Foreign media commentators believe that in the next phase of adoption in the crypto industry, it will not solely depend on rising prices, increased trading volumes, or the number of new buyers. The more critical issue is whether users will be able to successfully complete transfers, payments, withdrawals, and re-fund their funds back into the banking system after making purchases.

It's only after buying that the real test begins.

The article states that speculative trading and daily payments focus on different things. The former is more concerned with whether prices will continue to rise, while the latter is more concerned with whether the transfer has been credited, what the fees are, and whether errors can be resolved if they occur.

This means that even if a blockchain network is very active in the market, it can still cause frustration in actual use. Especially in scenarios involving frequent recharges, withdrawals, and fund transfers, delays in confirmation, unclear prompts, or insufficient customer service responses can directly affect whether users continue to use it.

Stablecoins have not solved all problems.

The article mentions that stablecoins can reduce the interference of price fluctuations on payments, but they do not eliminate all the frictions associated with on-chain payments. Network transaction fees, wallet misoperations, issuer risks, and losses resulting from choosing the wrong blockchain still exist.

A study released by the Bank for International Settlements in 2026 analyzed 141 million transactions on Ethereum in 2025 that involved USDT, USDC, and PYUSD. The research found that about one-third of these transactions involved multiple transfer events, indicating that the payment processes for stablecoins are often more complex than they appear to be and are not always simple point-to-point transfers.

Wallet design is more important than simply increasing speed.

The article argues that the focus of competition in the next phase will not only be on the speed of the blockchain, but also on whether the results are predictable. Users are more concerned about whether the confirmation times are stable, whether the transaction status is clear, and whether the service can still be used normally during network congestion.

The text also mentions previous network interruption cases involving Sui. Even if the funds themselves are not lost, the inability to transfer them when needed can still have a significant impact on the payment experience.

For wallets and payment products, the article suggests focusing on reducing mistakes, including providing clear prompts before sending regarding the recipient's address, whether the networks are consistent, whether the type of asset and the amount are correct, and offering clearer previews and warnings when necessary.

The focus on metrics should shift from registration to completion rates.

The article states that wallets, exchanges, and payment products should not only focus on the number of new users acquired but also track the success rate of transactions, the time it takes for funds to be credited, the number of failed transfers, customer service requests related to payments, as well as the completion status of top-ups and withdrawals.

As instant payments and open-bank transfers in some markets can now be completed within seconds, encrypted payments are no longer only competing with the traditional, slow banking channels. The article argues that what will truly drive long-term adoption is not another round of price cycles, but whether a transfer on an ordinary working day can be credited on time, completed at the displayed fee, and whether clear feedback is provided in case of any issues.