Let's clarify some understanding.
For example, you bought some PayPal, that is, you put real money into this payment system.
At the same time, you see a number in your PayPal wallet that is equivalent to the transferred amount. Is everything fair?
Well... almost.
The fact is that the owner of the platform (in this case, the PayPal platform) can display any number in your account. It's like your cell phone balance. You topped up your balance, transferred money to the operator. And they displayed the required number in the billing system.
But this is just a number, billing doesn't contain your money, your money immediately goes in another direction, and billing is a convention, completely determined by the operator, who can set both unlimited and per-second payment.As for payment systems, some use them only to transfer funds from point A to point B, start and immediately withdraw or to make a payment. But if you just started and left a certain amount in your account and just keep it there, you've created a situation in which the payment system can use your funds at its own discretion. Even if you suddenly demand some kind of transaction or withdrawal of funds, it in turn can be performed at the expense of another user whose funds are not moving.

Blockchain in this sense has made a revolution. It made it impossible to use "your numbers" without your knowledge. If the numbers are stored in the blockchain, then the funds located at each address belong ONLY to the one who owns the private keys. The numbers that you see in the open blockchain are real numbers that cannot be fabricated.

It's important to understand that all centralized exchanges do NOT contain this openness at all. All modern centralized exchanges are classic banks, classic payment systems, classic mobile operators, which only display a number on your balance sheet. And your funds IMMEDIATELY go in the right direction. In the direction necessary only for the owner of the platform.
Many wonder why the new revolutionary, decentralized blockchain technology has not eliminated deceit and manipulation. The answer is simple — people do NOT use the advantages of blockchain and decentralization. People still believe that the exchange rate they see at auctions on centralized platforms is the real exchange rate.

Now, let's talk about stablecoins. Until everyone understands that creating their own stablecoin can and should be done by anyone who has collateral, the deception won't end. There should be many like Tether, and at arm's length of those who will check them and personally verify the backing of their tokens.
Stablecoin fans bear responsibility because they are the ones who should verify and confirm that the stablecoin issuer is indeed providing the promised backing. And if instead of demanding the exchange of USDT for dollars from Tether, you do it on a P2P exchange with some random Joe, then USDT becomes just a money printing machine.

This is as old as the world, all fiat works on this principle. If you don't need to confirm the backing in real-time, then you can do what's happening now with USDT and similar tokens. "Print empty tokens when there's no backing, buy BTC with them, sell BTC for dollars, claim there's backing. Profit!"
For those who really believe in the backing of, for example, USDT token, I have a question: why haven't we heard about how many of these tokens have been destroyed? And this should happen at the moment when this token is backed by a dollar.
I repeat: Tether doesn't need to bear the burden of backing now, because USDT users have taken on this role. This token started working according to the fiat money scheme. Tether has become an ordinary money printing machine. Simply because they can afford it now.
All the backing of these stablecoins is held only by the faith of those who save them. You can't save something that has called itself the equivalent of something else. You need to get this dollar equivalent from the backer.

I personally have no claims against Tether (they're just "riding because idiots are carrying them"), I have a question for the regulators who allow only Tether and a few other stablecoins. This suspicious selectivity suggests that they're in on it.

I remind you that decentralization implies replication (repetition) of any phenomenon. And this means that ANY point of money presence should be able to work according to the Tether scheme, that is, to create its own stablecoins equivalent to the amount of collateral. And only an infinite number of such collateral objects will guarantee transparency and control, primarily from those who are at "arm's length" with this collateral provider.

This is how each point of real assets becomes an exchange point or a point of DECEPTION. And now the question is: what is the probability of the second negative scenario when there is one payment system and it's unknown where, or when there are many payment systems (stablecoins) and you personally know their founders?