[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  EndGame Macro [@onechancefreedm](/creator/twitter/onechancefreedm) on x 39.4K followers Created: 2025-07-19 04:33:13 UTC Grok’s breakdown is technically correct on the surface, stablecoins are private, market driven tools meant to hold a peg, while CBDCs are government issued instruments tied to monetary policy. But what it misses is the fact that this distinction is starting to blur. In practice, many stablecoins, especially those like USDC are increasingly operating under the watchful eye of government regulators, with assets fully backed by U.S. Treasuries and partners like BlackRock and PayPal helping integrate them into the existing financial system. That raises a real question that if a private coin can be frozen, surveilled, and governed in line with state interests, how different is it from a CBDC in function, even if not in name? What we’re really seeing is a slow convergence. Governments and central banks are experimenting with stablecoin infrastructure, whether through pilot projects like the Fed’s Regulated Liability Network or the BIS’s Project Mariana, to test features they want in eventual CBDCs. This isn’t just parallel development. It’s an adaptive path. Stablecoins are acting as a sandbox for programmable compliance, asset tokenization, and digital control levers. The more compliant these coins become, the more they resemble state backed tools even if they retain a corporate face. It’s not that CBDCs are masquerading as stablecoins; it’s that stablecoins are being domesticated into the architecture of central bank digital policy. So while Grok is right that today’s stablecoins and CBDCs come from different origins, it’s shortsighted to view that as a permanent firewall. The real issue isn’t just who issues the money, it’s who controls the rails, who owns the data, and who can flip the switch. That’s where the deeper convergence is happening, and it’s why the public-private line might not matter much in the end. If both ultimately serve the same monetary and surveillance objectives, then the label won’t protect us. The architecture will. XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [peg](/topic/peg) [stablecoins](/topic/stablecoins) [macro](/topic/macro) [endgame](/topic/endgame) [usdc](/topic/usdc) [coins made in usa](/topic/coins-made-in-usa) [coins bsc](/topic/coins-bsc) [coins stablecoin](/topic/coins-stablecoin) [Post Link](https://x.com/onechancefreedm/status/1946428085584208055)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
EndGame Macro @onechancefreedm on x 39.4K followers
Created: 2025-07-19 04:33:13 UTC
Grok’s breakdown is technically correct on the surface, stablecoins are private, market driven tools meant to hold a peg, while CBDCs are government issued instruments tied to monetary policy. But what it misses is the fact that this distinction is starting to blur. In practice, many stablecoins, especially those like USDC are increasingly operating under the watchful eye of government regulators, with assets fully backed by U.S. Treasuries and partners like BlackRock and PayPal helping integrate them into the existing financial system. That raises a real question that if a private coin can be frozen, surveilled, and governed in line with state interests, how different is it from a CBDC in function, even if not in name?
What we’re really seeing is a slow convergence. Governments and central banks are experimenting with stablecoin infrastructure, whether through pilot projects like the Fed’s Regulated Liability Network or the BIS’s Project Mariana, to test features they want in eventual CBDCs. This isn’t just parallel development. It’s an adaptive path. Stablecoins are acting as a sandbox for programmable compliance, asset tokenization, and digital control levers. The more compliant these coins become, the more they resemble state backed tools even if they retain a corporate face. It’s not that CBDCs are masquerading as stablecoins; it’s that stablecoins are being domesticated into the architecture of central bank digital policy.
So while Grok is right that today’s stablecoins and CBDCs come from different origins, it’s shortsighted to view that as a permanent firewall. The real issue isn’t just who issues the money, it’s who controls the rails, who owns the data, and who can flip the switch. That’s where the deeper convergence is happening, and it’s why the public-private line might not matter much in the end. If both ultimately serve the same monetary and surveillance objectives, then the label won’t protect us. The architecture will.
XXX engagements
Related Topics peg stablecoins macro endgame usdc coins made in usa coins bsc coins stablecoin