There's a case that’s particularly worth pondering. A leading daily chemical brand publicly announced the development of an eco-friendly toothpaste tube material and plans to license it to the entire industry for free, hoping it will become a new industry standard. Sounds noble, right? But an awkward problem has surfaced—the question of who truly benefits when everyone must adhere to this standard.

This isn't an environmental story; it's a story of monopoly. When a single company takes on the high costs of environmental protection first, while competitors continue using cheaper solutions, market competitiveness becomes unbalanced. Ultimately, either everyone shares the costs through a unified standard, or this "public good" becomes a disguised form of market control.

In the cryptocurrency world, the story is exactly the same. Imagine a leading exchange investing heavily in "24/7 on-chain asset auditing" or strict "Anti-Money Laundering (AML) customer identification." It sounds compliant and secure, but the cost is soaring operational expenses and declining competitiveness. Eventually, the industry is forced to follow suit, small exchanges are gradually pushed out due to cost pressures, and the few big players gain the dominant voice—this is what is called achieving monopoly through "compliance."

The same applies to stablecoin standards. Whoever sets the standards controls the rules of the game. Proof of Reserve (PoR), anti-money laundering systems, compliance audits... all sound good, but when a few major exchanges monopolize the authority to set these standards, they shift from tools to protect users into shackles that create high barriers and squeeze out new entrants.

This is a legal black hole: in the name of survival, standardization is chosen, only to be swallowed by the very standards meant to regulate it.