One of the easiest illusions to create with non-USD stablecoins is that the monetary order begins to loosen as soon as the dollar is no longer written on the coin.
Whether it's a euro stablecoin or a local currency stablecoin, they all seem to be moving towards "de-dollarization".
But erasing the word "dollar" from the label does not mean dismantling the dollar order from the system.
It's like changing the house number; it doesn't mean the landlord has changed.
Changing the body shell doesn't mean the engine has been changed.
Many non-USD stablecoins have achieved exactly this: the currency has changed, but the pipeline, the valve, and the main switch remain the same.
Therefore, this matter cannot be judged solely by the currency it is pegged to.
The three floors are the ones you should really look at:
Pricing layer : What currency is used to denominate the price?
Liquidation layer : Which way does the money ultimately go?
Freezing layer : Who can stop this money?
Monetary sovereignty is not a single term.
It looks more like a building.
Just because you got the first floor back doesn't mean the whole building is back.
First, the pricing layer is the most conspicuous and also the easiest to be overestimated.
The market always sees the pricing layer first.
When a stablecoin for the euro was released, my first thought was: finally, it's not the dollar anymore.
When a stablecoin based on the local currency is released, the first reaction is: the local currency has been put on the blockchain.
This layer is the easiest to see, and therefore the easiest to misinterpret as "structural changes have occurred".
But the pricing layer is essentially more like a signboard.
It addresses the question of "what is this store called", not "who owns this store".
You can label goods as Euros, package assets in local currency, and change the unit on the payment interface from USD to EUR, KRW, or ARS.
However, as long as the accounting network, the flow channels, and the final execution power remain in the hands of others, this change is merely a change in appearance, not a change in power.
Therefore, non-USD stablecoins are most likely to win at the very top layer.
Because this layer is the cheapest and easiest to create the "it's different" effect.
Second, the real value lies not in the currency, but in the clearing layer.
The perspectives of the payment industry and the cryptocurrency community on stablecoins are not the same.
In the cryptocurrency world, the first things to look at are issuance volume, circulating supply, narrative, and market capitalization.
The payment industry should first look at something more mundane and crucial: where does the money ultimately go?
Because coins can be issued very quickly, the network doesn't grow automatically.
If a sum of money were to actually enter the real world, there would be a lot of things to deal with afterwards:
Bank deposits and withdrawals
Wallets and Custody
Merchant acceptance
Payment routing
Cross-border clearing
Compliance Penetration
Dispute Resolution
Freeze execution
These things, put together, make up what we call the internet.
The internet is like a water pipe.
Currency is just the water flowing in.
Today, USD stablecoins will flow in; tomorrow, EUR stablecoins will flow in; and the day after, local currency stablecoins will flow in.
For the players who truly control the liquidation layer, the taste of the water is not so important; what matters is who owns the pipeline network.
This is why many people believe that stablecoins are impacting traditional payment networks, but in reality, what we see more often is traditional payment networks absorbing stablecoins.
They don't need to win the debate about "which currency is more advanced".
They only need to guard the liquidation layer.
Because whoever controls the clearing layer controls the cash flow, access rights, and bargaining power.
III. The frozen layer is the deepest hand.
If the pricing layer is the signboard and the settlement layer is the water pipe, then the freezing layer is the main switch.
It is usually inconspicuous.
When things really go wrong, everyone will realize that what matters in the end is not "what currency you are using", but "who can make you stop immediately".
Can an address be frozen?
Can assets be blacklisted?
Can money transfers be blocked?
Can the contract be frozen or destroyed?
This layer determines not circulation efficiency, but ultimately, the relationship of obedience.
Therefore, monetary sovereignty cannot simply ask "What country's currency is this?"
We still need to ask:
In which system does the money flow?
Who can change its path?
Who can press the pause button?
The first two issues determine economic interests.
The last question determines the boundaries of power.
IV. What exactly happened in Argentina?
The situation in Argentina cannot be simply dismissed with a vague statement like "the president supports encryption."
More precisely, in February 2025, Argentine President Javier Milei publicly mentioned and promoted a token called $LIBRA on X, claiming it could finance small businesses and startups in Argentina. Subsequently, the price of $LIBRA surged in a very short time, briefly approaching $5, before quickly plummeting to below $1. Milei later deleted the post, denying any formal connection to the project. The Argentine opposition then pushed for political accountability, and a federal judge intervened in the investigation.
What became even more difficult to understand later was the flow of funds on the blockchain.
Reuters, citing on-chain research, reported that multiple wallets associated with the project's creators withdrew approximately $99 million worth of crypto assets from the $LIBRA market. This is why the whole affair quickly shifted from "president endorsing a new project" to "alleged fraud and legal investigation."
But what's truly worth writing about in Argentina isn't just the scandal itself.
The key question is: why does this narrative find a market in Argentina?
Because of the problems in Argentina, it's never a matter of a blockchain project suddenly popping up.
The real underlying problem is that the local currency itself has issues.
Prolonged high inflation, a distorted price system, and repeated erosion of residents' purchasing power have fostered a strong survival habit in Argentine society: don't hold onto your pesos for long, and try to align your price judgments with more stable external benchmarks. A Reuters report in 2026 regarding the controversy surrounding Argentine inflation data also noted that Argentinians have consistently experienced strong anxiety about prices and purchasing power, and the controversy surrounding the credibility of inflation statistics essentially reflects a long-standing societal unease about the credibility of the currency.
Therefore, what the $LIBRA incident truly reveals is not that "Argentina is beginning to embrace crypto innovation."
Instead, it's a more truthful fact:
When the local currency loses some pricing power in real transactions, external credit will take the opportunity to fill the gap.
First, the dollar mindset entered into daily pricing.
Then, external assets become a store of value.
Going forward, the narratives of on-chain dollars, on-chain financing, and on-chain liquidity will be packaged as a "rescue plan."
What you see at this point appears to be financial innovation.
At a fundamental level, it is actually a matter of sovereignty gaps being filled by external entities.
Therefore, Argentina is not on the offensive.
It's more like starting to discuss whether to replace the metal bucket or the plastic bucket after the roof has already leaked.
The buckets are different, of course.
But the real leak isn't in the bucket.
V. Why Argentina is not "entering the crypto space," but rather "moving the sovereignty gap onto the blockchain."
Looking at it through a three-layer framework makes things very clear.
The first layer, the pricing layer, has loosened its restrictions.
As residents, merchants, and businesses become increasingly accustomed to using external currencies as a price benchmark, the local currency is no longer firmly on the pricing table.
This step is the most important.
Because what a currency often loses first is not its right to circulate, but its right to set prices .
This currency is still being spent.
But people no longer consider its value.
It's like the nominal boss is still sitting in the office, but the person who actually makes the decisions has changed to someone else.
The second layer, the clearing layer, begins to move outwards.
If more and more transactions, value storage, and financing narratives are to be completed through on-chain dollar assets, external wallets, and external liquidity networks, then the funding path will also be moved outwards.
Previously, we relied on the dollar banking system.
We now rely on an on-chain dollar network.
The interface has changed, but the dependencies remain the same.
The third layer, the frozen layer, is still not in our country's control.
If you want to access mainstream markets, compliant institutions, and cross-border liquidity, you can't avoid KYC, AML, sanctions lists, and the ability to freeze funds.
In other words, the last hand is still outside.
Therefore, the truly noteworthy point about the Argentina case is not that "the country has begun to engage with on-chain assets."
Instead:
If the local currency is lost first, external credit will then fill the gap in a more digital, liquid, and irreversible form.
Previously, it was outsourced within bank accounts.
This is currently an outsourcing service in the wallet address.
VI. This is also the deepest misjudgment of non-USD stablecoins.
Many people automatically equate "not in US dollars" with "de-dollar order" as soon as they see it.
That was a leap too fast.
Because it's made from non-USD stablecoins, it's often just:
Replace the dollar sign
Put the local currency symbol on.
Create the feeling in the market that "the power structure has changed".
However, if it runs on existing public blockchain infrastructure, connects to existing global liquidity networks, and conforms to existing freezing and compliance frameworks, then what it accomplishes is more like:
They replaced the dashboard on the old machine.
What you are seeing are Euros, Singapore Dollars, and Local Currency.
The engine that is actually running may still be the same one as before.
Therefore, non-USD stablecoins are not meaningless.
Its significance lies in allowing currency to express more diverse ideas.
However, “more diverse expression” does not equate to “redistribution of power”.
VII. The real choice facing each country is not whether or not to adopt blockchain technology, but whether or not they dare to bring back the two most expensive layers.
The difficulty in this matter has never been about issuing a coin.
Issuing cryptocurrency is too easy.
You can design the name, anchor assets, and narrative you want.
The most difficult part is the last two floors.
If you only want to reclaim the pricing tier, the cost is the lowest.
Create a stablecoin for our local currency so that the market can see that "our currency is also on the blockchain."
This is more like hanging one's own flag within the чужой system.
If you want to take back the liquidation layer as well, things immediately turn into an infrastructure war.
Because the liquidation layer is not a token, not a white paper, and not a smart contract.
It is a whole network.
You have to pave the way yourself, connect with banks, merchants, wallets, liquidity, regulators, and legal certainty.
This is not about making a product.
This is for repairing water pipes.
If the frozen layer is also taken, it will be even more expensive.
Because this is no longer just a payment issue, but a matter of international financial power.
So the real question isn't "whether or not to support blockchain".
Instead:
How many floors do you actually want to take back?
How much political, economic, and network cost are you willing to pay for these layers?
The pricing tier is the cheapest.
The liquidation layer is the most valuable.
The frozen layer is the most sensitive.
The further down the price range, the more expensive it becomes.
VIII. Conclusion: Non-USD stablecoins didn't fail; they simply won in the least decisive area.
Non-USD stablecoins are not without progress.
It has certainly made progress.
It at least made the market see more clearly for the first time that currency is not a single piece, but rather a series of layers:
The outside is the pricing area.
The middle is the liquidation
The innermost part is frozen.
But it is precisely because we have seen this clearly that we should acknowledge its current limitations.
They often win over the most conspicuous layer first.
The two most valuable layers are the hardest to find.
Therefore, a more accurate judgment is not:
"Non-dollar stablecoins are rewriting the monetary order."
Instead:
Non-dollar stablecoins are expanding monetary expression, but have not yet truly rewritten monetary power.
Ultimately, the monetary order can be understood by looking at two things:
Whose path does the money ultimately take?
In the end, whose opinion should we listen to?
As long as these two things remain unchanged, the so-called de-dollarization has not yet reached its deepest point.
The most common illusion created by non-USD stablecoins is that changing the unit of account equates to changing the monetary order. In reality, what's truly valuable is never the address, but the water pipes and the main valve.
