Yes, even better idea.

Surely two helicopters would be better - they each hold one end of the blade, and they don't need to actually land, just lower the blade to the ground.

A decline in the rate of increase of people adopting it for the first time. Not quite the same thing.

The number of companies adopting AI for the first time is increasing, but the rate of increase is lower than previously.
It doesn't about the number of companies that are stopping using AI, which is what we need to know in order to determine whether overall usage is up.

UK supermarkets have stopped doing cashback, probably because nobody pays cash any more.
The benefit to them of offering cashback was that it was cheaper than taking the money from the till to the bank. But now they don't have any of that.

In the UK, *every one*, including street traders, accepts Apple Pay and Google Pay. I don't even take cash with me when I leave the house now.

The new Class 374 Eurostars do 320 km/h (199 mph). The old Class 373s did 300 km/h (186 mph).

British trains used to flush onto the tracks up to about 15 years ago.

TGV / Eurostar get up to 320 km/h (199 mph).

OK, this is the difference between how Paypal is regulated in the US (as you describe) and how it is regulated in Europe.
The actual effect of the regulation in terms of what it requires Paypal to do is essentially the same (at a high level, obviously the specifics are different) in both places, but the starting point for the respective governments in how they arrived that this point is very different.

In Europe, the idea was that in the future people might get issued with some sort of hardware wallet which stored money in a cryptographic form, and people could transfer portions of that money to other wallet holders. The regulations were drawn up with this in mind, but they also allowed for an alternative system where the money value was stored on a central server rather than on the device. This latter alternative is what everyone, including Paypal, went with, so that is how Paypal are regulated in Europe.

We had a system called Mondex which was trialled in Swindon, England, which wasn't in itself a success, but the technology was sold to Mastercard, and ended up being incorporated into Mastercard contactless debit cards (which is server-based rather than stored on the card). Stablecoins are essentially the original Mondex idea, but with the double-spend problem solved, so are exactly what the European Parliament had in mind when they put the Electronic Money Directive into law.

It is offset against transfers going in the other direction, and failing that, by adjusting the balances on their accounts with the Federal Reserve.

If the Federal Reserve balance goes below the permitted level, that's called a run on the bank and that's where FDIC gets involved.

If you deposit $1, the bank can lend out $0.90.
The $9 comes from that $0.90 being deposited back in the bank and lent out again multiple times - $0.81, $0.729, etc, keep going and they all add up to $9.

With Silicon Valley Bank, their customers were mostly companies with VC funding, and the funds were in the bank to cover spending before the next funding round.

Stablecoins should be regulated in the same way that the likes of Paypal is regulated.
In Europe that is as an electronic money issuer, and when the European Parliament was drafting those regulations about 25 years ago, they had in mind something more like stablecoins than what we actually got with PayPal, Wise, and similar. In the USA, it is as a money transfer agent.

You deposit a dollar in a bank. The bank lends out the dollar, and the borrower spends it on something.
The recipient of the spending has a dollar. You feel that you have a dollar because it is deposited in a bank, and you can transfer it to someone else's bank account in the same way that you could spend a dollar, and people will accept that as a 1:1 substitute for a dollar.