Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

wsj.com

201–210 of 241 posts

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#201

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…

I hold a decent sized block of USDC via BlockFi and earn 8.6% APY. I realize there is inherent risk (after all, I am earning 8.6%) but compare that to 0.5% earned at Goldman Sachs or traditional FDIC insured bank accounts and it's a risk I am willing to take. By default, BlockFi issues GUSD as their stablecoin of choice, but Gemini (GUSD) market cap is only $145m, whereas USDC market cap is 22 with a B billion. Ultim…

I don't see the appeal over trying to get 8.6% return in an index fund.

The index fund can crash for up to 5 years but will almost certainly bounce back within 5 years time.

The Blockfi thing can lose your money and never bounce back.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly Tether doesn't really to be that much different compared to fractional reserve banking. The biggest difference is the government protects banks from bank runs while Tether enjoys no such privilege.

There are complex and strict rules around commercial banks that direct to their loan to value ratios, capitalisation and auditing arrangements (Basel accords). Tether is not subject to this. The biggest difference you highlight is a big difference. On youtube, you can watch a series of documentaries by Milton Friedman, Free to Choose. In an early episode of this, he explains how the Great Depression was triggered by…

> he explains how the Great Depression was triggered by the fed failing to lend liquidity to a legitimate commercial bank that needed it.

Look, I am not an not expert on monetary policy. And I do believe Milton Friedman was a brilliant economist. But this specific American view that he popularized -- the Great Depression was caused by a failure of the Federal Reserve to monetize its way out of a recession -- was and is being challenged. Milton Friedman had a very narrow focus on technical monetary policy and therefore missed out on quite a many pieces in the puzzle.

After the First World War governments world wide were sitting on a pile of debt. Many were tempted by an easy fix i.e. expanding the monetary base, lowering interest rates and, hence, cheaply repay their debts. Inflation was rampant in the 1920s. As I am German, I'd like to add that it was the newly German republic (burdened with tremendous reparations) that destroyed its national currency in 1923 and, hence, triggered political turmoil eventually leading to the rise of fascism.

In the US inflation at first triggered an economic boom with cheap credits and ever rising stock prices. But early in 1929 consumer prices also have been rising sharply and the Federal Reserve reacted, correctly, by off-selling securities (especially government securities ...) and raising the Federal fund rate. But because the FED acted too late this caused a credit crunch. Stock markets being fuelled by credits crashed culminating in the Black Thursday.

While a bear market sets the stage for a recession (correcting all malinvestments in the past boom) it does not necessarily mean the onset of a year-long depression. This happened because of ill-advised economic policies by the Hoover administration.

The government started a massive deficit spending program trying to support wages by issuing public work programs and subsidising farming products. In 1930 the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" cut off the American economy from foreign trade by a steep rise of import tariffs in an attempt to keep prices high as they were falling due farming subsidies. Foreign countries retaliated with increasing tariffs and American exports collapsed. As a result millions of farmers and businessmen went bankrupt since they could not sell their products abroad any more and prices fell even further. Since rising government debts were not monetized away any more by the FED, the government had to increase many taxes to unprecedented levels striking another blow at the economy. When FDR gained power in 1933 he essentially continued Hoovers policies and extended the 1929 recession into a decade of deep depression.

So what it is that we can learn from history?

According to Milton Friedman the FED should just have continued its inflationary policies to avoid the recession -- but to what ends? One could also conclude it should have simply started to counter inflation much earlier. But more importantly, the Federal government should not have restricted the economic freedom of its people in a phase where the economy tried to recover from a over-inflated boom phase caused by the FED itself.

This view on the Great Depression is of course strongly influence by Austrian economics: https://mises.org/library/great-depression.

I am not implying that this is the only correct interpretation of history. But HN readers might be interested in a completely alternative view of the events that led to the infliction of this great American trauma.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#203
post #82
post #10

I keep thinking of Madoff's fund. It was once called "the Jewish T-bill". It worked just fine until there was a significant net outflow. Then, total crash, because the backing assets were not there. Tether is way too much like that. Remember, Tether has no upside . There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/before-dying-bernie-madoff-lif...

People, mainly in Asia, use tether where trading crypto with fiat currencies is either prohibited or very difficult, whereas it remains marginal in markets such as the United States. I.e places with exchanges that don’t have good fiat rails for various reasons. https://www.cryptovantage.com/news/why-is-tether-so-popular-... I assume these people don’t stay in tether long, they just use it like a checking account when…

If tether went away tomorrow, 60 billion of "assumed dollars" backing up crypto asset values would also vanish. Such an event would immediately tank the dollar value of all cryptocurrencies (real dollars, not USDT, that one would explode to the moon instead). And not just by 60 billion dollars of total market cap, but more like 600 billion to a trillion. There's a lot of fantasy value for each actual dollar (or USDT, as long as people believe these are basically equal) in the crypto market caps.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it weird that any person 'hodls' any crypto. I pick the rallies (like the one last night) and ride them, then sell. I cannot, besides stress, understand why anyone would hold crypto currencies at this point. It is too young and Wild West. That's why riding waves is easy and if you trade half decent you can make fortunes. But it can be gone tomorrow; for instance if Tether gets called on it's bluff.

You have not been playing long enough if this is your attitude. “Zoom out” is generally the quote on this.

It's also irresponsible investing to hold anything without an exit strategy. Lord knows I've lost too much without this principle.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The March attestation was published 5/24 (the day prior to that article) and is available on the Centre website[1]. It doesn’t appear there’s cause for alarm in this case. [1] https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/grant-thorton_c...

Except the attestations have stopped saying how much cash they have in their accounts and now just say that Cricle _claim_ they have enough assets to cover the liabilities. This is a HUGE change and massively cause for alarm.

Probably no depositor insurance but whatever.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#206
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People, mainly in Asia, use tether where trading crypto with fiat currencies is either prohibited or very difficult, whereas it remains marginal in markets such as the United States. I.e places with exchanges that don’t have good fiat rails for various reasons. https://www.cryptovantage.com/news/why-is-tether-so-popular-... I assume these people don’t stay in tether long, they just use it like a checking account when…

If tether went away tomorrow, 60 billion of "assumed dollars" backing up crypto asset values would also vanish. Such an event would immediately tank the dollar value of all cryptocurrencies (real dollars, not USDT, that one would explode to the moon instead). And not just by 60 billion dollars of total market cap, but more like 600 billion to a trillion. There's a lot of fantasy value for each actual dollar (or USDT,…

Is it possible that such an event would benefit people who keep their btc off exchanges significantly?

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#207
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make sense to compare risk-free FDIC-insured deposits to stablecoins at BlockFi. Full disclosure: I did not find BlockFi's brief descriptions of their risk management strategies to be comforting.

What didn't you like about the risk management strategies?

I probably should have left that part out of my original comment, since it was just my personal opinion and not relevant to the point I was making (risk-free rate vs. non-risk-free rate).

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#208
All of the things that tether holds as cash are repo-able for cash on the repo market.

On tether are people worried about this conversation

… Tether: we go back so long jp, here’s some more junk bonds . You like this collateral

JPMorgan: we are not interested in taking it anymore . Liquid on the run or mbs. We may be friends but we are friendly in the federal funds market, not repo . Post collateral or I’ll Kill your operation and shut you out of repo.

Tether: but fed put! ‘’’

Cause I don’t think it ever happens

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#209
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having all that Tether massively increases trade volume. Exchanges make money on fees, which of course rise proportionally to trade volume.

>Having all that Tether massively increases trade volume. How? Having massive amounts of tether in your wallet doesn't increase trade volume, having users who trade increases trade volume. If I own 1B USDT and deposit it to some random exchange and let it sit there, the volume isn't going to change one bit.

Without stablecoins, people that want to cash out at a certain price will be cashing out to fiat, which generally is not a seamless process and requires stronger KYC, etc.

With a stablecoin like Tether, you have people constantly "cashing out" by just trading their BTC/ETH/etc for Tether. It is much easier to go back and forth between some "hard"-dollar value (scare quotes due to the question around how "hard" Tether actually is) and cryptos, and therefore encourages more trading. Long story short – Tether reduces the friction of certain trades, which obviously is going to make those trades more common.

Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance

#210
post #3

Honestly stablecoins - specifically tether - is about the only thing about crypto that genuinely frightens me. Crypto rollercoaster - up down sideways and in circles - sure I'm game. Tether that is stable until it implodes...hell no. Even without direct exposure the blast radius worries me.

I find it weird that any person 'hodls' any crypto. I pick the rallies (like the one last night) and ride them, then sell. I cannot, besides stress, understand why anyone would hold crypto currencies at this point. It is too young and Wild West. That's why riding waves is easy and if you trade half decent you can make fortunes. But it can be gone tomorrow; for instance if Tether gets called on it's bluff.

People hold crypto for the same reason that someone would hold any investment, they believe it will go higher. Of course that could be wrong with crypto, but the same applies to any investment. Risk/Reward.
Post reply on HN