As a result, the US doesn't have the same incentive as say China, Hong Kong or companies in other emerging markets to push for stablecoin adoption.

Because int'l payments btw rich countries is somewhat solved or has matured with a decent barrier to entry. But transactions between rich and poor countries remains unsolved. Yet, because of the lower transaction value and volume involved, the incentive to participate is low.

5. Without speculation, it means that stablecoins has to be a real product solving real consumer problems. But because of reasons 2 and 3, the biggest use case for stablecoins, from a US POV, is for international payments, which makes sense but it's not a sexy opportunity.

4. Stablecoins are utilitarian, with almost zero speculative features. USDC/USDT is not "going to the money", which takes away a lot of crypto investor incentive that we've seen applied to Bitcoin, ETH, Dogecoin, NFT, and other projects.

That stablecoins tend to be pegged to the dollar or backed by US assets, doesn't mean it's under US govt control, especially sanctions. As the US becomes more protectionist, they'll at least favour things they can control, which will further bifurcate USDT, et al from say USDC.