Indeed they have. However, the fact remains that they exist and development is ongoing. If somehow, circumstances were to be forced, then I have no doubt but the industry would find a way forward.DeFi Stablecoins are the way forward but are still relatively immature in adoption and development and have suffered from their own liqudity events and price fluctuations.
Regarding the other stablecoins, USDT remains the dominant by market cap with USDC the next up. However, USDC follows a similar practice to USDT for allocation of its reserve assets. Thus the risk that exists with USDT also exists with USDC, the risk I defined is not mitigated by the fact of there being more stablecoins in circulation.
See above - there's no reason why someone who uses USDT today couldn't use USDC tomorrow should the former go missing for some reason. Comentators such as Nouriel Roubini and others have talked in terms of btc being finished should USDT be shut down. To my mind, that's unlikely to be the outcome.Stablecoins (USDT, USD, BUSD) etc remain an important part of the Bitcoin Network, for example as of today the top traded pair is BTC/USDT showing that it remains a significant component of the BTC market. Do you disagree?
Indeed they have. However, the fact remains that they exist and development is ongoing. If somehow, circumstances were to be forced, then I have no doubt but the industry would find a way forward.
There may well be similar risks. However, the availability of USDC and other stablecoins means that there are other options if the crap hits the fan where USDT is concerned. Previously - with only USDT around, that would have been a disaster for bitcoin. Now, the odds of both USDT and USDC mismanaging themselves at precisely the same time - theoretically its possible but its far less likely. Furthermore, USDT remains dominant but USDC has been growing at a much faster pace more recently.
See above - there's no reason why someone who uses USDT today couldn't use USDC tomorrow should the former go missing for some reason. Comentators such as Nouriel Roubini and others have talked in terms of btc being finished should USDT be shut down. To my mind, that's unlikely to be the outcome.
I don't disagree with any of that. My understanding is that although USDT and USDC access the commercial paper markets, there are differences in how they're doing that. Beyond all that, my understanding of the thread from the outset was/is that stablecoin risk is being scrutinised relative to its ability / potential to upend bitcoin. I think a worse case scenario would see a temporary market crash to some extent but that it wouldn't be detrimental to the ongoing development of bitcoin over the longer run.
It's not something I know an awful lot about but my understanding is that there are differences in terms of the levels of CP between the two. Then there's speculation as to what markets tether are sourcing CP in (suggestions that it may be China) - and speculation as to real valuation as opposed to a potentially contrived valuation.What are the differences? I am much more comfortable with USDC rather than USDT. What I am not entirely sure of is where Tether got the extra $40bln to lend out to the CP market in the last 6 months. Any insights on how they raise funds?
I find it hard to get my head round this stuff but there's also speculation that the likes of USDC could negate the need for the yanks to develop their own FED coin and represent US interests just fine.There was an interesting piece regarding Facebooks Libra (or whatever it is called now) last year from the ECB, it had the potential to become the largest money market fund in the world (i.e. holding trillions of assets in reserve to support the stablecoin), this would have a negative impact on financial markets liquidity. This is why I assume regulators are paying close attention to stablecoins. In my view the growth in BTC in the last 6 months has been supported by an increase in stablecoins market cap, and the regulators will only let them get so big.
Your claim is disingenuous. You've set out to suggest that bitcoin isn't decentralised and backed that up with allegations of individuals that may influence that market. Those are two very distinct things. At the end of the day, If I want to transact 0.0005 BTC to anyone on the planet today, I can and there isn't anyone that can prevent or reverse the transaction. None of the people on your list included.I'm seeing alot of centralization....which is hilarious....for an invention whose main calling card has been the claim its decentralized with no central authority & not under the influence of any one entity/person/government. To name four right now:
Elon Musk
Tether (which is what 3 or 4 guys in the Virgin Islands with laptops?)
Jack Dorsey
Michael Saylor
If you'd like to speak to market influence rather than centralisation, no problem. In the case of Tether - you have not presented any conclusive evidence that they're issuing USDT out of thin air. By all means, come back to us when you have that evidence. Otherwise, whatever Tether do - in the longer run - bitcoin existed before Tether did - and it will remain intact long after its gone. I'm sure there would be some short-medium term drama in a tether downfall scenario - but it is not a showstopper where bitcoin is concerned. @DazedInPontoon has given you an example of a much more dramatic event that didn't kill off bitcoin in the past.Are just four that spring to mind who could probably crash BTC's price 50% with a tweet....or in the case of Tether just 'pulling the rug' as they say.
We had Church and State and they have been largely disentangled. Hardly anyone heretofore had ever considered why the state should have a monopoly on money but that has changed/is changing. It seems to me that the time has come to address that. How is competition and the availability of options bad for society?Say what you will about the monetary system in the EU/USA.......but these are OUR institutions & democratically controlled and ultimately if you started a party who's flag pole policy was to fix the supply of money.....and you got enough votes.....well thats what would happen.
It's permissioned. It depends on whether someone permits it or not. It depends on if someone will allow access to the banking system in the first instance. Going back to the original claim, by contrast you're incorrect to say that bitcoin isn't decentralised because bitcoin is an open network. Anyone can use it. Nobody can be prevented from making a transaction on the bitcoin network and transactions can't be reversed - by anyone.Semantics - your future new world currency has traded democratically appointed civil servants like Christine Lagarde & Jerome Powell......for Elon Musk & Michael Saylor.......the freedom you've gained is the right send money to anyone, anywhere in the world.......the last time I checked I could do that too (& the places I couldn't Iran/North Korea...well I'm happy to do my little bit to slow down global terrorism)
I recently moved funds out of a country that applies capital controls. Rather than deal with their bs (and possibly never be able move funds), I converted to crypto - job done.
Of course I'm not referring to tax - if I was referring to tax, I would have said tax. I'm referring to capital controls. Many governments and banking systems in the world make life very difficult in certain scenarios - especially when the individual is looking to remove funds from the jurisdiction. They don't want to seeWhat do you mean by capital controls for you personally? Are you referring to tax?
In this example you converted fiat currency to crypto and then accessed in account in another country and converted it back to local fiat?
This can be a little more nuanced do you agree? It is true for you and I as bitcoin holders providing we store in our own wallets. However conventional government / regulators can prevent new market participants entering (binance UK recent ban) or for those keeping coins in exchange wallets don't have full ownership (MT.Gox hack). Like it or not for Bitcoins adoption to continue it does need to maintain a good relationship with traditional financial market participants i.e. regulators. This is a conversation on Tether and given it is a Top 10 player in thr global Commercial Paper they should be making the same disclosures as Banks. What reason do they have for not? Any supporter of Bitcoin knows that it operates on a public Blockchain...that's part of how we achieve consensus. Having a major player in the eco system not being fully transparent doesn't sit well with me. How have you got yourself comfortable with their Disclosures?At the end of the day, If I want to transact 0.0005 BTC to anyone on the planet today, I can and there isn't anyone that can prevent or reverse the transaction. None of the people on your list included.
I don't remember people saying that My.Gox would be the end of Bitcoin, that was really the early days of Bitcoin. But if that is what they said back then given Bitcoin is largely unchanged why would it have been a valid argument then and not today or vice versa?@DazedInPontoon has given you an example of a much more dramatic event that didn't kill off bitcoin in the past.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?