181–190 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the "technology". Any day now. Won't know what hit them. Around the corner really, alongside cold fusion and the chewing gum that replaces toothbrushes.
It's only been 12 years! I'm sure someone will come up with the killer blockchain app soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It costs $1 to increase the market cap of a fiat pegged stable coin by $1, while changing the market cap of Bitcoin is a lot cheaper because there's no safe way for a market maker to provide substantial liquidity for it. At any time this dynamic can start working in the other direction, and the market cap of Bitcoin can fall below the net value converted to it.
Well, no, it costs absolutely nothing to print off another billion Tethers. We only have the vaguest possible assurances that there's something behind each USDT, and they've already admitted it's not actual dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, Tether has no upside. There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. It looks like USDC, issued by a company co-owned by Coinbase (YC incubated right?) and Circle, is quickly replacing tether. One year ago there were about 1/10th of USDC compared to tether, now it's half. Apparently USDC are really fully backed by real USD and the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing US…
Regarding USDC - people in control of usdc can (and did) blacklist any wallet at their own desire, so it's not much different from storing money in bank, exchange etc How about DAI ? This stablecoin doesn't have both USDT's and USDC's disadvantages
If your threat model is government-backed censorship, though, it should be an improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm certain that Tether has backroom relationships with major exchanges - Tether provides liquidity to exchanges in the form of short term USDT loans. Is there a reason why exchanges even need such loans?
Having all that Tether massively increases trade volume. Exchanges make money on fees, which of course rise proportionally to trade volume.
How? Having massive amounts of tether in your wallet doesn't increase trade volume, having users who trade increases trade volume. If I own 1B USDT and deposit it to some random exchange and let it sit there, the volume isn't going to change one bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm certain that Tether has backroom relationships with major exchanges - Tether provides liquidity to exchanges in the form of short term USDT loans. Is there a reason why exchanges even need such loans?
A lot of shadier exchanges are giving away USDT to encourage people to move their other cryptocurrency holdings onto the exchange.
I keep thinking of Madoff's fund. It was once called "the Jewish T-bill". It worked just fine until there was a significant net outflow. Then, total crash, because the backing assets were not there. Tether is way too much like that. Remember, Tether has no upside . There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/before-dying-bernie-madoff-lif...
"There is this product/service X, that is bought and traded fro billions. I don't see any use cases myself so clearly there isn't any reason to use it. Market is wrong and I am right."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, Tether has no upside. There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. It looks like USDC, issued by a company co-owned by Coinbase (YC incubated right?) and Circle, is quickly replacing tether. One year ago there were about 1/10th of USDC compared to tether, now it's half. Apparently USDC are really fully backed by real USD and the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing US…
Something is off in USDC land though: https://news.bitcoin.com/usdc-attestations-run-late-raising-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 8.6% APY, would you say you believe you have a sub-8.6% chance of the funds disappearing in a given year? Considering that it would take over a decade to return the original capital in value, I feel that the compensation is low relative to the risk of loss. Ten years is a lot of time for a company to bungle your funds, especially in the cryptocurrency world.
>At 8.6% APY, would you say you believe you have a sub-8.6% chance of the funds disappearing in a given year? Those 8.6% APY are only available for a month at most. The APY changes all the time as more people deposit their money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So why can’t banks provide higher yields with simple savings accounts? Because yield is the price that borrowers pay for borrowing funds. When there are a lot of funds available for borrowing and not many people wanting to borrow yields will fall. There is just nothing central banks or commercial banks can do to raise yields if there is little demand for loans.
> There is just nothing central banks or commercial banks can do to raise yields if there is little demand for loans. I am sorry but I think you've got this completely the wrong way. The demand for loans did not shrink in the last couple of years: Look at the housing prices (including the infamously high rents) and the volume of credits people burden themselves with. Rather, the amount of liquidity (i.e. money) circu…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Role_of_banks_i...