201–210 of 376 posts
I read about this last week [1] and am still quite perplexed about Tether and its a backing. If you look at the redemption pattern you can see large movements. I.e. a whale must be withdrawing funds. This really reminds me of 2008. [1] https://app.finclout.io/t/kVr06N0
All of them should be trying to limit their exposure as much as possible as fast as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
"There are a few people in the world who get locked out from banking by an oppressive regime" is just another rather unconvincing argument for crypto. Yes, let's upend the world's financial system, evolving and improving for centuries, for THAT. Next it will be "but crypto will let you monetize your private data". Yeah no, it won't.
I think there's a lot of value in being slightly harder to oppress by the political classes or arse-covering and uncaring bank managers.
it's telling that the value change in these things is always denominated in USD. it's almost as if they don't have any intrinsic value.
If you say something is worth 0.01BTC - you need to know the exact date. Otherwise it could be a >50% difference ($400+).
The big question with Tether has been, if they are holding commercial paper, whose commercial paper? Traders who deal in commercial paper of real companies that do real stuff don't see Tether present in that market. The dollar amounts are too big to hide. The suspicion is that their "commercial paper" is high-interest loans to other cryptocurrency companies. With the whole crypto sector in decline, those loans are at…
> This is how you get a 2008-type crash - loans which seem to be unrelated but are tied to a common market. How does this happen again 15 years later? Is it because we ineffectively dealt with 2008? A result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Or have we over regulated banking to the point the miscreants went underground to build things like crypto? I don't get it. Crashing over and over doesn't seem good for anyone.
It didn't stop. Lehmans were thrown under the bus and business continued like there's no tomorrow with more and more financial instruments created and investment bankers putting their clients money in crap positions.
> I don't get it. Crashing over and over doesn't seem good for anyone.
There's money to be made on crashes, too. And if someone got rich before, they can patiently wait. There'll be money to be made before next crash, too. I doubt the pattern bothers them. Have you heared how Buffet assigns blame[1]?
The big question with Tether has been, if they are holding commercial paper, whose commercial paper? Traders who deal in commercial paper of real companies that do real stuff don't see Tether present in that market. The dollar amounts are too big to hide. The suspicion is that their "commercial paper" is high-interest loans to other cryptocurrency companies. With the whole crypto sector in decline, those loans are at…
> Why would anyone buy Tether at this point? There's zero upside potential, after all. Tether, and "stablecoins" in general are known as the casino chips of Crypto. A way to exchange more volatile crypto for what is supposed to be essentially dollars without creating a taxable event. Assuming crypto is still something people want to trade, that's still a valuable service. Tether isn't supposed to be an investment. It…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it safer? Isn't USDC issued by some entity, which promises to convert USDC back into USD?
Multiple parties need to fail for USDC to not be tradeable or redeemable to USD - holding in an exchange just requires one party to fail (exchange hacked, exit scam etc.) It's pretty simple risk logic.
Further, keeping funds in a non-custodial wallet entails a huge operational risk that you're glossing over entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There are a few people in the world who get locked out from banking by an oppressive regime" is just another rather unconvincing argument for crypto. Yes, let's upend the world's financial system, evolving and improving for centuries, for THAT. Next it will be "but crypto will let you monetize your private data". Yeah no, it won't.
You can get locked out of your bank account due to institutional incompetence (happened to a friend of mine in Spain) or due to being on the wrong side of a political argument (e.g. donating to the protesting truckers in Canada). I think there's a lot of value in being slightly harder to oppress by the political classes or arse-covering and uncaring bank managers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, tell me how I can send money to my friend in Macedonia from Australia without transaction fees.
Okay, tell me why you should be able to send money to your friend in Macedonia from Australia without transaction fees?
I think the point they're trying to make is the current (lack of?) Global financial system is a joke.
Crypto is enabling something that has the value and utility of "money" with interconnectedness and simplicity of the Internet. How does that not click in ppls minds?
For the 7Billion ppl on earth, easy low fee international money transfers are a joke. And in this context low fee is 1-3%.
I can send $1B USDC for 60 cents using crypto.
And before anyone says "but you need to have crypto and a wallet and an exchange and a ..."
The same is true about email. You need to have a computer, and internet, and a email provider/server.
We take for granted the things that are already engraved in our lives, but it wasn't that long ago when someone could make the same argument about snail mail/fax vs email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
use case depends on consumer. paying for an abortion in a southern US state or paying a Russian or Iranian contractor for web design services might be a suitable example of crypto. paying for an in-game asset to avoid 30% App Store fees may be another use case in the future. or purchasing digital assets like art, domains. and smart contract functionality like escrow, auctions, loans and lending, global crowdfunds is…
Well paying for an abortion isn't really an issue at the moment unless i'm missing something (you can just use cash? The issue here is insurance cover, but that doesn't change). Also I have tried to search for 'pay for an abortion with cryptocurrency' but can't find anything relevant on this happening in reality (other than people suggest it could possibly happen?). How would paying in crypto avoid app store fees? Pr…
> you can just use cash?
this question sorta gets at one of the primary values of crypto, that it’s peer to peer, transferred non custodially and pseudonymous. many countries are moving away from cash into digital only forms of transactions, and having a system that upholds peer to peer transactions can be useful.
replace abortion in that example with other legally questionable actions depending on your state. maybe buying marijuana or psilocybin for medical purposes, paying somebody like Edward Snowden for giving a lecture, or purchasing a VPN subscription. for citizens who are rebelling against their state in some way, such as abortion rights protests, or climate activism like extinction rebellion, or a person that lives in a less democratic regime, it may be desirable to use certain crypto systems to mitigate state oversight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/14/style/abortion-crypto-don...