This time with $River x @UTechStables, I feel the focus is not on the collaboration, but on the fact that $U is finally free from being chained down. In the past, when you held $U, it basically meant: wherever the chain is, you could only transfer, store, and use it within that chain. Want to switch ecosystems? Either cross-chain or switch to a new stablecoin, liquidity and yield were hard-separated. After River came in, the logic became very simple: you still have $U in your hands, but it can be directly sent into pools and yield scenarios on different ecosystem chains, without you having to deal with which version of the chain to use. For me, this change is tangible. It's not just an additional use case, but a reduction in an entire set of operational costs. Money no longer needs to be moved to the right place first and then think about how to use it, but rather think about the usage first, and the system helps you handle the location. This is also why I have always been optimistic about $RIVER. It's not creating a new stablecoin narrative, but solving a very specific problem: why, as stablecoins increase, they become harder to use. $U coming in is just one example. But once this model runs smoothly, it will truly become useful for stablecoins.