I think what should be discussed is who grants the issuer the power to freeze, destroy, or even transfer user assets, whether it is USDT, USDC, or USD1, and to what extent this power can be enforced in smart contracts. From the current perspective of smart contracts, USDC's most direct authority over user balances is mainly to freeze them. Circle can add an address to the blacklist, making it unable to transfer USDC properly, but the current version does not have an administrator function that can directly transfer USDC from frozen addresses to Circle's own or someone else's address. USDT has an additional layer beyond freezing. Tether can add an address to the blacklist and directly destroy USDT in that address through destroBlackFunds. The current V2 contract permissions for USD1 have been upgraded to another level. In addition to freezing, there are also drain and real location, which means that after being frozen, the administrator can transfer USD1 from this address or reassign it to another address. So the discussion here is not about how many functions there are or how few functions there are, but about to what extent the administrator can ultimately change the user's asset status. Freezing means that your money cannot be moved. Destruction is to make your money disappear from the balance on the chain. Transferring and reallocating refers to directly changing which address the asset ultimately belongs to without your private key or signature. The results corresponding to these three permissions are obviously different. As for who grants these permissions to the issuer, the answer lies in the smart contract itself. When deploying and upgrading contracts, the publisher writes these special permissions into the code, and then assigns the corresponding Owner, Admin, Proxy Admin, or other roles to the designated address for control. What blockchain does here is very simple. As long as the address that controls administrator permissions meets the contract conditions, the chain will execute according to the code. Multi signature and time lock are certainly important. 5/8 multi signature is definitely safer than a single signature address, and a 48 hour lock is also safer than being able to call at any time. But these mechanisms address how easily this power can be used or abused by one person, and do not change the existence of this power itself. A reallocation that requires 8 signatures to be called is still reallocation. The adequacy of reserves and the reliability of redemptions are another set of risks. A stablecoin can have 100% reserves, while smart contract administrators still have the ability to freeze or transfer a user's balance. So what I really want to compare is very specific, that is, when the user's private key has never been leaked and no transfer transaction has been actively signed, the issuer relies on administrator privileges to determine to what extent the stablecoin in the user's wallet can be controlled. This is the permission difference that I want to discuss in this article. @Gate Crypto、 US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, South Korean stocks, gold CFD、 Predicting one-stop trading in the market