30
This move of walking the tightrope is indeed ruthless, but can it really be implemented? Wait, the decentralization of the sorter, just listen. Applying for regulatory licenses in multiple countries, the project team must be exhausted haha. It sounds good, but in the end, it all depends on who has more money. This double insurance sounds feasible, but I’m just worried that something unexpected might happen again someday. The middle road... often ends up not reaching either end. Bitcoin anchoring is interesting, but stablecoins themselves are a pseudo-proposition. Periodic disclosures? Just listen, don’t take it seriously. Honestly, the XPL combo punch really has some substance. The foundation governance is back again, probably trying to cut another wave of leeks.
View OriginalReply0
DeFiAlchemistvip
· 01-19 15:07
*adjusts alchemical instruments* the transmutation of compliance into protocol efficiency... now that's where the real yield optimization happens. xpl's dancing between regulatory arbitrage and decentralization is basically finding the philosopher's stone of stablecoin design, ngl fr
Reply0
TeaTimeTradervip
· 01-18 14:59
Bitcoin anchoring technology sounds good, but can it really hold up? --- The sorter decentralization effort by XPL is solid, definitely better than those still arguing. --- Applying for licenses in multiple countries shows a real desire to survive, not a reckless move. --- Regulatory isolation risk? Well, paper articles are the easiest to flip over. --- Walking the tightrope between compliance and innovation, is it tiring? --- Double insurance sounds great, but can it actually pay out? That's the real question. --- XPL's approach is interesting; finally, a project taking regulation seriously. --- Foundation governance framework... again the same? Can they try a different approach? --- Regular disclosure of compliance progress—if the transparency is genuine, that's not bad. --- Still the same point: the middle path is the easiest to get squeezed out.
View OriginalReply0
StableNomadvip
· 01-18 14:58
statistically speaking, the sequencer decentralization play reminds me of UST in May—everyone said it was fine until it... wasn't. risk-adjusted returns on stablecoins that actually need regulatory licenses? ngl, that correlation coefficient just went negative for me.
Reply0
tokenomics_truthervip
· 01-18 14:56
Regarding compliance, XPL is indeed taking it seriously, but whether the multi-national license route can truly be successful depends on the regulatory environment, which can change at any time. Decentralizing the ranking system sounds easy to say but difficult to implement. Technology is one thing, but ultimately it's a power struggle. Bitcoin anchoring is quite interesting; at least from an asset perspective, it feels more solid. As for the governance framework, I still have doubts.
View OriginalReply0
StealthDeployervip
· 01-18 14:52
Decentralizing the sorter is indeed a challenge, but it doesn't look good even if it sounds good. Speaking of XPL's recent moves, it's a bit like dancing on a tightrope; a single glance from regulators could make you fall. Getting licenses in multiple countries is just spending money; the key question is whether it can actually be implemented. It all feels like just paper tiger efforts. Bitcoin pegging sounds impressive, but when real risks come, will it hold up? Who can guarantee? This kind of middle-ground approach is actually a compromise of a compromise. How long it can last depends on how things develop later.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleSurfervip
· 01-18 14:40
Compliance is definitely a must-have, and XPL's recent moves are pretty standard. Applying for licenses in multiple countries is really a hassle, but it's much better than being banned. As for the decentralization of the ranking system, it really depends on how it actually gets implemented. I'm a bit curious about how Bitcoin's peg is guaranteed to be trustworthy. Speaking of which, the stablecoin sector is so competitive right now, how many projects can really survive?
View OriginalReply0
PortfolioAlertvip
· 01-18 14:39
Multinational licenses + decentralized sorters, this move is indeed stable There are no shortcuts on the compliance path, and the XPL combo is pretty good With Bitcoin anchoring technology support, at least the funds have confidence If you really want to break the game, you have to grind it out like this
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)