Turning the proposition around, why not have regular banks, even the Bank of England. Issue an official GBPCoin, or a banking framework that does the same thing. Have whoever needs stablecoin use that. That is, stablecoins are basically USD accounts, just with the actual bank receipts (the coins) circulating. Make that a form of deposit account, and regulate and insure it like any other deposit account. It presents s…
What's the point of that? Using cryptocurrencies frees you from the possibility of your funds being frozen or seized or even detected/associated with you. GBPCoin would be no different from using GBP on a bank account.
Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
141–150 of 224 posts
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#142> It says it will update the figures soon and that it is “fully backed by reserves”. The updated report is here (PDF): https://tether.to/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/tether_assuranc...
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#143Why the attraction to USDT? There are better stablecoins with real backing and audits, such as GUSD. You can trade 1.00 USDT for about 1.01 GUSD, which is strange.
It’s by far the biggest. Both by both volume and liquidity.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paypal within the EU is indeed a bank.
Who uses it? Aren't debit cards and online bank transfers more common there?
It's often a good choice for making informal payments between friends because you just need the paypal address - versus, for example, sort code, account number, and bank name. You might also need the bank address and to pay a fee for an international transfer.
Depending on the country you're in various other payment services may be available and/or common. For example I see services like Klarna's eating into this a bit, but they're certainly not ubiquitous.
I don't really follow how Paypal have managed to avoid becoming a bank in the US given that they offer what is, to my eye, clearly a suite of banking services!
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, commercial paper is most definitely not the same as cash or treasury bills. It could be AAA, it could be BBB- Wasn't there a story about an independent audit that was cancelled or something? I remember the weird assertion that they couldn't disclose whose commercial paper they were holding, which I've never heard before
> It could be AAA, it could be BBB- The ratings were in their August report.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#146Regulating stablecoins like banks would absolutely have to involve reform of the OCC, whose willingness to actually issue new banking charters has slowed to a near halt in recent years. https://wp-vip.law.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2... Many fintechs would be more willing to submit to banking regulation if they felt there was a sane and cost effective path to, you know, actually becoming a bank.
> stablecoins like banks would absolutely have to involve reform of the OCC, whose willingness to actually issue new banking charters has slowed to a near halt in recent years The article calls for regulators "to subject stablecoins to bank-like rules for transparency, liquidity and capital." Not to literally require Tether charter itself as a bank. Think money market funds or PayPal versus Wells Fargo.
Coinbase, for instance, is licensed as a money transmitter in 40+ states, and relies on those licenses to do business in most of the United States, including with regards to the issuance of USDC, per my understanding. Paypal also operates in the United States under this licensing scheme.
The rigor of money transmitter regulation and licensing requirements varies state by state, but regulators' rigor overall has been increasing steadily for decades. In addition to annual and quarterly paper filing requirements, a number of states—including California, New York, and Texas, among others—perform periodic (often annual) on-site examinations of licensed companies—paid-for by licensees—wherein visiting examiners expect to have complete access to records and data.
These examinations are rigorous. After an examination, it is very unlikely that a stablecoin issuer will be allowed to continue operating as a licensed entity without being financially sound, and without fully backing its financial obligations with safe investments.
Any inability by a licensee to comply with requests made during the course of an examination, and any inability to provide acceptable answers to questions asked, can result in fines, limitations placed on the operations of the licensee, or even the loss of the license. Depending on the jurisdiction, and depending on the specific activity, operating without a license may be a crime, and would likely put a licensee out of business.
Among the requirements imposed under these licensing schemes are bonding requirements, and "permissible investment" requirements. Typically, permitted investments include bank deposits and government debt, supplemented by surety bonds issued by large insurers. In many ways, these liquidity requirements are more rigorous than those imposed on banks. Most outstanding consumer liabilities—presumably including stablecoins issued by a licensee—must be backed by these permissible investments.
Of course, given that there are 50 separate state regulatory regimes with regards to money transmission, and given stablecoins' novelty, regulation specifically pertaining to stablecoins is not standardized yet. This is a matter of education and standards setting among regulators, however. It is not a matter of requiring new legislation at the national level, or even at the state level; nor does it necessarily require major involvement by the federal bank regulators. In most US states, banking regulators already have sufficient legal authority to craft stablecoin regulations if they want to—and they have the operational capacity to enforce such regulations as well—based on their authority to license and regulate money transmitters.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because the areas where we ignore and accept it are highly regulated and insured as a result of hundreds of years of learnings at this point. People react negatively when they see it outside of that context because it is something we have repeatedly seen fail and cause instability. This isn't hard to understand.
Yes, that is a valid distinction to make, if the arguments/concerns around Tether were merely "hey, let's make sure regular banking regulation extends to this organization as well, to make sure it's all going in tip-top shape". But that's not why people bring up the figures. They're acting like it's inherently shady to have less than 100% (or 3, or whatever) cash reserves for something that ostensibly "has your money…
People aren't railing against fractional reserves, they're railing against something that was advertised as having full reserve turning fractional with a few sentences on a website.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#148Turning the proposition around, why not have regular banks, even the Bank of England. Issue an official GBPCoin, or a banking framework that does the same thing. Have whoever needs stablecoin use that. That is, stablecoins are basically USD accounts, just with the actual bank receipts (the coins) circulating. Make that a form of deposit account, and regulate and insure it like any other deposit account. It presents s…
What's the point of that? Using cryptocurrencies frees you from the possibility of your funds being frozen or seized or even detected/associated with you. GBPCoin would be no different from using GBP on a bank account.
Eventually, somewhere, you have to spend money or take delivery of goods or services rendered. I don't think you can buttress that.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stablecoins like banks would absolutely have to involve reform of the OCC, whose willingness to actually issue new banking charters has slowed to a near halt in recent years The article calls for regulators "to subject stablecoins to bank-like rules for transparency, liquidity and capital." Not to literally require Tether charter itself as a bank. Think money market funds or PayPal versus Wells Fargo.
There is a framework for this kind of regulation in place already, in the form of money transmitter licensing. Coinbase, for instance, is licensed as a money transmitter in 40+ states, and relies on those licenses to do business in most of the United States, including with regards to the issuance of USDC, per my understanding. Paypal also operates in the United States under this licensing scheme. The rigor of money t…
Yes? The article is calling on them to use that capacity to clarify how those rules apply to stablecoins. Nobody is calling for new legislation.
Re: Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finding a trustworthy oracle is always a problem. Either you can let (systemically important) people buy whatever junk they want, or you can mandate a minimum bar. But if you mandate a minimum, who judges what does or doesn't meet it?
I don't think this is an oracle problem. I watch reviews online for products I want to buy. Seems to work fine. But let's say now legal action is threatened for any negative reviews. What happens to the trust now of online reviews?