Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

Post by amptorn » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #37

williamtrask wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying your comment, but it seems like a very good thing that the government continues to be people/organization centric and doesn't embrace a future where "reality is determined by computer code and people are a bit players". We should hope our democratic institutions continue to operate this way.

I'm value-neutral in this comment thread, I'm just describing a.) how things are and b.) how the authors of this report are making assumptions about how things are. I can see plusses and minuses for both people-centric and code-centric approaches. I get that it's pretty natural that people would consider it a bad thing for people to hand over power to computer code. It makes perfect sense if you consider yourself not…

Post by giaour » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #248

arcticbull wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite correct, although I understand your sentiment. When you own a share of Square (or Visa, or PayPal) each time a transaction takes place on their network, a portion of that transaction (revenue minus costs) accrues to the company - and by extension increases the intrinsic value of your share. The transaction revenue is spent on furniture, on R&D, on employees and on buffing up their cash position. As a…

This all sounds intuitively correct, and it seems that similar arguments can be made about gold bullion, right? It costs some amount of money every year to mine, refine, transport and store it, and none of that is accruing to the actual holders of bullion. (One difference being that there is some residual value of the gold for industrial and jewellery uses, but that's hardly what's keeping the bullion price where it…

Post by icelancer » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #268

icelancer wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've responded to several commenters who say this with my real world examples, the most notable of which are paying people in Venezuela to do work for me when most mainstream forms of monetary exchange are nearly impossible in/out of that country.

Have you considered that the difficulty of transacting might be by design?

Post by arcticbull » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #117

wpietri wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Ultimately cryptocurrencies are a negative-sum game in that they take in real money and just move that money around, while spending some on overhead. In contrast, imagine investing in, say, a new fast-food franchise joint. They money you put in there is used to acquire assets that are used to produce goods that people will pay to consume. If it's a well-run business, the value of the outputs will be more tha…

The positive externalities from sound money and the concomitant demonetization of other assets (like real estate, oil, etc.) are massive , especially in the long term.

Post by adultorata » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 11:28 PM UTC

swader999 wrote: post #222

Zamicol wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maker Dai is nothing like GUSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_(cryptocurrency) >Dai is a stablecoin cryptocurrency which aims to keep its value as close to one United States dollar (USD) as possible through an automated system of smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. [...] Dai is created from an overcollateralized loan[.]

Ampleforth is the most interesting 'stable coin' I've seen.