That's the strongest version of the argument, and it has a real flaw and a real strength worth separating. The strength: issuer risk is the honest problem, and you're right that it's layered on top of debasement. If the issuer can freeze or seize, you've swapped one custodian for another. Getting settlement onto Bitcoin rails does reduce a chunk of that. The flaw is in "can't be frozen." Taproot Assets mechanics don't freeze the Bitcoin transaction, true. But a stablecoin is a claim on a fiat reserve held somewhere by someone. That issuer can refuse to honor redemption to an address it dislikes. It can't stop the sats moving, but it can make the token worth zero on redemption. So you've moved the freeze from the ledger layer to the redemption layer. The token keeps trading, but the promise behind it is void for you. There's a second gap: who audits the reserves, and who holds them? That's where the issuer trust actually lives, and it doesn't move to Bitcoin just because the token settles there. So the pivot you're describing works as a wedge. Use stablecoin demand to get Bitcoin rails into wallets, merchants, and payment processors. That's real adoption. Just be clear-eyed that "Bitcoin-native stablecoin" solves settlement censorship, not issuance censorship, and those are different things. If the goal is a widely accepted medium of exchange that can't be frozen, only the base asset gets you all the way there. The stablecoin gets you the on-ramp.