BeGreenly Coin Official

The cryptocurrency market has learned one lesson the hard way: whenever a stablecoin promises safety without explaining how that safety is enforced, disaster is usually just a matter of time. From UST to USDN, history is filled with projects that looked solid—until the moment they collapsed.
Today, a new name is gaining attention: USD1. Backed by strong branding and political association, USD1 is being marketed as a stable digital dollar. But behind the headlines and hype, serious questions remain unanswered. The most important one being: is USD1 truly stable, or is it another high-risk experiment dressed as certainty?
What Makes a Stablecoin Actually Stable?
At its core, a stablecoin has only one real responsibility: redemption.
Not marketing. Not narratives. Not influence.
A stablecoin remains pegged to one dollar because there exists a mechanism allowing holders—or more importantly, large arbitrage players—to exchange the token for real value. This redemption process creates arbitrage opportunities that automatically correct price deviations.
USDT and USDC have survived multiple market crashes precisely because institutional players can redeem large amounts directly with the issuer. Retail users may never touch redemption, but they benefit from the arbitrage pressure it creates.
Without redemption, a stablecoin does not have a peg—it has a belief.

The Missing Piece in USD1: Clear Redemption
This is where USD1 begins to look structurally fragile.
As of now, USD1 does not publicly present a clear, transparent, and enforceable redemption framework. There is no detailed information explaining who can redeem, under what conditions, at what scale, and within what timeframe. In financial systems, such ambiguity is not a minor oversight—it is a major red flag.
When markets are calm, this lack of clarity may go unnoticed. But in moments of stress, when confidence disappears and exits are tested, redemption is the only thing that matters. If redemption cannot be executed efficiently, the peg becomes theoretical.

WLFI and the Shadow Support Question
Another layer of concern emerges when examining the relationship between USD1 and WLFI. Market behavior suggests that WLFI’s price movements often appear to support confidence around USD1, raising uncomfortable parallels with past failures.
This structure resembles the infamous UST–LUNA relationship, where one asset existed largely to reinforce belief in another. As long as confidence held, the system appeared stable. Once confidence cracked, both assets collapsed simultaneously.
When the stability of one token depends—directly or indirectly—on the market value of another, the system becomes circular. Circular confidence is not stability; it is delayed risk.
Trump Branding: Confidence Booster or Strategic Distraction?
There is no denying the psychological impact of political branding. Associating USD1 with Trump-related narratives attracts attention, loyalty, and retail trust. However, markets are indifferent to politics when pressure rises.
Political influence cannot create liquidity.
It cannot guarantee redemptions.
It cannot stop a bank-run dynamic.
When panic begins, traders do not ask who endorsed the token. They ask one question only: Can I get out at par?
If the answer is unclear, the market answers brutally.
The Dangerous Illusion of a “Soft Peg”
Supporters of USD1 often suggest that it does not need strict redemption, arguing instead for a “soft peg.” This argument has been made before—almost word for word—by projects that no longer exist.
A peg is not a spectrum.
It either holds, or it breaks.
Anything in between relies on trust rather than mechanism. In crypto, trust without enforceable guarantees is the weakest possible foundation.

Is USD1 a Scam?
Labeling something a scam implies proven malicious intent, and that threshold has not been met. However, dismissing the risks surrounding USD1 would be equally irresponsible.
Based on available information, USD1 appears to be a high-risk, low-transparency stablecoin experiment whose stability depends heavily on confidence rather than clearly defined financial mechanics. History has shown that such designs do not fail slowly—they fail suddenly.

Final Thoughts: Stability Is Tested in Crisis, Not Comfort
Stablecoins do not collapse on good days.
They collapse when everyone wants out at the same time.
That moment exposes whether a project is backed by real exits or by belief alone. Without a transparent and credible redemption framework, USD1’s peg remains a promise—not a guarantee.
Trump’s name may attract liquidity.
It will not protect a broken peg
Final Takeaway
A stablecoin without clear redemption is not stable.
It is a confidence trap that only reveals itself when it is already too late.

#JPMorganSaysBTCOverGold #USD1 #ScamAwareness #scam #USD1Scam

Ievads
Pēdējos gados kriptovalūta ir kļuvusi ļoti populāra, it īpaši meme monētas, piemēram, Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, Pepe un daudzas citas. Šīs monētas bieži tiek reklamētas caur uzbudinājumu, sociālo mediju tendencēm un ietekmētājiem, nevis reālu lietderību vai ekonomisko vērtību.
Daudzi musulmaņu tirgotāji uzskata, ka meme monētu tirdzniecība ir halal, jo tā neietver sviras vai procentus. Tomēr, analizējot to saskaņā ar Islāma finansēšanas principiem, meme monētu tirdzniecība pat uz spot tirgiem ietilpst vairākās aizliegtās kategorijās, piemēram, gharar (pārmērīga nenoteiktība), maysir (spēlēšana), maldināšana un iekšējās vērtības trūkums. Katru reizi, kad kāds gūst peļņu no Meme Coin, patiesībā kāds zaudē naudu.