Airwallex CEO questioned the foundation of stablecoin value: vested interests representing the "old forces" are panicked?

Compiled by: Fairy, ChainCatcher

Edited by: TB, ChainCatcher

"Stablecoins cannot reduce the cost of remittances between mainstream currencies, and cryptocurrencies have not shown clear practical use cases in the past 15 years."

On June 7, a tweet by Airwallex founder and CEO Jack Zhang sparked heated discussions about the actual value of stablecoins. The reason why this "singing" sound is attracting attention is precisely because Jack Zhang is at the core position of global financial technology.

Airwallex is a world-leading cross-border payment platform for enterprises, with business covering more than 50 countries. Its core products include international payment accounts, multi-currency company cards, global transfers, etc. In May this year, Airwallex completed its F round of financing, with its valuation rising to US$6.2 billion, with a cumulative financing of US$1.2 billion. The investors behind it include well-known capitals such as Tencent, Sequoia China, DST, and Hillhouse.

At a time when stablecoins are entering the mainstream financial vision, Jack Zhang's "tongue" seems particularly harsh. But his views are not an isolated case, but reflect the views of some traditional payment practitioners and even the financial elite on the rise of stablecoins.

Here is Jack Zhang 's tweet (compiled by ChainCatcher):

Investors always ask me questions about stablecoins and how it can reduce foreign exchange fees; but if you are sending money from the US dollar to the euro, and the payee still requires that the euro be received in the bank account, I really can't see how stablecoins can reduce fees - the cost of switching out stablecoins to receiving currency is much higher than the traditional interbank foreign exchange market.

Cryptocurrency is an area that I have never understood. I still haven't seen what cryptocurrencies really help in the past 15 years. Even with less volatility in stablecoins, I can't see what benefits it can bring in B2B trading, unless it is used in some very niche money markets, but the liquidity in these markets itself is very low.

Unlike artificial intelligence, its application is real, and each of us uses various AI tools every day. What about stablecoins? How many people are really using it?
I still remember in 2021, I was like a fool, watching everyone talking about cryptocurrencies, and the market rose wildly, and even a16z released a white paper on the future of Web3. But I still can't see that "future".

And this year, I feel like "I am a complete fool" because I still can't see any prospects for cross-border transactions between G10 currencies. The cost of cross-border transfers is now lower than 0.01%, and it is real-time. You can't be cheaper than "free" or faster than "real time".
The only real use case I can see is probably Stripe's acquisition of Bridge, providing stablecoin wallet infrastructure to consumers in Latin America or African countries...but that's actually just regulatory arbitrage.

If anyone wants to refute me with transaction volume, here is a well-processed chart that shows only stablecoin transaction volumes related to real economic activities such as payments, remittances and commercial transactions, by region from 2021 to 2025 to date.

Source: Jack Zhang

In the confrontation with netizens' comment section, Jack Zhang further clarified his position on stablecoins:

• Stablecoins may serve as a supplementary option for payment tools and financial infrastructure in the future, rather than disruptive changes.
• Stablecoins are over-hyped, and their development path is still long. Over-promotion and hype are likely to mislead the public's judgment of their actual value.
• The issuance of currency should be dominated by the central bank, and pure financial products will not create any real value for society.
• Cross-border regulatory restrictions and the resistance of developing countries to dollarization have made the global compliance of stablecoins slim.

These views have triggered fierce rebuttals from the financial and crypto circles:

Financial analyst Simon Taylor pointed out that stablecoins are indeed just "another option" at the moment and have not yet formed a mainstream financial track, but he believes that a key turning point is coming . With the upcoming stablecoin regulatory rules in the United States, stablecoins are expected to usher in an institutional turning point. He pointed out that a path similar to the "Euro Dollar" may also become an alternative to SWIFT for some countries. Driven by the G20, multilateral agencies such as the OECD are promoting the "functional equivalent" regulatory framework to lay the institutional foundation for their globalization.

VanEck Ventures partner Juan Lopez said real innovation is often born in marginal markets. Stablecoins have huge potential and should not be denied by "speculation as the main focus". Because it is the attractiveness of the potential market (TAM) that stimulates continuous exploration. He emphasized that although the services of Airwallex and Wise are excellent, they still cannot meet the many needs of stablecoin users in global transactions. These market feedback just prove that stablecoins are solving real pain points and representing some necessary innovation path.

Interest determines position, the defense of the old forces?

With the US stablecoin legislation making a critical breakthrough and several states have taken the first step in issuing stablecoins, this crypto asset, once regarded as a "on-chain tool", is evolving into the forefront of global financial game. Stablecoins are no longer just one link in the technology stack. They carry the competition for capital forces, the reshaping of regulatory frameworks, and the profound collision of geopolitical patterns.

Therefore, in response to Jack Zhang's statement on stablecoins, many people believe that this is not only a technical view or market judgment, but also a true projection of the discourse position of the old financial interest groups.

Crypto KOL BroLeon pointed out that Airwallex's business model is not complex, and its core competitiveness comes from the financial licenses held in many countries and the advantages of the fund pool brought by deposited funds. Through multiple rounds of large-scale financing, Airwallex has actually been deeply bound to traditional global financial vested interests and has become part of the old system.

BroLeon further stated that the current rise of stablecoins, in addition to relying on blockchain to technically transform backward financial infrastructure, is a deeper driving force behind the game within the US political ecology. Emerging political forces represented by the Trump camp are challenging traditional financial groups represented by the Federal Reserve, and stablecoins have become the product and tool in this "new finance vs old finance" conflict of interest.

Tastingo.eth/.sol, co-founder of OHDAT Labs, also expressed a similar view. He believes that Jack itself is a representative figure in the vested interest system, and his position on the issue of stablecoins naturally reflects this reality. The development of stablecoins is largely not a simple technological innovation, but a power redistribution of new and old financial forces in the context of global game. In the United States, stablecoins have become somehow the MAGA camp 's tool to challenge the Fed's dominance.

Stablecoins lie between financial innovation and regulatory reality, and Jack Zhang's doubts are in sharp contrast with the temptation of emerging forces. Can the new political driving force that is quietly gathering really leverage the foundation of the global payment system?