I recently came across a piece of data that was quite shocking—the circulating supply of Dogecoin increased by 16 billion coins this week. No typo, I mean "billion."

This guy's design architecture is just like that, infinite issuance. Every year, billions of new coins are mined and dumped into the market. I’ve been pondering this, and it’s a bit frightening: if something can be created almost infinitely, doesn’t your share always get diluted?

Let me give an analogy: it’s like guarding a water tank with a hole at the bottom. No matter how hard you pour water in, the water level won’t rise—because it’s leaking wildly from the other end. In the long run, this kind of design is a negative-sum game for coin holders.

Thinking of this, I suddenly feel fortunate. I’ve long moved assets that aim for "value preservation" and "steady growth" into something with a completely opposite operational logic: over-collateralized stablecoins.

Products like USDDA operate on the core mechanism of "over-collateralization + anchoring." Every circulating coin is backed by higher-value assets (like BTC, TRX), with the collateral ratio publicly on-chain. It’s not just printing money out of thin air, but tied to real collateral.

In simple terms, while Dogecoin’s infinite issuance dilutes your rights, these stablecoins are backed by real assets with actual gold or other tangible guarantees. One is a "fiat" style continuous devaluation, the other is a "gold" style value anchoring.

There are too many assets in the market with clever designs but flawed mechanisms. Instead of passively accepting dilution, it’s better to actively choose a more robust underlying logic. That’s the approach I’m taking now.