181–190 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean taxable for US tax office? In my country it is not taxable, only exchange to fiat currency is. (and this is explicitly mentioned).
If this is true, it simply means your tax code has a giant loophole that allows people avoid paying tax on capital gains by simply swapping an asset for another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is until you're on a list, for whatever reason. When states and countries can just block your access to your bank accounts, because you're on the other side of interests, it gets...Interesting With a decentralised approach, such actions would've needed to be implemented in the real world, not merely by the flick of a virtual lever.
It's so decentralised that Mr. Kwon can just turn off the blockchain when he wants to!
The validators of the Terra chain halted it. There's no switch that Kwon as an individual can flip.
The collateral for DAI are hihgly crypto correlated - 43.8% USDC, 32.1% ETH, 11.3% WBTC, 5.9% USDP, and others. ETH and WBTC are just Ethereum and BTC, both of which have dropped considerably recently. USDP somehow dropped to ~$0 since April. USDC is sworn to be 100% USD backed so let's take that at face value. DAI is said to have 150% over-collateralization. ETH & WBTC have dropped more than half. Let's say just off…
I don't get all the bandwagon hate of crypto on this site.. Sure 99% of crypto schemes are b.s and ponzi. But I like to think in terms of use cases. Currently there is no way to send "money" to someone in another country on the other side of the world, in a decentralized way, and without transaction fees. Can this problem be solved without crypto? Probably, but currently crypto is looking like the best way to be able…
I was able to send funds from US directly to a bank account of my friend in Ukraine near instantly for low single digit percent and I could do the same using western union(to my surprise). All without a fear that my currency will drop 10-20% in a day. Now about decentralization, I believe that most people hold their transactional crypto funds in a handful of exchanges and thus the dream of decentralized crypto transa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this really matter though? Is it any different to drug lord having a tonne of dirty cash they can’t use anywhere because all the useful places you could put it want nothing to do with you? Watching from the sidelines, the Crypto world seems to just be morphing into the normal financial world.
Yes, it's different, because for a drug lord not being able to access some amount of dirty cash is very inconvenient, while for the average person on the flag of a regime, it may be an end
Next it will be "but crypto will let you monetize your private data". Yeah no, it won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of exchanges (and fiat onramps) now directly with L2s like Avalanche or Polygon where gas fees are a lot lower
On/offramp is still there if you have to get back through ETH. I remember feeling the frog water warming up when I first heard how "wrapped ETH" was another required fee in-between... craziness.
I don't get all the bandwagon hate of crypto on this site.. Sure 99% of crypto schemes are b.s and ponzi. But I like to think in terms of use cases. Currently there is no way to send "money" to someone in another country on the other side of the world, in a decentralized way, and without transaction fees. Can this problem be solved without crypto? Probably, but currently crypto is looking like the best way to be able…
Ethereum based stablecoins are hardly the best way to do this. From a user standpoint you have to 1) buy your stablecoin on some exchange 2) transfer it to your own wallet 3) pay a hefty fee to transfer it to the recipient (>$20 when the network is busy) 4) Recipient pays another hefty fee to transfer it to an exchange so they can offramp. If I'm sending a remittance or similar paying $$$$ in fees is absolutely not d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is until you're on a list, for whatever reason. When states and countries can just block your access to your bank accounts, because you're on the other side of interests, it gets...Interesting With a decentralised approach, such actions would've needed to be implemented in the real world, not merely by the flick of a virtual lever.
What’s truly decentralised? Miners are increasingly centralised and can effectively block/ignore transactions if they like. They may conceivably end up compelled to blacklist certain wallets, as some exchanges already do. And that’s before we get to stuff like Luna, where the decentralised authorities took the centralised action of halting the chain entirely
Like them or hate them, I'm intrigued where the centralized line in the sand was crossed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Provided you trust the stablecoin, it's a lot safer to keep e.g. USDC in a wallet you control rather than hold USD fiat balance on an exchange or some other shady crypto service.
Why is it safer? Isn't USDC issued by some entity, which promises to convert USDC back into USD?
It's pretty simple risk logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So crypto traders hold $150B of dollar denominated stable coins at the moment?
With the crypto market cap at $1300B that sounds pretty reasonable to have 11-12% cash on hand
I almost typed audit-like. But I remembered they've pulled that shit before. "Attestations of balances" mean fuck-all when even back when they were denying the links between Bitfinex and Tether, the same people were countersigning loans between the two for both parties.
Oh, they did claim that they had had an audit done. But they couldn't release it to the public "because it was in Mandarin".
I very very very much doubt that 11-12% cash is in anyone's hand.