Today I saw the news that Hong Kong is tightening the circulation rules for stablecoins,

and suddenly I understood something that used to be only in the white paper:

Some chains rely on stablecoins to survive, while others can run smoothly without them.

Injective belongs to the latter.

It's not a dramatic narrative of 'USDT is no longer viable, Injective has taken over',

but rather something more practical:

When off-chain settlement channels are closed, you can see who really owns the on-chain infrastructure.

When I first saw tokenized Nvidia (iNVDA) on Binance,

that moment of 'you can buy a small piece of real-world assets',

made me more convinced than any RWA report:

Chains are not for issuing tokens,

but to make assets composable, divisible, and cross-border.

What impresses me most about Injective right now is not speed, not cross-chain, not TVL,

but this confidence of 'being able to complete transactions without stablecoins'.

Whether it's Multi-VM, institutional entry, or ETF proposals—

these sound like marketing highlights,

but if you have really used Helix, crossed chains, and settled,

you will find it solves very boring yet very critical issues:

Finance is not about being flashy, but about being reliable.

This tightening in Hong Kong is actually like a flashlight,

illuminating the difference between 'dependency' and 'foundation'.

For the first time, I feel that Injective is like a true infrastructure,

not the kind of infrastructure that draws ecological maps,

but the kind where 'stablecoins exit, and the system can still operate'.

You may not need to fully understand its architecture,

but you can feel that sense of 'it won't lose power'.

In this matter on-chain,

there are not many projects that give me a sense of security,

Injective is one of them.

#injective $INJ @Injective