Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

home.treasury.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 697 posts

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#621

Post by gunshai »

dmichulke wrote: post #550
paulgb wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been shorting a few bitcoin-related public companies on the theory that in a run on Tether they will have to liquidate large bitcoin holdings and bring down the rest of the market. It’s not as direct, but I’m less worried about counterparty risk. I wrote up my thesis here: https://paulbutler.org/2021/betting-against-bitcoin/

Have you considered longing a BTCUSDT perpetual and shorting an equivalent BTCUSDC contract or e.g. borrow and sell BTC if you dislike the other stablecoins? The big risk in your play is that the crowd in a panic will select another stable coin for going on the sideline IF AND ONLY IF such a coin is available. If not they will buy the most stable non-stablecoin which is ... drumroll ... bitcoin. Of course, long-term…

How do you do this add a US citizen. Dydx maybe?

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#622

Post by CryptoPunk »

kasey_junk wrote: post #615
CryptoPunk wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're referring to the author, not publisher, since the credibility of the publisher of the article is irrelevant to the content of the article. An economist coming to a conclusion that is different from the establishment's, or yours, doesn't make them not neutral. I don't know of any conflicts of interest they have that would make them not neutral.

The author is employed by the Cato institute which has the stated aim of publishing research and policy papers that advocate for the removal of regulations. While I don’t know that they have a conflict of interest per se, it’s absolutely reasonable to suspect their writing to be mission driven, not pure research.

The author developed the view that free markets facilitate economic coordination long before joining the Cato Institute, and has enough statute to presumably not need the employment.

>>it’s absolutely reasonable to suspect their writing to be mission driven, not pure research.

Perhaps, but really the author provides arguments and evidence that can be judged on its own merit.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#623

Post by tome »

jimmydorry wrote: post #597
graeme wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any short form version of something someone can read to get a sense of the value you’re seeing? I followed this conversation with interest, but still find myself unenlightened as to what there is I haven’t understood yet about the space. Whenever I talk to a proponent it seems very theoretical. There are often analogies to the early internet, but I was alive then and remember some of the early, tangible use…

I think two of the coming applications that has me most excited (of which there are many others on the horizon), are permission-less stock markets where shares are fully accounted for at all times in real-time (an actually transparent financial market), and proper third party markets for digital goods whereby goods bought online can essentially be treated like you do physical goods. Both are applications of NFTs and…

> permission-less stock markets where shares are fully accounted for at all times in real-time

We can already achieve this without blockchain technology! Indeed that's not the way the system works, but that's not due to technological limitation. What makes you think that once "permissionless stock markets" are available on the blockchain then secondary derivative markets won't spring up, making the ownership situation as murky is it currently is for stocks?

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#624

Post by CryptoPunk »

Rexxar wrote: post #484
CryptoPunk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, this individual has been deliberately misspelling Ethereum for 5+ years on Hackernews, as a form of mockery: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9988438

It seems just to be a very common misspelling : https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Etherium

He's had numerous discussions on the subject, and has been corrected before, including by yours truly. I think it's intentional.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#625

Post by bubbleRefuge »

stickfigure wrote: post #526
bubbleRefuge wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is right in the figurative sense that the government's power to tax and spend in its own fiat currency is what drives demand for the currency. W. Mosler, one of the founders of MMT, has this allegory: If we are in a room full of people with a single exit and I am blocking the exit with a gun in my hand and tell you you need one my business cards to exit the room, then my business card has value.

Sure, but the issue is not demand but supply. Enforcing the scarcity of USD requires a large military. Enforcing the scarcity of BTC merely requires electricity.

Not following this line of thinking now. How does the military enforce scarcity? Also, scarcity of fiat currency is relative to the amount of goods and services available for sale in the economy and the demand for them.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#626

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

The backing of stable coins is not an issue. The real issue is:

1) Anyone can send a stablecoin to anyone without any permission. People do it currently at a large scale. That is not acceptable to the governments because it takes a crucial element of control away from them.

2) Unlike bitcoin, all stable coins have a single point of failure - a bank account that holds funds can be frozen, a CEO of a company can be arrested.

That's why all centralized stable coins will be decommissioned sooner or later.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#627

Post by mgamache »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #137
mgamache wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All traditional methods use gatekeepers that control the flow of money. If you can't do what you want with your money is it really yours? The Trustless nature of BTC involves a seeming waste of energy, but you get a lot in return (like ownership of your money).

Sure, but my point was not really about trust. My point is that speed is easier to achieve without Blockchain than with it. It's strange that the centralised solution is slower.

You do realize that currency settlement takes 1-2 days, right?

"Spot foreign exchange transactions usually settle two business days after the execution date"

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/settlementdate.asp#:~:t....

Real-time gross settlement is the instant way of transferring money between banks. Try and send $100K to someone and getting it done same day. Most people don't have access to that system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#628

Post by Igelau »

sanderjd wrote: post #493
Igelau wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad faith involves deliberately hiding some truth. It doesn't mean "thing you call someone when you can't win the argument". And I suspect you know that, which means... ;)

That is one kind of bad faith argument but there are others. In this case it is asserting that something is some adjective ("pathetic"), getting a response, and then just reasserting the same thing without responding to the response.

It was a bit brusque. I think that's the word you're looking for. If that's what bad faith means to you (which still seems a stretch of the definition so you can get the guidelines invoked and win the internet) then both sides of the discussion are guilty of this.

On the other side of the aisle, we have people pointing out that there aren't any interesting dApps, with the reply being:

"Sure there are! Here's a list dApps that are just more layers on moving cryptocurrency!"

That's only interesting if you assume the blockchain is valuable and interesting. This is a circular argument. Do you have anything better?

"Sure do! Here's a list dApps that are just more layers on moving cryptocurrency! Register on this site to hear me talk about NFTs!"

Is that "bad faith" too? I don't think so. There's a divide though, and it's a tiresome one. Some of us think the emperor has no clothes. Others think they are the best clothes ever. We probably all need our eyes checked.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#629

Post by wpietri »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #609
wpietri wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that the publisher of this is very far from a neutral party here, right?

I assume you're referring to the author, not publisher, since the credibility of the publisher of the article is irrelevant to the content of the article. An economist coming to a conclusion that is different from the establishment's, or yours, doesn't make them not neutral. I don't know of any conflicts of interest they have that would make them not neutral.

I meant what I said.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#630

Post by wpietri »

swader999 wrote: post #547
wpietri wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could make the same claim about any kind of money though. This is one of the things I find hilarious about cryptocurrency discussions. When I point out it isn't a good asset, people argue it's really a currency. When I point out it's a bad currency, people argue it's an asset. I'd love it if you all could get together and agree on what it's supposed to be good for and just leave the rest of us out of it. But ad…

All reasonable criticisms. But it is very early still and you won't see many transactions for exchange of goods this early in its adoption. That's not to say that BTC will eventually take over, it's just to say that the kinds of uses you see this early aren't predictive of its future.

It is not very early. I specifically gave comparisons for things that launched at the same time.

And merchant adoption actually declined heavily for Bitcoin. It had a period where many online merchants and some offline merchants tried it out. Everybody gave up on that because it is not a good currency. That's when prominent advocates pivoted to "store of value" (which it is also bad at). For example: https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/

The whole "but look at the fuuuuuuuuuuture" routine was plausible early on. But at this point there's nothing but wishful thinking to suggest that there will be a radical change. Whatever it is, Bitcoin is what it is.

Post reply on HN