161–170 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I'm excited for the next steps of stable coins. People always ask "What if Tether isn't 100% backed by Dollar?!" The more interesting question is "What if the Dollar is shit?!"
"But Tether's not backed by anything and they can arbitrarily print more of it!!!!" "...do...do you not know how the actual dollar works..."
- state monopoly on violence
and
- one of the world's largest economies
Tether is backed up by?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true, but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by its weakest and shadiest actor (Tether). There are plenty of reputable stablecoins out there that prove their reserves either continuously on-chain or through regular financial audits.
>... but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by it's weakest and shadiest actor. Tether is the weakest actor? What reality are you living in? It has 90% of all stable coin trading volume. I think it's silly to make arguments which are falsified by a simple google query. https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/
Tether is one of the weakest stablecoins in terms of regulatory compliance and general community trust.
In other words, most arguments I hear against stablecoins apply narrowly and specifically to Tether, yet people tend to use those valid arguments against Tether to straw-man the entire asset class. Popularity and volume have nothing to do with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most enthusiasts do not accept that the blockchain will became unmanageable by most just due to it's ever-growing size Some blockchain protocols like Bitcoin make the silly argument that in order for a chain to be worthwhile, a full history of all transactions needs to be maximally available on the network. Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so (EIP-4444, fo…
> Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so So when the next $625-million exploit happens [1] the hackers would just need to wait a year before any trace of them disappears? Awesome [1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=2022-03-29-0
I'm talking about the data availability requirement that the protocol imposes on nodes if they want to remain connected to the swarm. I'm not sure what you're talking about - data doesn't magically get deleted from the internet with "no trace".
Cryptocurrencies have never claimed they address the hardest parts of financial inclusion. Cryptocurrencies solve the issue of trust. > We need to keep track of our customers’ account balances. Right. That's what the blockchain is able to do. It can assert that you, who says you have 1 bitcoin in your wallet, actually really have 1 bitcoin in your wallet (assuming no attack vectors such as 51% attack). > We need them…
Trust is the biggest issue with cryptocurrency. I can trust my bank + the government to keep my money safe. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, I can’t trust an exchange and keeping your own wallet is extremely risky.
That's not true everywhere. I live in Argentina and people prefer to have dollars in cash in their houses rather than leaving them in a bank. A few years ago, in 2001, the government took the dollars from the banks and gave them pesos for a lower value. Most banks went broke and people lost their savings and the ones that didn't, gave pesos to people making them lose 75% of their savings. I know similar things happened in other countries too.
Crypto kind of solves that issue. I know some people who prefer to save in DAIs than keep dollars in the bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's true, then why did their government solicit people to send them these "meaningless novelty coins" on social media? Just for fun?
No idea. Perhaps grabbing at straws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea. Perhaps grabbing at straws.
I just looked up the donation address on the blockchain, and it looks like Ukraine sent some of it directly to a crypto exchange to cash out. Perhaps Ukraine isn't the one grasping at straws here.
How many exchanges will actually be able to cash out that amount of money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just looked up the donation address on the blockchain, and it looks like Ukraine sent some of it directly to a crypto exchange to cash out. Perhaps Ukraine isn't the one grasping at straws here.
"Some of it" is how much? Out of the "omg we sent 100 million dollars to Ukraine"? How many exchanges will actually be able to cash out that amount of money?
https://etherscan.io/address/0x165CD37b4C644C2921454429E7F93...
That amount of money is easy to cash out even on a relatively small exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is another problem, which is the unit of account. What currency are prices posted in? It's going to be very hard to displace fait on this front. I don't think cryptos can become this until they are as stable as existing currency. They aren't even used as currency or behave like one. More like gold or stocks and present.
I believe cryptocurrency networks can still be useful even if "most" transactions are priced in fiat and settled in stablecoins.
When is a permissioned system better than a permissionless? (and the opposite)