61–70 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while BUSD and USDC have grown more. If I am not mistaken, USDC (coinbase) is properly and regularly audited for proof-of-reserves? Not so sure about Binance though. But at any rate, if capital starts to migrate to audited stablecoins from POS (and by that, I don't mean proof of stake) like Tether, sounds to me like a good thing.
BUSD is just rebranded Paxos Standard iirc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never wanted to send your friend money for them to buy something in the moment?
And there are dozens and dozens of ways to do that: Venmo, PayPal, iPay, bill pay, ach, wire transfer, iBAN, payconiq, biscuit, cash, check, beer. And that's just in my neck of the woods, I'm sure I'm forgetting more.
it is like asking “Why Does PayPal Exist When We Have iBAN?” obviously some subset of the globe finds it more useful than iBAN transfers for their needs (like setting up an online shop).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
different systems historically come about by extreme violence, genocides and migrations of peoples, a little icky shills and ponzis is a very low price
It would be a low price if it would reach the goal. I am pretty sure they won't though.
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…
Oh it’s even worse. For a while now some[0] have suggested part of the backing is in bonds issues by Chinese real estate companies [0] https://twitter.com/thelastbearsta1/status/14690072004965908...
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…
You also have to pay transaction fees transferring crypto, it's build into the protocol.
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…
Clickbait title it seems; USDT and DAI lost some market share while BUSD and USDC have grown more. > USDC has grown 20% with $10.6 billion more tokens in circulation. BUSD boosted up 22% — representing growth of $4.2 billion. USDT has shed about $4.1 billion, a 5% reduction, while DAI dwindled by 30% — from $8.9 billion to $6.2 billion.
> while BUSD and USDC have grown more. If I am not mistaken, USDC (coinbase) is properly and regularly audited for proof-of-reserves? Not so sure about Binance though. But at any rate, if capital starts to migrate to audited stablecoins from POS (and by that, I don't mean proof of stake) like Tether, sounds to me like a good thing.
I've only found attestations just like USDT, where did you see an audit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The interesting idea behind crypto once was to have a totally different system. the problem with this idea is that this idea of a "different" system is just merely going to evolve back into what we have today. The fundamental needs of a financial system doesn't change much, and what we have today is fit for purpose (mostly - there's efficiency to be had and red tape to cut).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trading. Quick arbitrage, day trading, pump and dumps, leverage. The same thing you can do by having dollars on your stock trading account you usually need coins on your crypto account and it would be crazy to have the volatile ones.
So crypto traders hold $150B of dollar denominated stable coins at the moment?
[1] https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership/
[2] https://fortunly.com/statistics/cryptocurrency-statistics/#g...
The moment I learned that people want to buy crypto as a means to get rich in (evil ;)) fiat money, I knew I had a ponzi scheme in front of me. The interesting idea behind crypto once was to have a totally different system. Yet in reality, with greedy apes on a spacerock, it was an unreachable Utopia