Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, Tether has no upside. There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. It looks like USDC, issued by a company co-owned by Coinbase (YC incubated right?) and Circle, is quickly replacing tether. One year ago there were about 1/10th of USDC compared to tether, now it's half. Apparently USDC are really fully backed by real USD and the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing US…
all stable coins can blacklist except DAI
Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
71–80 of 241 posts
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#72Bitcoin's reliance on Stablecoins? I think the wsj is confused and has this backwards. Additionally, like all mainstream media sources, they cannot seem to understand that Bitcoin is what happens on the blockchain and that 99% of the breathless hype about trading and finance bro stuff is completely off chain and only tangentially related to Bitcoin.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sub 8.6% chance of funds disappearing? Absolutely! Listen, I'm no Berkshire Hathaway, but the likeyhood that BlockFi one of the world's largest holders of BitCoin and backed by $500+ million in VC funding just outright fails is very very low. I know, here come the Enron or Mt. Gox rebuttals. The regulation and oversight that BlockFi has is much greater than those other examples. It would be interesting if somebody co…
Given that the 8.6% return is contingent on those funds being loaned out to third parties in a manner that involves risk (like margin trading), I am highly skeptical of their ability to not lose your money on the timeline of a decade. The trustworthiness of Blockfi doesn't matter if they mess up and end up loaning money to someone who ends up unable to pay the bill - and the person on the hook if the borrower does no…
Why isn't it arbitrated away? Because institutions and market makers don't trust crypto. When they do, I'm sure it'll go as low as rest of market rates.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sub 8.6% chance of funds disappearing? Absolutely! Listen, I'm no Berkshire Hathaway, but the likeyhood that BlockFi one of the world's largest holders of BitCoin and backed by $500+ million in VC funding just outright fails is very very low. I know, here come the Enron or Mt. Gox rebuttals. The regulation and oversight that BlockFi has is much greater than those other examples. It would be interesting if somebody co…
Given that the 8.6% return is contingent on those funds being loaned out to third parties in a manner that involves risk (like margin trading), I am highly skeptical of their ability to not lose your money on the timeline of a decade. The trustworthiness of Blockfi doesn't matter if they mess up and end up loaning money to someone who ends up unable to pay the bill - and the person on the hook if the borrower does no…
These types of loans of course aren't useful for most people in the traditional sense where somebody needs access to money they don't have. These are mostly for 2 cases: 1) Exposure to other crypto when you think both your collatoral and the crpyto you want to be lent will both be worth more. SO you borrow $100 worth of USDC, give $200 BTC as collatoral, use the $100 USDC to buy $100 worth of ETH. SO if after a month ETH and BTC have gone up, you can sell enough to pay the $100 USDC loan and keep the profit.
2) Access to illiquid capital. If you have $1 million of BTC but don't want to sell it and trigger a capital gains event, you use that as temporary collateral to get access to something else, thus never selling your current crpyto holdings (unless they fall below the liquidate threshold of the loan)
I should say too, using these methods still has counter party risk regardless.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#75Bitcoin's reliance on Stablecoins? I think the wsj is confused and has this backwards. Additionally, like all mainstream media sources, they cannot seem to understand that Bitcoin is what happens on the blockchain and that 99% of the breathless hype about trading and finance bro stuff is completely off chain and only tangentially related to Bitcoin.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#76It isn't really different from normal banking. Banks are allowed to create money by issuing debt, and the loan agreement itself works as the reserve for the issued currency. In both cases the thing doesn't blow up if the debt is collateralized with something that keeps appreciating against inflation. It can go on forever, but people whose savings are decimated might get angry at some point.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#77Bitcoin's reliance on Stablecoins? I think the wsj is confused and has this backwards. Additionally, like all mainstream media sources, they cannot seem to understand that Bitcoin is what happens on the blockchain and that 99% of the breathless hype about trading and finance bro stuff is completely off chain and only tangentially related to Bitcoin.
Not to mention that it's worth only a tiny fraction of bitcoin + all the other cryptos.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin crashes and dips all the time. It's lost over 80% of its value at least four times since it launched, plus the recent big 50% drawdown. It slows the cryptoeconomy for a year or so, but doesn't stop it, and then there's another bubble again ~2yrs later. Bitcoin's high but natural volatility is not the same thing as the price collapsing due to the system itself fundamentally breaking. For example, the Global Fi…
What is the difference between natural volatility and the system fundamentally breaking?
They stopped because the collapse of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers made them realize that anyone could be next and they all had massive counterparty risk with each other. Why lend to someone who could be bankrupt literally the next day?
They all had taken on massive leverage, collateralized with mortgage-backed securities the ratings agencies said were high quality. But those MBO's weren't and began defaulting en-masse, correlated in ways both the ratings agencies and the banks either didn't understand or willfully ignored.
If central banks and governments hadn't stepped in to provide emergency liquidity support, interbank loans would have defaulted en-masse and the entire system gone bankrupt and collapsed. That's what it looks like when a financial system breaks - it literally stops working, activity ceases, like a core dump or blue screen of death.
Natural volatility happens all the time even when the financial system is not broken or breaking. It's just the price discovery process in action, where different buyers and sellers with different views on the future value of the things are trying to find the best deal. Price shocks can be part of it, abrupt movements in price due to some event, but as long as the underlying mechanics of the system continue working smoothly, it's not an example of the system breaking.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#79I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that EVERYONE knows Tether is a complete farce and this is already priced into the market.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 8.6% APY, would you say you believe you have a sub-8.6% chance of the funds disappearing in a given year? Considering that it would take over a decade to return the original capital in value, I feel that the compensation is low relative to the risk of loss. Ten years is a lot of time for a company to bungle your funds, especially in the cryptocurrency world.
Sub 8.6% chance of funds disappearing? Absolutely! Listen, I'm no Berkshire Hathaway, but the likeyhood that BlockFi one of the world's largest holders of BitCoin and backed by $500+ million in VC funding just outright fails is very very low. I know, here come the Enron or Mt. Gox rebuttals. The regulation and oversight that BlockFi has is much greater than those other examples. It would be interesting if somebody co…
“Holds Bitcoin” and “received a pile of loose VC money” are not the gold standard of reliability in a financial provider that promises stable returns on a no-risk investment.