9 ms·

> Remember, Tether has no upside. There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. It looks like USDC, issued by a company co-owned by Coinbase (

> Remember, Tether has no upside. There is no reason to ever hold Tether for any length of time. It looks like USDC, issued by a company co-owned by Coinbase (YC incubated right?) and Circle, is quickly replacing tether. One year ago there were about 1/10th of USDC compared to tether, now it's half. Apparently USDC are really fully backed by real USD and the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing USDC at any time (which eases some concerns regarding complying with authorities while it probably raises some concerns for others). I take it for those concerned it wouldn't be unwise to sell your USDTs for USDCs. For somehow I don't believe that Coinbase is pulling a ponzi scheme with USDC.

out_of_protocol 5y ago
Regarding USDC - people in control of usdc can (and did) blacklist any wallet at their own desire, so it's not much different from storing money in bank, exchange etc How about DAI ? This stablecoin doesn't have both USDT's and USDC's disadvantages
- mhluongo 5y ago
  Unfortunately, it's largely backed by USDC right now... The failure of USDC would hurt the DAI peg. If your threat model is government-backed censorship, though, it should be an improvement.
wmf 5y ago
Something is off in USDC land though: https://news.bitcoin.com/usdc-attestations-run-late-raising-alarms-in-the-crypto-community/ https://news.bitcoin.com/usdc-attestations-run-late-raising-...
- latchkey 5y ago
  That site is generally not a trusted news source. I'd follow that link up with something else.
  - wmf 5y ago
    OK: https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency It's now June and they haven't published information for April 31st.
- roseway4 5y ago
  The March attestation was published 5/24 (the day prior to that article) and is available on the Centre website[1]. It doesn’t appear there’s cause for alarm in this case. [1] https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/grant-thorton_circle_usdc_reserves_20210331.pdf?hsLang=en https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/grant-thorton_c...
  - Marazan 5y ago
    Except the attestations have stopped saying how much cash they have in their accounts and now just say that Cricle _claim_ they have enough assets to cover the liabilities. This is a HUGE change and massively cause for alarm.
    - antb123 5y ago
      Probably no depositor insurance but whatever.
  - jhanschoo 5y ago
    Note that apparently attestations just validate that a certain bank account had a certain number at a certain time, which obviously does not account for loan obligations. In Tether's case > https://www.singlelunch.com/2021/05/19/the-tether-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.singlelunch.com/2021/05/19/the-tether-ponzi-sche... > [Tether was] Failing to complete an audit and settling on an attestation “for transparency”. The morning of the attestation, tether moved $380m from sister company bitfinex into a bank account to pass the verification
nexuist 5y ago
> the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing USDC at any time Is this documented anywhere? What's the procedure within USDC to perform this block? Is it just whoever has the right private key can execute this blocking function and propagate it through the blockchain?
- gruez 5y ago
  >Is this documented anywhere? What's the procedure within USDC to perform this block? https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb0ce3606eb48#writeProxyContract https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb... The smart contract has a "blacklist" function.
  - lxgr 5y ago
    Does the proxy implementation pattern used in this contract actually mean that the owner of the corresponding keys can not only block addresses from holding USDC, but actually swap out the entire implementation, e.g. for one implementing transaction or inactivity fees?
    - runeks 5y ago
      Why does it matter? They owe you the money in the first place. If they’re ill-intentioned they can just refuse to redeem your coins, or require that you send them to a new contract with different rules. 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.
      - comboy 5y ago
        > 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?
nodesocket 5y ago
I hold a decent sized block of USDC via BlockFi and earn 8.6% APY. I realize there is inherent risk (after all, I am earning 8.6%) but compare that to 0.5% earned at Goldman Sachs or traditional FDIC insured bank accounts and it's a risk I am willing to take. By default, BlockFi issues GUSD as their stablecoin of choice, but Gemini (GUSD) market cap is only $145m, whereas USDC market cap is 22 with a B billion. Ultimately, I always swap all my crypto "cash reserves" from the default Gemini GUSD to USDC. I stay away from Tether completely as it has a shaky past and unknown ties with China and exchanges.
- dharma1 5y ago
  Why do you prefer USDC to GUSD? They both seem to be 1:1 backed centralised stablecoins, just the Winklebros version hasn’t taken off the same way
- fyzix 5y ago
  The SP500 has an avg of 13% return over the last 10 years and is considerably safer.
- staticman2 5y ago
  I don't see the appeal over trying to get 8.6% return in an index fund. The index fund can crash for up to 5 years but will almost certainly bounce back within 5 years time. The Blockfi thing can lose your money and never bounce back.
- peteretep 5y ago
  > but compare that to 0.5% earned at Goldman Sachs or traditional FDIC insured bank accounts Why on earth would you compare it to those rather than an index tracker?
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    Because the increase in a share's value is tied to a company's profits and losses, while the increase in a cryptocurrency's value is tied to hot air and memes (exhibit A: Dogecoin).
  - 5y ago
xx789 5y ago
"Apparently"
paulpauper 5y ago
all stable coins can blacklist except DAI
- fyzix 5y ago
  Dai is 60% backed by USDC
  - letier 5y ago
    This suggests only 5% being backed by usdc: https://daistats.com/#/collateral https://daistats.com/#/collateral
    - cdiddy2 5y ago
      The last section, "Dai from PSM-USDC-A", is also USDC in the peg stability module.
      - letier 5y ago
        Technically still not 60%, but thank you for pointing this out! I was not aware of this. If i interpret this correctly, this could lead to a very high spike in interest for dai lenders on other collateral currencies, in case the usdc collateral goes bad.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  why? can't maker implement blacklists?
  - fastball 5y ago
    DAI is managed decentrally by MKR holders so not really. At least not in a way that you wouldn't be able to do with any crypto.

out_of_protocol 5y ago

Regarding USDC - people in control of usdc can (and did) blacklist any wallet at their own desire, so it's not much different from storing money in bank, exchange etc How about DAI ? This stablecoin doesn't have both USDT's and USDC's disadvantages

mhluongo 5y ago
Unfortunately, it's largely backed by USDC right now... The failure of USDC would hurt the DAI peg. If your threat model is government-backed censorship, though, it should be an improvement.

wmf 5y ago

Something is off in USDC land though: https://news.bitcoin.com/usdc-attestations-run-late-raising-alarms-in-the-crypto-community/ https://news.bitcoin.com/usdc-attestations-run-late-raising-...

latchkey 5y ago
That site is generally not a trusted news source. I'd follow that link up with something else.
- wmf 5y ago
  OK: https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency https://www.centre.io/usdc-transparency It's now June and they haven't published information for April 31st.
roseway4 5y ago
The March attestation was published 5/24 (the day prior to that article) and is available on the Centre website[1]. It doesn’t appear there’s cause for alarm in this case. [1] https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/grant-thorton_circle_usdc_reserves_20210331.pdf?hsLang=en https://www.centre.io/hubfs/pdfs/attestation/grant-thorton_c...
- Marazan 5y ago
  Except the attestations have stopped saying how much cash they have in their accounts and now just say that Cricle _claim_ they have enough assets to cover the liabilities. This is a HUGE change and massively cause for alarm.
  - antb123 5y ago
    Probably no depositor insurance but whatever.
- jhanschoo 5y ago
  Note that apparently attestations just validate that a certain bank account had a certain number at a certain time, which obviously does not account for loan obligations. In Tether's case > https://www.singlelunch.com/2021/05/19/the-tether-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.singlelunch.com/2021/05/19/the-tether-ponzi-sche... > [Tether was] Failing to complete an audit and settling on an attestation “for transparency”. The morning of the attestation, tether moved $380m from sister company bitfinex into a bank account to pass the verification

nexuist 5y ago

> the smart contract for USDC can block any address containing USDC at any time Is this documented anywhere? What's the procedure within USDC to perform this block? Is it just whoever has the right private key can execute this blocking function and propagate it through the blockchain?

gruez 5y ago
>Is this documented anywhere? What's the procedure within USDC to perform this block? https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb0ce3606eb48#writeProxyContract https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb... The smart contract has a "blacklist" function.
- lxgr 5y ago
  Does the proxy implementation pattern used in this contract actually mean that the owner of the corresponding keys can not only block addresses from holding USDC, but actually swap out the entire implementation, e.g. for one implementing transaction or inactivity fees?
  - runeks 5y ago
    Why does it matter? They owe you the money in the first place. If they’re ill-intentioned they can just refuse to redeem your coins, or require that you send them to a new contract with different rules. 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.
    - comboy 5y ago
      > 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?

nodesocket 5y ago

I hold a decent sized block of USDC via BlockFi and earn 8.6% APY. I realize there is inherent risk (after all, I am earning 8.6%) but compare that to 0.5% earned at Goldman Sachs or traditional FDIC insured bank accounts and it's a risk I am willing to take. By default, BlockFi issues GUSD as their stablecoin of choice, but Gemini (GUSD) market cap is only $145m, whereas USDC market cap is 22 with a B billion. Ultimately, I always swap all my crypto "cash reserves" from the default Gemini GUSD to USDC. I stay away from Tether completely as it has a shaky past and unknown ties with China and exchanges.

dharma1 5y ago
Why do you prefer USDC to GUSD? They both seem to be 1:1 backed centralised stablecoins, just the Winklebros version hasn’t taken off the same way
fyzix 5y ago
The SP500 has an avg of 13% return over the last 10 years and is considerably safer.
staticman2 5y ago
I don't see the appeal over trying to get 8.6% return in an index fund. The index fund can crash for up to 5 years but will almost certainly bounce back within 5 years time. The Blockfi thing can lose your money and never bounce back.
peteretep 5y ago
> but compare that to 0.5% earned at Goldman Sachs or traditional FDIC insured bank accounts Why on earth would you compare it to those rather than an index tracker?
- Clewza313 5y ago
  Because the increase in a share's value is tied to a company's profits and losses, while the increase in a cryptocurrency's value is tied to hot air and memes (exhibit A: Dogecoin).
- 5y ago

xx789 5y ago

"Apparently"

paulpauper 5y ago

all stable coins can blacklist except DAI

fyzix 5y ago
Dai is 60% backed by USDC
- letier 5y ago
  This suggests only 5% being backed by usdc: https://daistats.com/#/collateral https://daistats.com/#/collateral
  - cdiddy2 5y ago
    The last section, "Dai from PSM-USDC-A", is also USDC in the peg stability module.
    - letier 5y ago
      Technically still not 60%, but thank you for pointing this out! I was not aware of this. If i interpret this correctly, this could lead to a very high spike in interest for dai lenders on other collateral currencies, in case the usdc collateral goes bad.
inter_netuser 5y ago
why? can't maker implement blacklists?
- fastball 5y ago
  DAI is managed decentrally by MKR holders so not really. At least not in a way that you wouldn't be able to do with any crypto.