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

691–697 of 697 posts

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#691

Post by 22c »

challenger-derp wrote: post #690
22c wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can fork BTC to do whatever you want, but it doesn't come with liquidity. In other words, a fork doesn't come with the same amount of inertia.

Suppose BTC is met with a severe logjam as predicted by the author, won't a solution that does not involve mass liquidation (for e.g. a fork) be in demand and eagerly welcomed by existing BTC users?

Adoption of a fork by it's nature essentially requires there be a "liquidation event". If every single BTC user is on board then that's an "easy" game to play, you simply pick a date and coordinate with everyone that the old BTC becomes completely worthless and the new BTC is worth exactly as much as the old BTC.

That, of course, would not happen. Even if there were such an event you'd still see people trying to beat the clock and mass liquidate the old BTC while there's still demand, or people immediately liquidating their positions in "new BTC" because they think it's not going to eclipse "old BTC".

We have a good real world example of these very things happening with things like BCH and Ethereum Classic still trading quite regularly. Both were the result of some users deciding to move to a fork and some deciding to stay. In traditional markets you could make some parallels with a stock split or demerger.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#692

Post by dang »

midev wrote: post #682
epinephrinios wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion. > the other side turns out to be fraudulent Crypto is not here to protect you from falling victim to fraud. It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure. The same laws against criminals apply whether they use crypto or not.

> I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion. If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic. > It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure Yet it performs wo…

Edit: after posting the below, I took a closer look at your commenting history and was shocked to see how frequently and how badly you've been breaking the site guidelines. That's definitely not ok, so I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

----

I'm late to this, but can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN and stop breaking the site guidelines? You did so extremely badly in this thread. "I love when people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant" is a bannable offense just by itself. No more of that, please.

I don't want to ban you, but we need you to post in the intended spirit of the site. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules going forward, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#693

Post by dang »

epinephrinios wrote: post #687
midev wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion. If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic. > It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure Yet it performs wo…

> If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things Have you heard of the term "accredited investor"? That's 100% a "nanny" regulation that excludes poorer people from opportunities. > Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric. You jump to arbitrary conclusions. You probably did the same when it comes to Bitcoin that's why you say factually w…

Please do not perpetuate flamewars on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#694

Post by anotheraccount_ »

dang wrote: post #692
midev wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion. If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic. > It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure Yet it performs wo…

Edit: after posting the below, I took a closer look at your commenting history and was shocked to see how frequently and how badly you've been breaking the site guidelines. That's definitely not ok, so I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/n…

@dang this is a pathetic response. HN encourages garbage comments and posts, but doesn't allow anyone to follow up. You think you're creating a safe space for discussion, but really you're creating an echo chamber of bad information.

The harm that bad information causes is incalculable, so no, I won't stop commenting on stupid posts. Perhaps you need to evaluate your responsibility to the world at large, and your role in supporting disinformation.

If someone believes that banking regulations are the "nanny", they shouldn't be allowed to comment on adult topics. Sorry not sorry.

Does it matter to you that you do more harm than my flames?

YCombinator just funded arguably the worst startup in history, Skip the Interview. Maybe you could do with a little dissension?

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#695

Post by anotheraccount_ »

dang wrote: post #693
epinephrinios wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things Have you heard of the term "accredited investor"? That's 100% a "nanny" regulation that excludes poorer people from opportunities. > Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric. You jump to arbitrary conclusions. You probably did the same when it comes to Bitcoin that's why you say factually w…

Please do not perpetuate flamewars on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Leave them alone. I'm an adult. I can handle my own discussions. Nobody needs you to protect them.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#696

Post by dang »

anotheraccount_ wrote: post #694
dang wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: after posting the below, I took a closer look at your commenting history and was shocked to see how frequently and how badly you've been breaking the site guidelines. That's definitely not ok, so I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/n…

@dang this is a pathetic response. HN encourages garbage comments and posts, but doesn't allow anyone to follow up. You think you're creating a safe space for discussion, but really you're creating an echo chamber of bad information. The harm that bad information causes is incalculable, so no, I won't stop commenting on stupid posts. Perhaps you need to evaluate your responsibility to the world at large, and your rol…

Of course it's fine to have different views. What's not fine is to express them in flamey ways that break the site guidelines. It's not that hard.

Re: Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

#697

Post by zsmi »

wpietri wrote: post #106
dragontamer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvotes are because "worthless" is hyperbolic and unhelpful. Clearly, the coins have value because someone out there feels like paying money for them. More importantly: we _HAVE_ to understand the market dynamics here. What's going on is very human and very important to realize. Matt Levine from Bloomberg has a very simple explanation: the cryptocoin world has discovered "senior debt vs junior debt", and are us…

> Clearly, the coins have value because someone out there feels like paying money for them. That's not a great definition of worth. Is the correct value for a Ponzi scheme really determined by the most recent dollar they took in? I'd say not.

> Is the correct value for a Ponzi scheme really determined by the most recent dollar they took in?

I wouldn't say a Ponzi scheme should be valued by this dollar. It should be valued by the next dollar that someone is willing to put into it as the whole point of the Ponzi scheme is to gather the next dollar.

Post reply on HN