Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There’s no reason credit instruments should be on a blockchain in the first place, given you’re depending on a central party for redemption. Can you elaborate? Say you issue RUNEKs, how do we move them around freely in a digital world with the assumption that you are not required for transfers?
Runek seems more likely to be asking, why pay the very high price of putting a trusted instrument on a trustless blockchain. Which I believe is a fair question.
Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
231–240 of 241 posts
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard "it's a scam" a lot recently, but nobody can articulate how in a way that is similar to any real, provable scam in the past. It's a giant, distributed scam?
I think its based on a fundamental idea of buying something that you know is worthless in order to sell it for more than you bought it by convincing the buyer that it isn't worthless. Eventually it will burn through all potential buyers and there will be no one left to sell to. Then it collapses because everyone finally agrees that it actually has no value.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without stablecoins, people that want to cash out at a certain price will be cashing out to fiat, which generally is not a seamless process and requires stronger KYC, etc. With a stablecoin like Tether, you have people constantly "cashing out" by just trading their BTC/ETH/etc for Tether. It is much easier to go back and forth between some "hard"-dollar value (scare quotes due to the question around how "hard" Tether…
> Without stablecoins, people that want to cash out at a certain price will be cashing out to fiat, which generally is not a seamless process and requires stronger KYC, etc. Are we talking about whales or someone holding a bitcoin or two? Trading/withdraw limits at non-USDT exchanges (eg. coinbase/kraken/gemini) are quite generous, and you'd only be running into issues if you're selling several bitcoins per day. As a…
Most exchanges do not have true USD. Coinbase and binance yes, but only because they do the KYC work. Anywhere else like Probit, KuCoin, any DeFi - there will only be stable coins.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, is there a theory of pricing ease-of-transfer ? Of course, it would have to depend on the preferences and whatnot, but still, seems like something that there should be some good theory of, but I haven’t heard of one. Side note: Aren’t there tokens that sort of have a kind of stored gas? Like, you can cash it in to get a refund of some of the gas cost of the transaction?
Yep, I'm not sure what exactly you call that in econ. What I do know is that this is the entire thesis behind Visa, Paypal, etc. who have some of the highest market caps in the world. If they have value for facilitating transactions then cryptos do too. WRT the gas fee thing: yes, technically you can send a miner whatever you want in order to incentivize them to include your tx in a block, but the only thing baked in…
The theory around "prices people are willing to pay for ease of transactions" seems probably not that tricky,
the theory around "the value people will assign to a good based on ease of transfer of that good" seems like it would be more complicated and confusing.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it weird that any person 'hodls' any crypto. I pick the rallies (like the one last night) and ride them, then sell. I cannot, besides stress, understand why anyone would hold crypto currencies at this point. It is too young and Wild West. That's why riding waves is easy and if you trade half decent you can make fortunes. But it can be gone tomorrow; for instance if Tether gets called on it's bluff.
You have not been playing long enough if this is your attitude. “Zoom out” is generally the quote on this.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I'm not sure what exactly you call that in econ. What I do know is that this is the entire thesis behind Visa, Paypal, etc. who have some of the highest market caps in the world. If they have value for facilitating transactions then cryptos do too. WRT the gas fee thing: yes, technically you can send a miner whatever you want in order to incentivize them to include your tx in a block, but the only thing baked in…
ok, but when you are sending money via visa or paypal or what have you, you aren't sending shares of stock in that company, you are sending something denominated in dollars. The theory around "prices people are willing to pay for ease of transactions" seems probably not that tricky, the theory around "the value people will assign to a good based on ease of transfer of that good" seems like it would be more complicate…
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
If tether went away tomorrow, 60 billion of "assumed dollars" backing up crypto asset values would also vanish. Such an event would immediately tank the dollar value of all cryptocurrencies (real dollars, not USDT, that one would explode to the moon instead). And not just by 60 billion dollars of total market cap, but more like 600 billion to a trillion. There's a lot of fantasy value for each actual dollar (or USDT,…
Yeah sure but would that be worse than the other crashes that have happened over the life of BTC and other crypto assets? What kind of draw down would you expect and why? I think it’s unlikely that this would happen to all stable coins. So what would this scenario look like if USDC or DAI still existed?
Why? Because the narrative that fueled this sequence has been "people with ever deeper pockets coming into crypto", and we are close to the end of this narratives' natural life anyway. The current "ever-deeper pockets" are institutional investors, which is as far as it gets in terms of deep pockets anyway, but which are also very sensitive to risk and need calculable risk envelopes. Stablecoins, with their publicly-known market caps, provide an approach to guesstimate the total amount of actual value underlying cryptocurrencies and thus help significantly in evaluating the risk of a crypto investment - theoretically, as long as we know that there is X amount of fiat money invested, the total crypto market cap cannot fall below that value. If we now learn that a huge chunk of this money does not exist anymore or never existed at all, the risk calculation becomes much worse. It is akin to a fiat currency of a country that is found to have blatantly invented big chunks of its official GDP for years - nobody would want to store value in that currency anymore. And without institutional investors, there are no "deeper pockets" anymore, hence the primary reason why most people hold cryptocurrencies - to participate in the growing crypto pie - falls apart, which should trigger a series of waves of sell-offs, similar to the "buying waves" during the last decade, but inverted (quick drops to lower lows, followed by slow recoveries to lower highs, followed by lower lows and so on).
At least this is what I expect.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that it's worth only a tiny fraction of bitcoin + all the other cryptos.
How much trading volume does tether have compared to "bitcoin + all the other cryptos"? Answer: a lot, Tether is the unit of account. If something happens to it the crypto space explodes as the volume of real dollar trades in crypto is a fraction of Tether trades.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much trading volume does tether have compared to "bitcoin + all the other cryptos"? Answer: a lot, Tether is the unit of account. If something happens to it the crypto space explodes as the volume of real dollar trades in crypto is a fraction of Tether trades.
That would certainly be a novel notion of systemic risk. It's like arguing that the financial system would collapse if TSLA trading were halted tomorrow. There's no shortage of other liquidity channels between market participants, so the loss would be confined to the held value of the security itself and any of its derivatives. I'd argue that the systemic risk of my toy analogy is actually worse than Tether, as the d…
Its like if instead of buying stocks for money everyone bought and sold stocks using Enron shares.
Re: Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok, but when you are sending money via visa or paypal or what have you, you aren't sending shares of stock in that company, you are sending something denominated in dollars. The theory around "prices people are willing to pay for ease of transactions" seems probably not that tricky, the theory around "the value people will assign to a good based on ease of transfer of that good" seems like it would be more complicate…
I think you're overcontemplating it. Sure, the means of transaction and the network responsible for the transaction are one in the same, but how does that fundamentally change the equation? If anything it makes cryptos more valuable, not less, because you only need the single token and you can do both (have a share in the network and transact on the network).
The value of a PayPal share is tied to the expected future profit of PayPal, to how much transaction fees will be total, and how much costs will be.
This is a distinct question from the value that a user assigns to the ability to make transactions using PayPal, which, I suppose corresponds to the demand curve of how many transactions/ how much is transacted, given different transaction fee sizes.
Of course, an analogous demand curve should also apply to bitcoin (or what have you).
But this demand curve doesn’t seem enough to give an explanation for what price to expect. (Not just “it doesn’t explain the actual price” but rather, I don’t see how it by itself would explain any price.)