[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"article-six-layer-stablecoin-stack-turns-chaos-into-a-map-en":3,"article-related-six-layer-stablecoin-stack-turns-chaos-into-a-map-en":30,"series-industry-b488a62f-d028-4ff5-8627-0f3cb79b5d89":74},{"id":4,"slug":5,"title":6,"content":7,"summary":8,"source":9,"source_url":10,"author":11,"image_url":12,"cover_image":12,"category":13,"language":14,"translated_content":11,"related_article_id":15,"keywords":16,"key_takeaways":22,"views":26,"created_at":27,"published_at":28,"topic_cluster_id":29},"b488a62f-d028-4ff5-8627-0f3cb79b5d89","six-layer-stablecoin-stack-turns-chaos-into-a-map-en","Six-layer stablecoin stack turns chaos into a map","\u003Cp data-speakable=\"summary\">2026 \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fstablecoins\">stablecoins\u003C\u002Fa> moved from issuer-and-exchange basics to a six-layer stack.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve been following stablecoin infrastructure for a while now, and honestly, it kept feeling like a junk drawer. Every vendor deck tried to sell me the same blurry story: “we do payments,” “we do custody,” “we do compliance,” as if those words meant the same thing. They don’t. One week I’d be looking at an issuer, the next a wallet provider, then a reserve fund, then a compliance vendor pretending to be a payment company. It was all mashed together, and that made architecture decisions annoying in the worst way: slow, political, and weirdly vague.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What finally clicked for me was seeing the stack broken into layers instead of buzzwords. Once I stopped treating stablecoins like one market and started treating them like a six-layer commercial system, the whole thing got easier to reason about. I could see where the money moves, where the risk sits, and where a company is actually buying differentiation versus just renting infrastructure. That’s the useful part here. Not the hype. The map.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>My anchor for this breakdown is \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fstablecoininsider.org\u002Fstablecoin-infrastructure-landscape-2026\u002F\">Stablecoin Infrastructure Landscape 2026\u003C\u002Fa> from Stablecoin Insider, written by Marko Savic. It’s a dense field guide, not a hot take, and it names the players layer by layer: issuers, custody, orchestration, payment apps, tokenized assets, and compliance infrastructure. I’m using that structure as the spine here, then translating it into something I’d actually use when planning a product or evaluating vendors.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Stop calling everything a stablecoin platform\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“The stablecoin infrastructure stack has matured from a two-layer market of issuers and exchanges into a six-layer commercial ecosystem covering issuance, custody, orchestration, payment applications, tokenized assets, and regulatory compliance infrastructure.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that “stablecoin infrastructure” is no longer a single category. It’s a stack. And stacks have boundaries. If you blur them, you end up comparing a custody bank to a wallet app to a reserve fund like they’re substitutes. They’re not. They solve different problems and answer to different buyers.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783708414239-rmjp.png\" alt=\"Six-layer stablecoin stack turns chaos into a map\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>I ran into this when I tried to sketch a stablecoin rollout for a payments product. The first pass was a mess because every vendor claimed end-to-end coverage. Once I split the market into layers, the bad options got obvious fast. The issuer is not the orchestrator. The orchestrator is not the compliance layer. The payment app is not the reserve manager. If a vendor says it is all of those things, I get suspicious.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Stablecoin Insider piece is useful because it forces you to think in terms of commercial function, not branding. That matters in 2026 because the category is crowded with actual institutions: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.circle.com\u002F\">Circle\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Ftether.to\u002F\">Tether\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fireblocks.com\u002F\">Fireblocks\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fstripe.com\u002F\">Stripe\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bnymellon.com\u002F\">BNY Mellon\u003C\u002Fa>, and a pile of others that all sit in different parts of the stack.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: when you evaluate a vendor, write down which layer it belongs to and which layer it does not. If the answer is fuzzy, that’s already a signal. In architecture reviews, I’d literally force the team to label each vendor as issuer, custody, orchestration, app, asset, or compliance. It cuts through a lot of nonsense.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Issuers are the part everyone sees, and the part people misunderstand\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 1: Stablecoin Issuers\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>Issuers create and manage the \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Ftoken\">token\u003C\u002Fa> itself. That sounds simple until you remember that the token is only useful if the reserves, legal structure, distribution, and redemption mechanics hold together under pressure. The article’s issuer list makes the point cleanly: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Ftether.to\u002F\">Tether\u003C\u002Fa> dominates retail emerging-market usage, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.circle.com\u002Fusdc\">Circle’s USDC\u003C\u002Fa> is the institutional default, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.paxos.com\u002F\">Paxos\u003C\u002Fa> runs white-label issuance, and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fripple.com\u002F\">Ripple\u003C\u002Fa> is pushing RLUSD through regulated channels.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The interesting part is not just who has supply. It’s who can actually be used in a regulated workflow. The article calls out that USDT lacks GENIUS Act compliance and MiCA authorization, while Circle has both GENIUS Act alignment and MiCA authorization. That’s the kind of detail that changes procurement conversations. A treasury team may love USDT for liquidity, but a regulated platform may not be able to touch it in the same way.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve seen teams make the mistake of treating “largest supply” as shorthand for “best fit.” That’s lazy. Supply tells you where the market already is. It doesn’t tell you whether your product can legally, operationally, or reputationally use it. In 2026, those are very different questions.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you are choosing an issuer, check three things before you get seduced by size. First, reserve transparency. Second, licensing footprint. Third, distribution compatibility with your target geography. If you’re building for the EU, MiCA matters. If you’re building for US institutions, GENIUS Act alignment matters. If you’re building for emerging-market retail flows, raw liquidity and wallet penetration matter more than a polished brochure.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>For regulated products, prefer issuers with explicit authorization and attestations.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>For consumer payments, look at where the stablecoin already has wallet density.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>For branded products, white-label issuance can be faster than building in-house.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Custody is where stablecoin projects stop being theoretical\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 2: Custody and Security Infrastructure\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the layer where I stop trusting slide decks and start asking who holds the keys, who can approve transactions, and what happens when someone fat-fingers a transfer. Custody is boring until it isn’t. Then it’s the whole story. The article points to \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fireblocks.com\u002F\">Fireblocks\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.anchorage.com\u002F\">Anchorage Digital\u003C\u002Fa>, and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bnymellon.com\u002F\">BNY Mellon\u003C\u002Fa> as the institutional anchors here, which makes sense because this layer is about control and trust, not vibes.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783708410611-gzo8.png\" alt=\"Six-layer stablecoin stack turns chaos into a map\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>What this actually means is that stablecoin adoption by banks and asset managers depends on making digital asset operations feel like normal risk-managed finance. Fireblocks brings MPC-based controls and orchestration tooling. Anchorage brings an OCC-chartered trust bank structure. BNY Mellon brings the weight of traditional custody. Different credentials, same underlying job: make the asset safe enough for grown-ups to touch.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve run into this in enterprise conversations where the product team wants to move fast but the risk team wants three more controls, two more approvals, and a sleep aid. That tension is real. Good custody infrastructure doesn’t remove it; it gives everyone something concrete to point at. That’s the difference between “we think it’s safe” and “here is the control path.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if your use case involves treasury, settlement, or institutional balances, don’t treat custody as a checkbox. Ask whether the provider supports policy controls, transaction simulation, role-based approvals, and audit trails. If the answer is vague, keep looking. If you’re in the US, also ask what charter or regulatory wrapper sits behind the custody model. That detail matters when procurement gets serious.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The article also mentions Fireblocks’ Payment Engine and Agentic Payments Suite, which is a reminder that custody vendors are creeping upward into orchestration. That’s fine, but I’d still keep the layer distinction in my head. Just because a vendor adds a feature doesn’t mean the category boundary disappeared.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Orchestration is the layer that saves engineering teams from death by integrations\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 3: Payment Orchestration Platforms\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>Orchestration is where the stack gets practical. This layer sits between the issuer and the end user, hiding chain selection, compliance checks, fiat conversion, and routing logic behind an \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fapi\">API\u003C\u002Fa>. The article calls out \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbridge.xyz\u002F\">Bridge\u003C\u002Fa> from Stripe, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.crossmint.com\u002F\">Crossmint\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zerohash.com\u002F\">Zero Hash\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Forbitalpay.com\u002F\">Orbital\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.muralpay.com\u002F\">Mural Pay\u003C\u002Fa>, and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fmasspay.io\u002F\">MassPay\u003C\u002Fa> with Coinbase.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that orchestration is the layer that turns stablecoins from “we can send tokens” into “we can run a business process.” That’s a big difference. Sending tokens is a blockchain problem. Paying vendors, moving payouts across countries, and keeping compliance happy is a systems problem. Orchestration is where those collide.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I like the Bridge example because it shows how aggressive this layer has become. The article says Stripe acquired Bridge for $1.1 billion and is using it as the API-first stablecoin payment layer, with branded issuance through Open Issuance. That tells me the market is no longer just experimenting. It’s packaging. It’s productizing. And once Stripe is in the room, everyone else has to explain why they’re still shipping spreadsheets.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you’re building a product that touches stablecoins but you do not want to become a blockchain routing company, use an orchestration layer. That’s the point. You should be buying time-to-market, compliance abstraction, and multi-rail support. Compare providers on supported geographies, payout methods, fiat on\u002Foff-ramps, and how much of the compliance burden they actually absorb.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Use orchestration when you need speed and don’t want chain logic in your app.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Use direct issuer integrations only if you need tight control or custom economics.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Use a provider with clear state, country, and sanctions coverage if you operate globally.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Payment apps are where stablecoins become normal to non-crypto people\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 4: Consumer and Enterprise Payment Applications\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This layer is the one most teams want to skip, because it feels less “infrastructure” and more “product.” That’s exactly why it matters. The article’s list here includes consumer wallets, merchant checkout, payroll, remittance, and payout tools. In plain English: this is where stablecoins stop being a backend asset and start becoming something a finance team, a contractor, or a customer actually uses.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that adoption is not just about rails. It’s about user interface and workflow. If the experience still feels like crypto plumbing, most normal businesses will bounce. They don’t want to manage seed phrases. They want to pay a supplier, fund a wallet, or settle an invoice without creating a new operational headache.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve seen this in contractor payout workflows. Engineering teams obsess over chain choice, but the finance team only cares whether the payout landed, whether the exchange rate was sane, and whether the contractor can cash out without calling support. That’s the real product surface. If you ignore it, your “infrastructure” never escapes the pilot phase.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: design the payment app around the job to be done, not the asset class. For B2B, that usually means invoices, approvals, payout status, and reconciliation. For consumer flows, it means wallet simplicity, funded balance clarity, and cheap cash-out paths. Stablecoin rails can be the backend, but the front end needs to feel like finance software, not a demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The article’s mention of enterprise payout coverage across 180 countries via \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fusdc\">USDC\u003C\u002Fa> settlement is a good reminder that the \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fnews\u002Fai-models-are-eating-the-software-stack-en\">app layer\u003C\u002Fa> is where global reach becomes visible. Nobody in finance cares that you support twelve chains if the payout to a vendor in Brazil still takes three support tickets.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Tokenized assets are the reserve story nobody can ignore anymore\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 5: Tokenized Assets\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This layer is the one that makes the whole market feel bigger than payments. The article points out that tokenized Treasury products crossed $7 billion in on-chain value in June 2026, with BlackRock BUIDL leading and new reserve funds from Fidelity, State Street, and Invesco entering the mix. That’s not a side quest. That’s a capital markets story sitting next to payments.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that stablecoin infrastructure is no longer just about moving dollars. It’s also about where the dollars sit while they’re waiting. Tokenized Treasuries and reserve funds turn cash management into an on-chain product category. That changes yield expectations, liquidity strategy, and treasury operations all at once.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I like this layer because it explains why the infrastructure market got crowded so fast. Once tokenized funds became credible, the stablecoin stack stopped being a payments-only story and became a broader balance-sheet story. That pulled in asset managers, custodians, and banks that would never have cared about a pure crypto payment rail.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you’re building treasury tooling, look at tokenized assets as part of your liquidity stack, not as a novelty. Ask how quickly assets can be moved, what the redemption path looks like, and whether the product fits your risk policy. If the tokenized fund is more complicated than the cash it replaces, you probably don’t want it.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is also where I’d be careful with yield marketing. The article notes reserve yield sharing and partner-owned yield in some products. Fine. But if yield is the only reason the product exists, I’d expect trouble later. Treasury products should first solve operational needs, then maybe improve economics. Not the other way around.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Compliance is now a product layer, not a legal afterthought\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode>Layer 6: Regulatory Compliance Infrastructure\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the part that used to be buried in legal reviews and now shows up in product planning. The article ties the 2026 market shift to the GENIUS Act, MiCA, and Japan’s JFSA framework. That matters because regulation is no longer just a blocker. It’s a market shaper. Some vendors can operate. Some can’t. Some can operate only in certain regions. That changes everything.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that compliance infrastructure is becoming a commercial moat. If you can prove licensing, authorization, attestations, sanctions screening, and auditability, you can sell to larger customers. If you can’t, you get stuck in the “interesting pilot” bucket forever.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve watched teams underestimate this layer and pay for it later. They build the product first, then discover that legal can’t approve the flow, procurement wants more documentation, and the customer’s risk team wants a licensing matrix. That’s not a product problem. That’s a category problem. The stablecoin market in 2026 is finally admitting that.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: treat compliance as architecture. Map every customer geography to the regulatory regime that applies, then map every vendor to the approvals they actually hold. Don’t assume a provider’s global marketing page equals usable coverage. If you sell into Europe, MiCA is not optional. If you sell into Japan, JFSA approval is not a nice-to-have. If you sell to US institutions, regulatory alignment needs to be explicit, not implied.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>One thing I appreciate in the article is that it doesn’t pretend all compliance is equal. It separates issuer authorization, payment institution status, custody charters, and licensing footprints. That’s the right instinct. In real systems, those are different failure modes, and they need different answers.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The template you can copy\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode># Stablecoin infrastructure map template\n\nUse this to evaluate a stablecoin product, vendor, or internal architecture.\n\n## 1) Define the use case\n- Primary job: [payments \u002F treasury \u002F payouts \u002F remittance \u002F settlement \u002F reserves]\n- Target users: [consumers \u002F merchants \u002F finance teams \u002F institutions \u002F developers]\n- Target geographies: [US \u002F EU \u002F UK \u002F Japan \u002F LATAM \u002F APAC \u002F global]\n- Risk tolerance: [low \u002F medium \u002F high]\n\n## 2) Map the six layers\n\n### Layer 1: Issuer\n- Candidate issuer(s):\n- Stablecoin(s):\n- Reserve model:\n- Licensing \u002F authorization:\n- Redemption path:\n- Notes on supply \u002F liquidity:\n\n### Layer 2: Custody and security\n- Custody provider:\n- Key management model:\n- Approval workflow:\n- Audit trail support:\n- Incident response owner:\n\n### Layer 3: Orchestration\n- Orchestration provider:\n- Chains supported:\n- Fiat on\u002Foff-ramps:\n- Compliance screening:\n- Routing \u002F fallback logic:\n- Reconciliation support:\n\n### Layer 4: Payment application\n- User interface:\n- Workflow supported:\n- Payout \u002F checkout \u002F payroll \u002F remittance:\n- Support burden:\n- Reconciliation\u002Fexport format:\n\n### Layer 5: Tokenized assets\n- Treasury \u002F reserve product:\n- Yield model:\n- Liquidity \u002F redemption terms:\n- Settlement timing:\n- Risk policy fit:\n\n### Layer 6: Compliance infrastructure\n- Applicable regime(s):\n- Licenses \u002F charters \u002F authorizations:\n- Sanctions \u002F AML \u002F KYC controls:\n- Reporting \u002F audit requirements:\n- Geography restrictions:\n\n## 3) Vendor scorecard\nScore each 1-5.\n- Regulatory fit:\n- Operational fit:\n- Developer effort:\n- Treasury fit:\n- Customer fit:\n- Geographic coverage:\n- Cost:\n- Exit risk:\n\n## 4) Decision rule\n- Use if:\n- Avoid if:\n- Revisit when:\n\n## 5) Red flags\n- Claims end-to-end coverage but cannot name the layer.\n- No clear licensing or authorization story.\n- Compliance is described as “handled” but not documented.\n- Treasury yield is marketed more heavily than operational utility.\n- The product requires your team to become blockchain ops experts.\n\n## 6) Example summary\nWe are using [issuer] for token creation, [custody provider] for key control, [orchestration provider] for routing and compliance abstraction, [payment app] for end-user workflows, [tokenized asset] for treasury management, and [compliance infrastructure] for jurisdiction coverage.\n\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003Cp>If I were using this in a real review, I’d fill it out before the demo, not after. That’s the trick. Once the vendor has already dazzled the room, people stop asking annoying questions. This template forces the annoying questions up front, which is where they belong.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>My source for the layer breakdown is the Stablecoin Insider guide at \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fstablecoininsider.org\u002Fstablecoin-infrastructure-landscape-2026\u002F\">https:\u002F\u002Fstablecoininsider.org\u002Fstablecoin-infrastructure-landscape-2026\u002F\u003C\u002Fa>. The structure and player list are derived from that article; the implementation notes, decision rules, and template above are my own framing for developers and product teams.\u003C\u002Fp>","A practical breakdown of the 2026 stablecoin stack, with a copy-ready template for mapping issuers, custody, orchestration, apps, assets, and compliance.","stablecoininsider.org","https:\u002F\u002Fstablecoininsider.org\u002Fstablecoin-infrastructure-landscape-2026\u002F",null,"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783708414239-rmjp.png","industry","en","208d66c9-26da-48a8-be2e-7452859e256f",[17,18,19,20,21],"stablecoins","payments","custody","compliance","orchestration",[23,24,25],"Stablecoin infrastructure in 2026 is best understood as a six-layer stack, not a single market.","Issuer choice, custody, orchestration, and compliance solve different problems and should be evaluated separately.","A layer-based template makes vendor review and product architecture decisions much less fuzzy.",0,"2026-07-10T18:33:06.978224+00:00","2026-07-10T18:33:06.969+00:00","bbe7dc5a-6245-4f66-b7e0-3ed0cf5d4601",{"tags":31,"relatedLang":33,"relatedPosts":37},[32],{"name":17,"slug":17},{"id":15,"slug":34,"title":35,"language":36},"six-layer-stablecoin-stack-turns-chaos-into-a-map-zh","六層穩定幣堆疊把混亂變地圖","zh",[38,44,50,56,62,68],{"id":39,"slug":40,"title":41,"cover_image":42,"image_url":42,"created_at":43,"category":13},"ed1a612f-9be1-4de6-928c-c59a6d1c9960","claude-code-backdoor-scare-real-risks-en","Claude Code’s backdoor scare points to 4 real risks","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783771379288-oo7v.png","2026-07-11T12:02:32.598738+00:00",{"id":45,"slug":46,"title":47,"cover_image":48,"image_url":48,"created_at":49,"category":13},"2448d7a5-4a62-40e8-82ad-ec831d6245d5","amds-ai-stack-turns-silicon-into-platform-choice-en","AMD’s AI stack turns silicon into platform choice","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783733597995-rcvk.png","2026-07-11T01:32:52.877953+00:00",{"id":51,"slug":52,"title":53,"cover_image":54,"image_url":54,"created_at":55,"category":13},"4924361d-5a66-48d2-832a-46e3940d6186","ai-infrastructure-spending-durable-through-2027-en","AI infrastructure spending is still the trade to own through 2027","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783731759030-khfp.png","2026-07-11T01:02:20.89398+00:00",{"id":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"cover_image":60,"image_url":60,"created_at":61,"category":13},"8f92b8ee-963c-47cc-9427-9142b36cc166","ais-next-bottleneck-is-data-center-cooling-en","AI’s next bottleneck is data-center cooling","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783730002745-81zc.png","2026-07-11T00:33:01.0827+00:00",{"id":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"cover_image":66,"image_url":66,"created_at":67,"category":13},"1900612c-f077-464f-a119-fc5ed1e797da","openai-gov-partnerships-access-policy-en","OpenAI's gov partnerships turn access into policy","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783685002710-nclw.png","2026-07-10T12:02:54.103624+00:00",{"id":69,"slug":70,"title":71,"cover_image":72,"image_url":72,"created_at":73,"category":13},"bb07f0e8-3428-48f1-9cd0-b3a7aaa7320b","kubernetes-ai-assisted-maintainership-rules-en","Kubernetes sets rules for AI-assisted maintainership","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1783672388097-3f4c.png","2026-07-10T08:32:42.594785+00:00",[75,80,85,90,95,100,105,110,115,120],{"id":76,"slug":77,"title":78,"created_at":79},"d35a1bd9-e709-412e-a2df-392df1dc572a","ai-impact-2026-developments-market-en","AI's Impact in 2026: Key Developments and Market Shifts","2026-03-25T16:20:33.205823+00:00",{"id":81,"slug":82,"title":83,"created_at":84},"5ed27921-5fd6-492e-8c59-78393bf37710","trumps-ai-legislative-framework-en","Trump's AI Legislative Framework: What's Inside?","2026-03-25T16:22:20.005325+00:00",{"id":86,"slug":87,"title":88,"created_at":89},"e454a642-f03c-4794-b185-5f651aebbaca","nvidia-gtc-2026-key-highlights-innovations-en","NVIDIA GTC 2026: Key Highlights and Innovations","2026-03-25T16:22:47.882615+00:00",{"id":91,"slug":92,"title":93,"created_at":94},"0ebb5b16-774a-4922-945d-5f2ce1df5a6d","claude-usage-diversifies-learning-curves-en","Claude Usage Diversifies, Learning Curves Emerge","2026-03-25T16:25:50.770376+00:00",{"id":96,"slug":97,"title":98,"created_at":99},"69934e86-2fc5-4280-8223-7b917a48ace8","openclaw-ai-commoditization-concerns-en","OpenClaw's Rise Raises Concerns of AI Model Commoditization","2026-03-25T16:26:30.582047+00:00",{"id":101,"slug":102,"title":103,"created_at":104},"b4b2575b-2ac8-46b2-b90e-ab1d7c060797","google-gemini-ai-rollout-2026-en","Google's Gemini AI Rollout Extended to 2026","2026-03-25T16:28:14.808842+00:00",{"id":106,"slug":107,"title":108,"created_at":109},"6e18bc65-42ae-4ad0-b564-67d7f66b979e","meta-llama4-fabricated-results-scandal-en","Meta's Llama 4 Scandal: Fabricated AI Test Results Unveiled","2026-03-25T16:29:15.482836+00:00",{"id":111,"slug":112,"title":113,"created_at":114},"bf888e9d-08be-4f47-996c-7b24b5ab3500","accenture-mistral-ai-deployment-en","Accenture and Mistral AI Team Up for AI Deployment","2026-03-25T16:31:01.894655+00:00",{"id":116,"slug":117,"title":118,"created_at":119},"5382b536-fad2-49c6-ac85-9eb2bae49f35","mistral-ai-high-stakes-2026-en","Mistral AI: Facing High Stakes in 2026","2026-03-25T16:31:39.941974+00:00",{"id":121,"slug":122,"title":123,"created_at":124},"9da3d2d6-b669-4971-ba1d-17fdb3548ed5","cursors-meteoric-rise-pressures-en","Cursor's Meteoric Rise Faces Industry Pressures","2026-03-25T16:32:21.899217+00:00"]