Lately I've been thinking about stablecoins again. To be honest, whether they stay pegged or not is often not about "insufficient assets," but rather that everyone panics and wants to run first. The run-on psychology is much faster than mathematical models... If reserve transparency is handled vaguely, the market will fill in the worst-case scenarios on its own. I was even more sensitive when the cross-chain bridge was hacked recently; money was moving around, it looked lively on-chain, but if something really happens, everyone wants to be the first to hit the exit button. And after oracle prices suddenly go out of whack, everyone collectively starts "waiting for confirmation." I can understand it, but I also find it quite frustrating: they complain about slow updates normally, but when something happens, they all start seeking stability. Recently, I also experienced a back-and-forth of following and unfollowing; I followed after hearing someone talk seriously about stablecoin risks, but then they started mocking "what are you afraid of," so I just unfollowed... When it comes to security, I prefer to be cautious. Anyway, I still stick to the three main principles: multi-signature, hardware security, layered permissions—avoid granting permissions whenever possible.