Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

wave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#211

Post by everfree »

Retric wrote: post #210
everfree wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that you don't trust stablecoins because one particular stablecoin is untrustworthy. That's a classic strawman, plain and simple. You took down the Tether strawman, while pretending that you took down the entire concept of stablecoins. This conversation is going way off track from your original claim that you don't trust stablecoins. Your perception of the community's perception of Tether is neither here nor…

It’s not a strawman argument to point out that at least 90% of stable coin transactions have major issues. If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them, the simple fact that they aren’t is extremely damaging to any argument supporting the idea.

> If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them

That's not true. Tradable instruments generally accrue network effects based on snowballing liquidity and trading pairs as a result of being first to market, not because of the instrument's superiority to another similar instrument. You can see this effect in the traditional markets with SPY and VOO. VOO is an all-around superior product (much lower expense ratio, better company structure), yet SPY has 20 times higher volume due to its liquidity, especially options liquidity. Likewise, USDC is an all-around superior product to USDT, yet USDT volume is much higher due to its liquidity, especially across smaller trading pairs.

I also want to point out that when you choose to measure by volume, you over-represent the people who trade through Tether rather than actually holding it for any length of time because they believe it's a sound holding. When you are actively speculating on moonshots like so much of this hyped up market is right now, USDT is the best stablecoin for you due to its high volume and liquidity, but when you're looking for a trustworthy stablecoin to hold onto long term, there are other stablecoins for that that have less volume.

Finally, it's surprising to me that you're now basing your argument on the premise that most cryptobros are rational, because that seems to run counter to everything you're trying to argue in this thread.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#212

Post by bb88 »

everfree wrote: post #198
bb88 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that if 90% of stable coin transactions are through tether then they have the general trust of the community. It's as plain as day, and you seek to dismiss it as a "side show" when it's really the main act. Pro crypto arguments these days have come down to basically "You're not allowed to make that argument. It's early days. There are no good critics..." and now "you can't conflate my argument."

You said that you don't trust stablecoins because one particular stablecoin is untrustworthy. That's a classic strawman, plain and simple. You took down the Tether strawman, while pretending that you took down the entire concept of stablecoins. This conversation is going way off track from your original claim that you don't trust stablecoins. Your perception of the community's perception of Tether is neither here nor…

Again, you're saying I can't make an argument here. It should be as plain as day to everyone.

If a stable coin can be shady and still transact 90% of all stable coin market without any apparent consequences, then why should we trust any stable coin?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#213

Post by Retric »

everfree wrote: post #211
Retric wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a strawman argument to point out that at least 90% of stable coin transactions have major issues. If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them, the simple fact that they aren’t is extremely damaging to any argument supporting the idea.

> If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them That's not true. Tradable instruments generally accrue network effects based on snowballing liquidity and trading pairs as a result of being first to market, not because of the instrument's superiority to another similar instrument. You can see this effect in the traditional markets with SPY and VOO. VOO is an all-around superior product…

SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate.

More importantly even with the first mover advantage SPY is only twice the size of VOO rather than 10x the size of all competitors combined.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#214

Post by everfree »

Retric wrote: post #213
everfree wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them That's not true. Tradable instruments generally accrue network effects based on snowballing liquidity and trading pairs as a result of being first to market, not because of the instrument's superiority to another similar instrument. You can see this effect in the traditional markets with SPY and VOO. VOO is an all-around superior product…

SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate. More importantly even with the first mover advantage SPY is only twice the size of VOO rather than 10x the size of all competitors combined.

> SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate.

We're really splitting hairs here. SPY and VOO don't have a "slightly different mix of stocks," they have an effectively identical mix of stocks. They use identical strategies to track an identical index.

The difference you're seeing likely comes down to the exchange traded product's discount/premium to NAV, or is the result of sheer chance due to slightly different timings of rebalancing, dividends, etc between the two issuers.

> More importantly even with the first mover advantage SPY is only twice the size of VOO rather than 10x the size of all competitors combined.

SPY is 20x the size of VOO by volume, which is the metric you're using to compare USDT to USDC. So by volume SPY is actually even more dominant over VOO than USDT is over USDC, not less.

All that said, even if what you were saying about SPY and VOO were true, I still disagree that it's logical to use an instrument's popularity as a proxy for its financial soundness.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#215

Post by loceng »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #191
loceng wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Bitcoin et al is at the whim of the government, example: China ban Bitcoin et al.

Governments can ban whatever they like, it is meaningless. Bitcoin exists. As long as there is a communication channel, transactions will flow. It is a simple thing, and cannot be stopped. Every network level distribution can by bypassed. It is by design.

Right, so here's how the government can easily crack down on Bitcoin - through non-digital communication channels: you get officers to pretend to be normal people, you give them Bitcoin for something you buy from them (legal item or illegal), or they give you something in exchange for Bitcoin, then they arrest you - take your Bitcoin on you, get a warrant to confiscate/search all of your equipment and take any Bitcoin they find or just keep the equipment if it's encrypted - as part of a sting operation.

So does your answer stay the same with the above scenario?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#216

Post by knorker »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #208
knorker wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2017 is not the only time this has happened. It was $62 in Apr 2021, for example. CC payments and bank transfers are also way faster than bitcoin, even when bitcoin isn't having an outage. In the US bank transfers are slow, for some reason, but in Europe they're not.

Bitcoin has not had an outage since 2013. Actually, you will find settlement time is actually much longer than instant SEPA, and other methods have 1 and 2 and 3 day transfer times too. The instant thing is an illusion granted by centralization. But of course your are talking about banks because you are missing the point of the exercise.

> not had an outage

You just said 2017. I said 2021. And there's also at least 2018.

> You will find that

I will not find that, because i told you what my experience is.

> Illusion

Illusion or not, it's real. /s

> Missing the point of the exercise

The point being lying and contradicting ir sequential sentences to pump a pyramid scheme.

Cryptocurrency on is not fit for any of the stated purposes, and HN will ban us both if we continue, so i bid you good day.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#217

Post by randomhodler84 »

loceng wrote: post #215
randomhodler84 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments can ban whatever they like, it is meaningless. Bitcoin exists. As long as there is a communication channel, transactions will flow. It is a simple thing, and cannot be stopped. Every network level distribution can by bypassed. It is by design.

Right, so here's how the government can easily crack down on Bitcoin - through non-digital communication channels: you get officers to pretend to be normal people, you give them Bitcoin for something you buy from them (legal item or illegal), or they give you something in exchange for Bitcoin, then they arrest you - take your Bitcoin on you, get a warrant to confiscate/search all of your equipment and take any Bitcoi…

AntiBitcoin Death Squads. Cool. The kind of fascist future you imagine for society is exactly what we fight against.

Yes, my answers does not change, and we will fight to ensure such a future never occurs.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#218

Post by miohtama »

dmitriid wrote: post #185
miohtama wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your information is somewhat outdated. For example, paying on USDC using Solana or Avalanche networks - Fee is less than 10c, less then a debit card - USDC is backed by US Treasury notes, making it more solid than deposit in a bank - There is no volatility risk of the cryptocurrency - USDC follows US court orders for crime and money laundering cases https://solberginvest.com/blog/how-much-are-solana-fees/

> I think your information is somewhat outdated. For example, paying on USDC using Solana or Avalanche networks As always with cryptocurrencies, "you're using the wrong cryptocurrency" as if the absolutely dominant ones, Bitcoin and Ethereum don't exist and aren't much more likely to be used than whatever the darling du jour is. > USDC is backed by US Treasury notes, making it more solid than deposit in a bank They a…

This from the latest GrantThompson USDC report:

> Segregated accounts are defined by the Company as unencumbered accounts of the Company which are eligible to fulfill the Company’s obligations under the statutes and regulations applicable to the Company as a money transmitter licensed in various US states and territories. Such accounts are held at US regulated financial institutions, limited to cash and short-dated U.S. government obligations, and are segregated from other accounts of the Company, including general corporate funds.

So the assets backing are cash and treasury notes.

I am not saying Circle is not lying, but them lying this close to IPO is very unlikely, so you are very likely incorrect.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#219

Post by everfree »

bb88 wrote: post #212
everfree wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that you don't trust stablecoins because one particular stablecoin is untrustworthy. That's a classic strawman, plain and simple. You took down the Tether strawman, while pretending that you took down the entire concept of stablecoins. This conversation is going way off track from your original claim that you don't trust stablecoins. Your perception of the community's perception of Tether is neither here nor…

Again, you're saying I can't make an argument here. It should be as plain as day to everyone. If a stable coin can be shady and still transact 90% of all stable coin market without any apparent consequences, then why should we trust any stable coin?

If a particular stablecoin can be shady and still carry a large amount of volume, why does it logically follow from that that no stablecoin should ever be trusted? The logic behind your assertion of cause and effect doesn't make any sense.

That logic is like saying 90% of torrent activity is related to piracy, therefore nobody has ever used the bittorrent protocol for any legitimate purpose. There is no logic in a statement like that.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#220

Post by Retric »

everfree wrote: post #214
Retric wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate. More importantly even with the first mover advantage SPY is only twice the size of VOO rather than 10x the size of all competitors combined.

> SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate. We're really splitting hairs here. SPY and VOO don't have a "slightly different mix of stocks," they have an effectively identical mix of stocks. They use identical strategies to track an identical index. The d…

> The difference your seeing

No, it’s both a different list and slightly different weighting. VOO 510 companies https://stockanalysis.com/etf/voo/holdings/

SPY 507 companies https://stockanalysis.com/etf/spy/holdings/

As to trading volume, 10:1 is comparing every stable coin. There are far more than just 2 mutual funds loosely tracking the S&P 500.

Post reply on HN