Will Introduction of the Stablecoin Act Trigger a Financial Tsunami?

Stablecoins are a hot topic—cryptocurrencies backed by secure financial assets and pegged to fiat currencies. They represent the most practical application of crypto beyond its niche, and have launched a wave of financial transformation. As a key bridge between traditional finance and the crypto ecosystem, the introduction of the U.S. GENIUS Act and Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance marks the beginning of global regulatory oversight in this emerging field.

Although the U.S. and Hong Kong have different motivations for introducing stablecoin legislation, both are based on real-world stablecoin practices and aim to integrate them into their fiat systems in ways that serve their interests. Comparing the similarities and differences between the two helps us understand the future trajectory of financial development. This is a monumental moment in human progress, signaling another major step forward in the financial revolution initiated by the new generation of crypto elites, led by Satoshi Nakamoto.

We won’t repeat the content or advantages of the legislation here—those have been covered extensively elsewhere. Instead, we’ll focus on the problems.

No Final Bailout Mechanism in Either Act

Bailouts are essential for financial stability. The most famous example is the 2008–2009 U.S. financial crisis, where joint intervention by the government and the Federal Reserve restored stability. In the GENIUS Act, reserve assets are strictly limited to short-term U.S. Treasuries and other highly liquid, low-risk dollar-denominated assets, making bailouts necessary. In contrast, Hong Kong allows a broader mix of reserve assets, including non-HKD assets, making government bailouts less essential.

In fact, stablecoins have already received bailouts by the Fed. When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed in March 2023, USDC—then the second-largest stablecoin—plunged over 10%. The Fed’s intervention preserved $3.3 billion stored at SVB, restoring USDC’s peg. Yet the GENIUS Act only mentions the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency as a regulator, not the Fed or any potential bailout institution.

Before licensing systems were in place, stablecoin stability relied on brute-force measures like “pulling the plug.” During the SVB crisis, investors like Justin Sun rushed to redeem USDC, causing its price to drop. Exchanges like Robinhood, Binance, and Coinbase suspended USDC services, effectively halting redemptions. In 2021, USDT processed $700 million in redemptions within 48 hours and $2 billion over 40 days—22% of its reserves. Traditional finance couldn’t handle it this way.

Once laws are enacted, they must be followed. The GENIUS Act defines reserve assets clearly: U.S. cash, FDIC-insured deposits, Treasuries with ≤93-day maturity, Fed-backed overnight repos, and central bank reserves. This makes Fed bailouts logical. Hong Kong's reserve asset requirements are broader, allowing for diversified asset portfolios. Theoretically, the more asset types included, the higher the uncertainty. USDC distributes its U.S. dollar holdings across multiple banks, which increases exposure to banking risk—if a bank fails, USDC suffers. In contrast, USDT invests mostly in U.S. Treasuries, avoiding the fallout from individual U.S. bank failures. Hong Kong’s definition of asset combinations is relatively loose, meaning its stablecoin reserves carry higher risk than those in the U.S., and are consequently harder to bail out. However, since most of the stablecoins issued are not HKD-pegged, the responsibility for bailouts does not lie with the Hong Kong SAR government. In handling this, the Hong Kong government has made an astute move.

From the U.S. perspective, should the government backstop dollar stablecoins? It maintains dollar stability, but stablecoin stability is the issuer’s responsibility. If ecosystems are isolated, failures don’t spread. If it’s a unified ecosystem, then a failure at the foundation—such as Luna, which served as the base of its crypto ecosystem—can bring down all the projects built on top of it. In other words, when the collateralized projects on Luna failed, they dragged down the entire Luna ecosystem. All issuers of U.S. dollar stablecoins belong to the dollar ecosystem, and based on crypto’s real-world experience, a backstop is necessary. Finance is a societal testing ground—there are no precedents until something happens, and once it does, the cost is enormous. Cryptocurrency is part of finance, and its domain serves as a “laboratory” for traditional financial systems. The lessons learned here are extremely valuable. Any past example could reoccur under the new stablecoin environment.

Small cracks can cause collapse. UST (Luna) collapsed due to a minor change in collateral interest, triggering $100 million in arbitrage sales and a chain reaction. Despite rescue efforts costing billions, its market cap plummeted to near zero in days. A $30+ billion ecosystem loss led to $700 billion in crypto market damage. Crypto adjusts faster than traditional finance. Fortunately, the collapse didn’t spread to the fiat currency system, because the two systems were isolated. Back then, it was Powell who prevented UST (Luna)’s crash from triggering a chain reaction in the fiat world. But once the two systems become interconnected, we’ll face unknown scenarios—and the scale of potential chaos is unpredictable.

Finance is like a chess game, sustained by trust. Human confidence can instantly turn into fear. Cryptocurrency operates in a global, borderless market. If the 2009 financial crisis had occurred in the crypto space, there might not have been time for a bailout.

Finance is a chess game. The crypto exchange FTX collapsed due to panic caused by Luna, which led to falling asset prices. Had it survived until today, FTX’s asset value might have recovered. Luna’s failure stemmed from the lack of a comprehensive rescue mechanism. If the Federal Reserve had intervened back then, Luna might not have died, and the $700 billion crypto market loss could have been avoided. Of course, this wasn’t the Fed’s responsibility, and it didn’t intervene—but the damage eventually reached it.

Finance is a chess game. The Hong Kong dollar belongs to the U.S. dollar ecosystem. As Hong Kong becomes a crypto finance hub with a fast-moving financial system, and since losses aren’t the government’s responsibility, the Hong Kong government doesn’t need to provide a backstop. But if the right moment is missed, the situation could spiral out of control. The U.S. legislation only allows institutions with banking licenses to issue stablecoins, while Hong Kong doesn’t impose such restrictions. It’s entirely possible for a major U.S. tech company to issue stablecoins in Hong Kong. Under current management practices, the fiat currency used as reserve assets is opaque, making fraud highly likely. Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance could become a feast for speculators—and very likely the starting point of a financial tsunami.

Time Lag Between Stablecoins and Fiat Assets

Stablecoins trade 24/7, as does forex. But their reserve assets don’t. This isn’t a big issue in the U.S., but Hong Kong’s diverse reserves create timing mismatches between primary and secondary markets.

The Hong Kong government stabilizes the HKD by buying and selling in the secondary market at predetermined prices. Stablecoins, on the other hand, rely on arbitrage between the secondary and primary markets to maintain price stability. When the secondary market price drops below $1, arbitrageurs can buy stablecoins there and redeem them with the issuer in the primary market at a 1:1 ratio to make a profit. This arbitrage process means that when issuers sell reserve assets to meet redemption demands, the selling pressure from secondary market investors can ultimately trigger the liquidation of those reserves.

For major players like the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), their credibility allows foreign exchange platforms in the secondary market to temporarily advance fiat currency during settlement delays. But smaller stablecoin issuers, even if they hold reserves, may lack sufficient trust. Without timely bailouts or coordinated rescue efforts, they risk facing a run. This is especially evident in the crypto space, where on-chain assets are transparent—once a vulnerability is spotted, it can be exploited.

Regulators and market participants hope stablecoins can maintain both low redemption risk and price stability. But these goals conflict and are driven by different forces. Under current regulations, stablecoins allow unlimited redemption, which boosts arbitrage efficiency and helps stabilize prices under normal conditions. However, in times of panic, it significantly increases the risk of a run.

If the timing mismatch between stablecoins and fiat systems isn’t properly addressed, it could lead to serious risks. And once panic sets in, it tends to be excessive—this is the butterfly effect in the Amazon rainforest.

U.S. Dollar Stablecoin Issuance Doesn’t Match HKD Practice

Hong Kong requires a capital base of HK$25 million or equivalent assets to obtain a license for issuing designated stablecoins. This means entities in Hong Kong can issue offshore RMB or USD stablecoins. Unlike the U.S. legislation, Hong Kong allows a variety of qualified entities to issue stablecoins, reflecting its role as a global financial center.

Ironically, the one stablecoin Hong Kong least needs is an HKD stablecoin.

The HKD is essentially a USD stablecoin—it just hasn’t been tokenized. Its issuance model remains the gold standard for sovereign stablecoins. HKD is issued by three institutions: HSBC, Standard Chartered, and Bank of China. The system functions smoothly, and Hong Kong’s team is the only one in the world with over 40 years of stablecoin management experience. Why can’t any Hong Kong bank issue currency? Why don’t they apply their existing expertise? The implications are deep and beyond the scope of this article.

In summary:

Hong Kong’s experience with HKD issuance shows that the U.S. approach to issuing USD stablecoins doesn’t align with HKD practices. Stablecoin models that have succeeded in small-scale crypto experiments may not be directly applicable to more complex financial environments.

Hong Kong’s stablecoin regulations feature relaxed issuance requirements but strict rules for violations—an example of tight oversight. All types of stablecoins can be issued. The U.S. seeks dollar hegemony; Hong Kong seeks financial leadership. That’s the fundamental difference between the two laws.

Their goals differ, so it’s hard to say the U.S. should adopt Hong Kong’s model. But who can truly assess the risks of U.S. stablecoins?

It reminds us of Soros

Are stablecoins really low-risk? Currency is the unit of account—the foundation of all financial activity. A single disruption can ripple through the entire system. When Soros attacked the Hong Kong dollar, it was a coordinated assault across the stock market, futures market, and foreign exchange. Without support from the Chinese government and the determination of Hong Kong officials, Soros would have succeeded.

History records that difficult moment:

- “The resolute Donald Tsang refused to abandon the linked exchange rate, unwilling to survive by compromise.”

- “After a tough decision, Tsang made a historic move: rather than let Hong Kong’s wealth fall into the hands of speculators, the government entered the market, deploying foreign reserves to fight back.”

- “Tsang and Joseph Yam reported the idea to then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. Nervous, they didn’t expect Tung to approve it within half an hour.”

- “At that point, Tsang knew full well: if they gambled with the people’s hard-earned money and lost, resignation wouldn’t be enough—they’d have to answer with their lives. But there was no other path forward.”

- “That night, Tsang cried for hours. Sometimes, history demands that someone make a difficult decision. The final showdown came as expected.” (Quoted from Shen Hejun and Professor Alchemy)

This was the greatest challenge the HKD ever faced. Had Hong Kong failed, it would’ve set the city back more than a decade. But the financial literacy of Hong Kong citizens was exceptional. On August 28, 1998—the day of reckoning—Hongkongers united. The stock and forex markets rallied with the government, and banks raised short-term interest rates. By 4 p.m., the Hang Seng Index closed at 7,829 points, with a record-breaking HK$79 billion in daily turnover. Futures settled at 7,851 points. Over 10 trading days, the government used HK$120 billion in reserves to lift the index by 1,169 points. Hong Kong prevailed.

Salute to the heroes who defended Hong Kong.

Today, compared to Soros’s attack on the HKD, we now have a fourth battlefield: the crypto market. Stocks, futures, forex, and stablecoins are all interconnected. What might happen? The world’s most brilliant financial speculators are surely thinking about it—especially those with immense financial power. And stablecoins, being new, still have regulatory loopholes waiting to be discovered.

We’ve seen Trump’s team attempt to use stablecoins to strengthen the dollar and address U.S. debt—a bold and ambitious idea. But it’s based only on stablecoin models that succeeded in small-scale crypto experiments, and those lacked final bailout mechanisms. Moreover, the Federal Reserve and the government are not directly affiliated. Obstacles abound. It’s not easy. If systemic loopholes are exploited and trigger a financial tsunami, the government will have to pay a steep price to contain the damage.

Fixed Exchange Rates and Leverage in Stablecoins

In the article Using HKD to Realize Bitcoin Standard, the author analyzed how Hong Kong’s economic fundamentals were stronger than the U.S. at the time. But in a showdown like Soros vs. HKD, fundamentals don’t matter—short-term liquidity does. Whoever has more money wins.

Maintaining a fixed exchange rate is extremely difficult, and historical experience has led the Hong Kong government to avoid mentioning HKD stablecoins altogether. What kind of impact would issuing an HKD stablecoin have on the Hong Kong dollar? In essence, issuing an HKD stablecoin adds leverage to the currency. If the peg to the U.S. dollar can be maintained and 24-hour redemption is resolved, the risks may not appear significant at first glance.

If the market experiences another Soros-style attack, leverage will amplify its impact. What would such an attack look like under today’s conditions?

We don’t know how large the leverage could be. The volume of financial assets exceeds that of currency. The U.S. legislation prohibits re-collateralization of stablecoins. But in practice, collateral isn’t necessary—issuers receive fiat when issuing stablecoins, use that fiat to buy short-term U.S. Treasuries, count those as reserve assets, and then issue more stablecoins. One dollar can buy two dollars’ worth of Treasuries, which helps absorb debt. With some creative structuring, could this be repeated three, four times—or even more?

For stablecoin issuers, reserve assets generate interest, while stablecoin holders earn none. This implies a highly profitable business model. In the U.S., banks issue stablecoins, which is manageable. But under Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance, issuers include non-bank entities not subject to banking compliance rules—undeniably increasing systemic financial risk.

The following is purely hypothetical:

Exchanging fiat for stablecoins is legal. Stablecoins pay no interest. Fiat used to buy interest-bearing Treasuries is also legal, and benefits the issuer. Since this isn’t collateral-based, recursive issuance is possible. Under Hong Kong’s framework, if reserves include debt assets, leverage could reach multiple times; if reserves are purely cash, it could be even higher. If a licensed company repeatedly issues stablecoins to earn interest, should it be regulated? And how?

Currency issued by commercial banks should be counted in M2 (broad money supply). The leverage effect of stablecoins should theoretically be included in U.S. monetary metrics—but how? This poses a new challenge for U.S. monetary policy. In Hong Kong, non-HKD stablecoins likely don’t need to be counted.

Malaysia and Thailand couldn’t defend their fixed exchange rates against Soros. For countries issuing stablecoins, it’s like adding leverage to their fiat currencies—magnifying liquidity risk. Sovereign currency issuance should reflect economic fundamentals. So does issuing stablecoins inflate financial bubbles?

There are many such unresolved and emerging questions. But where there are benefits, there are also risks. We must discover the answers through practice—because moving forward is better than standing still.

Sovereign Stablecoin Issuance: Lessons from the HKMA

How should stablecoins be issued? Currently, each issuer creates its own stablecoin. But how many currencies can the average person remember? Thirty would already be impressive. If thousands of entities issue stablecoins, can we really keep track? This design has major flaws.

Hong Kong’s issuance of the HKD is essentially a USD-backed stablecoin under a single name: HKD. It has operated for decades without incident, proving the soundness of its model. Hong Kong has three note-issuing banks—HSBC, Standard Chartered, and Bank of China—but they don’t issue “HSBC dollars,” “Standard Chartered dollars,” or “BOC dollars.” All the currency is called HKD. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) maintains the stability of the HKD, rather than each bank managing its own currency. This collective approach to stability is far less risky than fragmented issuance. It’s a historically proven method for issuing sovereign stablecoins under a pegged exchange rate. The U.S. is an exception, since the dollar is currently the global base currency.

The architect of Hong Kong’s linked exchange rate system was Sir John Henry Bremridge.

The HKMA provides a backstop for HKD stability—that’s a form of bailout. Can every stablecoin issuer provide a backstop for their own coin?

Today’s stablecoin issuance model clearly faces three major risks: no bailout mechanism, opaque fiat reserves and non-uniform naming.

The bailout issue is a policy challenge, but the other two can be solved with technology.

New Wine in Old Bottles

Because the fiat backing behind stablecoins lacks transparency, both the U.S. and Hong Kong naturally turned to bank-style regulation to oversee them. But the insufficient clarity of reserve assets means audits or certifications are required to ensure credibility—still, this has raised concerns in the market. For example, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has expressed doubts about the actual reserves behind stablecoins, especially for high-market-share but opaque projects like Tether (USDT).

Does the Bitcoin system need human oversight? Not at all—because it operates on a transparent ledger. In his white paper, Satoshi Nakamoto quoted Wei Dai’s phrase “the ledger must be public,” making it the very first citation. This idea is the core of Satoshi’s philosophy, and even concepts like decentralization and blockchain fall a level below it.

Ledger transparency reshapes the accountability mechanisms of banks and other financial intermediaries. Traditional finance relies on trust and compliance declarations, while Bitcoin’s transparent ledger transforms “intermediary responsibility” into “verifiable behavioral responsibility” and “structural procedural responsibility.” This isn’t just a technical upgrade—it’s a deep reimagining of financial logic. Satoshi combined an immutable ledger, computational power, and timestamps to build a trustless system where trust is still possible.

This trust system is built on public, transparent, and verifiable processes, creating a root of credibility out of thin air. Trust is transmitted through programmatic logic, making the process inherently reliable. This concept is far more advanced than relying on Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) in computers to generate a root of trust. TEEs are inaccessible to most people and open to core programmers, meaning we must trust them without verification—just like trusting banks not to act maliciously. Of course, laws provide deterrence. But in traditional computing and social systems, roots of trust are incomplete and risky due to unverifiable or delayed verification. Satoshi solved this problem with remarkable elegance.

Neither of the two legislative acts reflects these principles. They fail to incorporate the advanced thinking behind cryptocurrency—and there’s significant room for improvement.

We Need Low-Cost Regulation

Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance is highly detailed, requiring daily public disclosure of reserve assets and mandating 110% reserve backing—commendable measures. However, how can the authenticity of these disclosures be verified? Binance, a major player in crypto, introduced a Merkle Tree-based proof of reserves, which is meaningful in theory. Yet the market remains skeptical, raising concerns that it doesn’t align with core crypto principles—specifically, that Binance’s method of establishing a root of trust isn’t sufficiently credible. Likewise, the current legislation fails to reflect the foundational ideas of cryptocurrency and may even be less trustworthy than Binance’s approach, as it doesn’t resolve the issue of a reliable root of trust.

Satoshi Nakamoto’s core philosophy centers on ledger transparency, embedding regulatory accountability directly into the structure of the ledger—not relying on post-event audits or declarations, but making oversight a real-time feature of the data itself. If audits are still required after the fact, it suggests the system hasn’t kept pace with technological progress.

Effective regulation should be low-cost. If it can’t match the lean scale of Web3 teams, something’s gone wrong. Bitcoin is maintained by just four developers, the Ethereum Foundation has around 30 people, and Tether (USDT) operates with roughly 100 staff.

If the fiat reserves backing stablecoins could be made transparent, it would fundamentally reshape the regulatory accountability of financial intermediaries. Oversight could be based on ledger transparency, dramatically reducing regulatory costs—and addressing the concerns raised by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) about the true backing of stablecoins.

Issuing Transparent Stablecoins Is True Upgrade of TradFi

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has promoted the concept of a “Unified Ledger,” but its design is overly complex—facing challenges in multi-architecture compatibility, cross-institutional coordination, and multi-jurisdictional regulatory adaptation. In other words, pure blockchain or consortium chains alone are insufficient to build a ledger-based intermediary platform that is “visible, controllable, verifiable, and scalable”. Blockchain ledgers offer a solid template, but applying them to traditional finance still leaves gaps. We need to reinvent the ledger based on Satoshi Nakamoto’s philosophy.

To address the opacity of fiat-backed assets, both stablecoins and their underlying reserves must be made transparent. By applying Satoshi’s transparency principles through technological innovation, we can build trust and issue transparent stablecoins—an optimal solution aligned with the original purpose of stablecoin issuance.

Taking it further, transparent stablecoins could also realize the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s model for issuing HKD: all banks issuing stablecoins under a unified name. Not just large banks—any small bank could issue transparent stablecoins with the same name. This would be a catalyst for gradually making banking operations more transparent, using Web3 principles and technologies to fully transform traditional finance and prevent systemic collapse.

Satoshi’s ideas go beyond transparent stablecoins. Expanding his transparency philosophy leads us to transparent stablecoins, transparent banks, transparent contracts, transparent exchanges, and transparent enterprises—a promising direction for the future of finance and business.

Transparent stablecoins can solve two of the three major problems in stablecoin issuance. Based on Satoshi’s thinking and the technical potential demonstrated by the Bitcoin system, they can drive a technological upgrade across the traditional financial sector.

By the way, banks have mature systems for KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering). Most companies struggle to meet these standards. Since the U.S. legislation designates banks as the primary issuers of stablecoins, this aspect is relatively well-handled.

The future path requires properly executing the step of establishing Bitcoin as a national strategic reserve.

The release of the legislations aligns with the tide of history and addresses the root of the problem. The issues have been accurately identified, but the methods still need refinement.

We live in a chaotic world—the old order has unraveled, and the new one has yet to be established. This legislation aims to build that new order, bringing opportunities but also the possibility of fresh disorder. I believe Americans are mentally prepared for such turmoil. Great disorder can lead to great governance, but only visionary leaders dare take that risk.

Yet risk is unavoidable. The lifespan of the credit-based U.S. dollar is already halfway through. For more on this, see my article “Predicting the Collapse of the Dollar Using the Natural Growth Curve”. Many of today’s global disruptions stem from fiat currency—as old saying goes, “the scale is off.” Fiat currency believers scoff at this view. But as the saying goes, “summer insects cannot discuss ice.” If fiat had no problems, Bitcoin wouldn’t exist.

Some argue that stablecoins are more important than a strategic Bitcoin reserve. That’s not the case. The Bitcoin reserve should come first—it carries no unknown risks, and funding is not an issue. Stablecoins, on the other hand, are full of unknowns and impossible to fully guard against.

A strategic Bitcoin reserve is what the U.S. should prioritize. Beyond purchasing Bitcoin itself, the U.S. can use its immense influence to encourage citizens to follow suit, locking large amounts of dollars into Bitcoin—just as China’s real estate sector absorbed RMB and fueled 40 years of prosperity. Creating new asset demand is the true driver of economic growth.

For global prosperity, we need new growth engines. If we believe Bitcoin will replace the dollar as the base currency, then Bitcoin is a better growth engine than Chinese real estate—because Bitcoin has no price ceiling, while real estate does. Bitcoin still has 4.5 growth cycles ahead, spanning 18 years. Interested readers can refer to the article “Bitcoin Natural Growth Curve”, which outlines 30 cycles of Bitcoin price evolution. The fourth cycle, a turning point, has already occurred. The fifth cycle targets $200,000, with a peak between $220,000–$240,000. Compared to AI, Bitcoin reserves are more inclusive and represent a new engine for overall economic prosperity.

Currently, stablecoins are expanding the scope of transactions. But transactions are complex, and over time, finance has evolved from a service sector into the dominant force across industries. That’s why financial legislation is the most extensive. Transactions serve asset demand—not the other way around. It’s a two-sided issue that feeds itself. Economic growth must come first; once it does, it covers many flaws. Ignoring Bitcoin reserves means ignoring the biggest engine of growth.

Bitcoin reserves are simple—and we should do what’s simple. The U.S. can gradually shift from fiat to Bitcoin over 50 years. Even if stablecoins encounter problems, Bitcoin reserves provide a hedge, giving the impression that America’s crypto strategy is sound. Timing matters—the earlier, the better. Bitcoin reserves deserve top priority.

For more on Bitcoin reserves, see my article “Realize the Solutions of Bitcoin dollar standard.” The plan shares similarities with Senator Lummis’s proposal. The website also features a section titled “Bitcoin-Dollar Standard” with 16 related articles.

The relationship between Bitcoin reserves and stablecoins is also discussed on the website. My proposed three-step transition from fiat is: Bitcoin strategic reserve → Bitcoin-dollar standard → Bitcoin standard. The U.S. is currently on step two, though the details differ—the goal is the same. However, the U.S. skipped step one.

If you’re unfamiliar with crypto, our Chainless website can help you understand in a month why fiat is destined to fail and why crypto is the future. History follows its own laws, unaffected by human will.

As it stands, the stablecoin legislation is still underprepared—both in the U.S. and Hong Kong. Stablecoins affect many aspects of the market and touch the core of finance. One small change can ripple across the entire system. Because everything is connected to stablecoins, the risks are unpredictable.

The release of an imperfect law shows we need an independent crypto advisory committee—with broad representation, including Satoshi Nakamoto. By harnessing top-tier wisdom, we can reduce the chance of chaos. If we can avoid disorder, why take the risk?

Based on crypto’s achievements, using transparent ledgers to build trustworthy chains is the simplest method for issuing transparent stablecoins. Until such coins are launched, major regulatory loopholes remain—and a financial tsunami could strike at any time. Governments must act prudently and patch those vulnerabilities as soon as possible.

By Zhu Weisha and Wang Yuxiao, July 19, 2025

Related Articles