A well-known financial platform has already supported stablecoins as a deposit method, covering both USDC and USDT. However, there is a detail worth noting — the USDT processing chain involves a compliant third-party service provider converting it into USD before transaction settlement, whereas USDC follows a different path.

This reflects a deeper market segmentation: the true growth potential of USDC mainly comes from two directions.

First is the on-chain holdings of institutional-grade funds. We see an increasing number of publicly listed companies, fintech firms (similar to payment processors), and traditional banks' on-chain settlement accounts choosing USDC as a tool for on-chain asset allocation. The key point here is "only USDC qualifies" — from audit transparency to regulatory friendliness, such institutions will only choose options that meet compliance expectations.

Second is the potential for RWA (real-world asset tokenization), on-chain securities, and T+0 settlement. Whether it's the future deployment of clearing institutions like DTCC on-chain or the progress of asset tokenization, the infrastructure building for these innovative applications almost all points toward USDC, a stablecoin with higher institutional acceptance.

Simply put, both stablecoins have their uses, but at the institutional application level, the differences are becoming increasingly apparent.