191–200 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whether Tether is fully collateralized ultimately doesn't matter. As long as there are well-capitalized parties (Bitfinex, other exchanges) that want to prop up Tether, it will be fine This is true for every pile of toxic crap that's ever been financially engineered. The problem is the entangled financial health of the backer (in this case, Bitfinex and other crypto exchanges) with the backee (Tether). If creditors…
“Holding Tether is putting money into a 19th century free bank, except instead of interest you get to stick a finger to the Man.” LOL yes I am assuming some sarcasm here. Sticking ones finger up to the man by.. holding cash equivalents in forms not eligible for FDIC insurance, yes!!
Me reaping the whirlwind: this is not what I was told to expect! It's just what I put in, but more whirly! Huge disappointment.
Its trading at $0.99974 and has gone over $1 several times just today and over the last week. Which definition of peg matters here? Its not causing mass liquidations in Defi platforms because it trades so close to peg, it is still redeemable for $1.00 if you are non-US and have over 100,000 units.
This article has percentages for everything except when they don't reinforce the universally negative view of tether.
Is there another source that is less invested to corroborate everything more accurately?
Its kind of stupid to observe something different and be seen as “pro tether”, but lets just stick to accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any stablecoin that is NOT backed 1-1 by fiat, correct? I.e., algorithmic stables. If you're 100% collateralized by USD in your bank account, how can it get de-pegged?
Are there any 1-1 fiat stablecoins that aren't just flat out lies? Like every new crypto coin minted requires a matching real dollar to be stashed away. My impression is that nobody does this because it would mean massive waits to buy the crypto coins when the real dollars run low and because the way to make real money is with leverage.
It's only ~$0.2B of a ~$160B market, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whether Tether is fully collateralized ultimately doesn't matter. As long as there are well-capitalized parties (Bitfinex, other exchanges) that want to prop up Tether, it will be fine This is true for every pile of toxic crap that's ever been financially engineered. The problem is the entangled financial health of the backer (in this case, Bitfinex and other crypto exchanges) with the backee (Tether). If creditors…
>This is true for every pile of toxic crap that's ever been financially engineered. I have a radical idea that I'm fairly sure would get me killed if I ever stood a chance of implementing it: A complete ban on all non-productive financial schemes. We have an entire parasite class that grown unfathomably wealthy while providing no real value to the rest of society. The "futures trader" extracting value from the system…
I would point you to Stuart Banner's Speculation: A History of the Fine Line between Gambling and Investing
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190623047/
Excellent coverage of the history of the attempt to make a distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a USD backed stablecoin what are “tickets” vs what are dollars in your analogy?
Tickets are crypto tokens; beers are USD. If I start with 1000 tokens I distribute and 1000 dollars in my vault, no matter what you do with the tokens, I can exchange a token for a dollar — because your manipulation of the tokens doesn’t remove dollars from the vault. Those only change when: 1. I receive a new dollar, so issue a token; or 2. I destroy a token and release a dollar. “Shorting” doesn’t impact that: if y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is true for every pile of toxic crap that's ever been financially engineered. I have a radical idea that I'm fairly sure would get me killed if I ever stood a chance of implementing it: A complete ban on all non-productive financial schemes. We have an entire parasite class that grown unfathomably wealthy while providing no real value to the rest of society. The "futures trader" extracting value from the system…
why stop there? lets ban all activity that doesn't produce tangible goods. the number of parasites, i.e. people who consume tangible goods but don't produce them, is probably higher than the number of people who do fields, mines and factories. we don't need anything else
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> complete ban on all non-productive financial schemes I surprised myself by how sympathetic I am to this proposal, given I've made a career in finance. The problem, however, is separating productive from unproductive schemes ex ante . > "futures trader" extracting value from the system buying/selling futures has done no "real" work, their profit comes exclusively from making others pay more Great example. In 1958, t…
> There is a middle ground between banning and a free for all. Providing basic banking as a public utility so most deposits by individuals, local governments, and small businesses are not stored with investment banks engaged in speculation. Public banks can be limited to originating loans on 100% security of material personal property such as crops, livestock, cheese, gold, lumber, steel and prohibited from originati…
The problem isn't getting loans on one's crops. It's transferring the price risk to someone better able to bear it.
Farmers want a guaranteed profit when they plant. Loans don't address that. Futures do. (It's why they were invented, in the 17th century, by the Dutch and Japanese.) The only real alternative is government guarantees. Those bring their own host of problems.