691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/31/stablecoins-are-finding-pr...
Why can’t bridge just convert the money into USD? What’s the point of the stable coins step?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many of the crypto skeptic comments on this story are massively out of touch with the products and sophistication of the crypto industry. For those of us who aren’t, the question has basically been flipped to “what does a bank add to this situation?” . I’m typing this shortly after buying my groceries with a visa debit card that was funded 30 seconds before the transaction over Lightning Network with Bitcoin that…
So you paid a 0.1% fee for a less convenient way to pay? I just tap my credit card or phone, and then the CC company debits my bank account automatically a month later , essentially giving me a free small loan plus 2% cash back.
0.1% is fee to convert to USD and in context of converting anything to USD, like stocks or anything one would hold in an investment account it’s a low fee. This means I keep my liquid capital in Bitcoin which has a strong tendency to increase in value and yet whenever I need to spend it, it’s instantly spendable in multiple ways, literally instantly and for a very very low conversion fee.
I can also use a CC company and I agree there is a 2% cash back. There are multiple companies that are crypto focused and have issued CC and Paypal issues CC and I can settle the monthly balance using Bitcoin also.
What I predict is coming soon, maybe next year or so, if POS support in the US to offer that 2% cash back directly to the consumer from the merchant should they settle in alternative currencies, like Bitcoin, like USD stable coins.
The combined issue of interest payments on stable coin balances (custodial) and legal settlement rebates is what has the banks literally freaking out and starting to try and spread FUD about USD stable coins. They know their business models in the payments space is eroding and soon the money markets space is under pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of…
100% why am I going to use a permissionless blockchain…. To get coins fully controlled by circle. On a chain with low fees controlled by Coinbase (base) for example. In this case this new L1 won’t even be distributed by anyone initially too. It all seems like a Ponzi scheme or small utility for international users. Otherwise I don’t know why you’d trust these centralized authorities. What stops someone at circle deci…
Well, the law now. The recent stablecoin legislation has a lot of new regulations.
If you mean what technically stops them, then nothing. But that's true of all the crimes I can think of, the law can only be enforced after the crime takes place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing money in long-tail markets Do they use it to arbitrate NFTs? (need more jargon) Because SpaceX is definitely something that screams "finance" to me.
Yeah, I’d like clarification on what SpaceX is doing, ‘managing money in long tail markets’ is essentially meaningless.
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of…
I think the unspoken part here here is that the lack of transparency is a feature for some users.
I'm generally a cynic on cryptocurrencies and I think they're kind of terrible for society in a lot of ways, so none of what follows should be taken as a positive opinion on cryptos. I'm just explaining how they work.
There will always be two competing interests with regards to currencies:
1. On the one hand, consumers make mistakes and get scammed, and want reversible transactions.
2. On the other hand, sellers don't want reversible transactions: if you sell a bike for currency and the transaction gets reversed, you don't get your time back even if you get the bike back in mint condition--and getting the product back at all isn't always possible, if the product was a tattoo, a class taught, or some intellectual property.
In traditional financial systems, anyone operating a financial system in a centralized way always gets bullied into reversing transactions. If you're the bank running it, you just screw over the seller most of the time because they are too small not to work with you and the customers you bring, and buy insurance for the rest of the time.
With stablecoins, so far, this hasn't happened. Sure, if you complained to Circle about getting scammed in USDC, in theory they could just un-issue your spent coins and issue you some new coins, but that would be in violation of their entire crypto ethos. Like fiat, the value of the currency is only based in belief in the issuing central entity, but unlike fiat, part of that belief in the issuing entity is built around them not reversing transactions.
Will that belief be enough to hold it, forever? I don't know, but I think it's definitely a stronger power than people believe it is, even if it's not literally the power of electricity being poured into hashing.
As a side note: not all stable coins are issued by a central entity. There are two other types of stable coins I'm aware of:
1. Collateralized: Examples: DAI, VAI, and I think MAO. Basically, anyone can borrow (mint) these currencies by storing other assets in the protocol. So for example you can deposit $1000 worth of Ethereum into the DAI protocol and that allows you to borrow some safe amount of DAI which is minted on demand, say 400DAI. If the value of your deposited Ethereum falls too close to $400, the protocol automatically sells the Ethereum to reclaim DAI which is then burned to keep the price of DAI from falling. But assuming your margins stay safe, you're able to repay your DAI at your leisure.
2. Algorithmic: Examples: TERRAUSD, IRON. These are paired with a second, unstable cryptocurrency (TERRA/LUNA, IRON/TITAN) which is used to stabilize the coin. If the price of the stablecoin rises above $1, you mint more and distribute it in some way, diluting the coin to bring its value back to $1. If the price of the stablecoin falls below $1, you mint more of the unstable coin and use it to buy back and burn the stable coin. In case it isn't obvious: this only works if the unstable coin has value for some other reason, and in both the example cases--it ultimately didn't and both coins came unpegged when the unstable coin crashed to 0. FRAX/FXS worked this way originally I think, but ultimately they've moved to a more collateralized model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of…
They are trying to give credibility to as value-less asset that’s historically been used for illegal activity, gambling, and predatory selling of said assets to people who don’t understand them. Tether claiming they have the ability to back up their coins with USD lets crypto people claim their nonsense actually has value. Of course the entire thing rides on the “trust me bro” guarantees offered by tether. They could…
They're required to by the new stablecoin legislation [0] in a provision that almost looks specifically targeted at Tether. Not sure what the time frame for this is, or if there's actually any appetite to enforce the law if they dont produce a clean audit.
[0] you can read the full text of the law here, too long for HN: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ27/html/PLAW...
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
It must be ignorance on my part or perhaps I’m just lucky with residency and clients, but I get paid through services like Wise frequently. Taxes are pretty reasonable and I receive the money instantly on my bank account from US, Europe or Latin America. I don’t really know much better it needs to get.
I can never understand what problem stablecoins are trying to solve.
Here's the play. It's very simple, and it's quite good. Stripe processes a LOT of money. The customers that get that money need to move it around. Often to banks. Stripe makes no money on that. Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc). Stablecoin providers make money on their float -- selling stablecoins means you get free deposits, and risk-free…
Bullshit. The biggest stable coin, Tether, is pure scam. They are essentially creating money out of nowhere. They were found guilty of massive fraud and were fined $18M [1]. They refuse to get audited by a third-party [2]. The ones that do audit them are just as sketchy as them [3]. I would recommend watching this video to grasp the scope of their fraud [4] [1] - https://coingeek.com/tether-bitfinex-prohibited-from-o…
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
Did you look at a non crypto/stablecoin solution to perhaps find something even better for legitimate businesses (and perhaps worse for crooks)?