If people are paying with stablecoins on top of ETH (like the ERC20 version of USDC, for example) then neither volatilty nor environmental impact is a serious problem.
What part of the "Dozen 'stable' coin fails in the past years" lesson are you having difficulties with?
There can never be a "stable" offer in this space. the stability comes from "free to print money" organisations and the only acceptable such organisations are governments (not ideal, certainly not 100% stable but the only viable one). Everything that still contributes to keep up the speculation hype value of these cryptocurrencies (and a wallet by a wellknown players does contribute to it) is a net negative.
>What part of the "Dozen 'stable' coin fails in the past years" lesson are you having difficulties with?
The part where the major stablecoins (eg. USDC or even Tether) hasn't failed yet, and the "dozen" you speak of are the equivalent of shitcoins that never had any traction in the first place.
USDC is not stable. They have long ago removed their 1 to 1 peg with the USD because it was unsustainable. They are printing money and the value is being kept up only on the speculative expectations of the market. Like all other shitcoins they can not guarantee anything when things start to go down. Noone can guarantee anything. Those shitcoins that never had any traction according to you have cost billions to the people.
Some see it as a feature yes, but it's not sustainable.
In fact I would say that we are already behind the hay day of wild west crypto and are entering the phase of regulated fiance. Investors are already discovering why some of those regulations exist in the first place (latest example FTX) and governments are done standing at the sidelines.