3 ms·

The grail of crypto is syntetic anonymous stablecoins which will free everyone from the games of the people in power, but the backed by fiat centralized stablec

The grail of crypto is syntetic anonymous stablecoins which will free everyone from the games of the people in power, but the backed by fiat centralized stablecoins will be used by governments and banks to further their control over people.

vmception 5y ago
read the paper, the Federal Reserve knows this too and isn't advocating for FEDcoin in this paper. They even know the word "composability" and have lended credibility to the term and context as morphed by the smart contract space. > . On public blockchains, this also allows for 24-hours-a-day/7- days-a-week/365-days-a-year transactions.5 Second, stablecoins are typically built on DLT standards that are programmable and allow for the composability of services.6 In this context, “composability” means stablecoins can function as self-contained building blocks that interoperate with smart contracts (self-executing programmable contracts) to create payment and other financial services.7 These two key features underpin the current use cases of stablecoins and support innovation in both the financial and non-financial sectors. > The public algorithmic stablecoin sector is highly innovative and difficult to categorize. However, one can generally think of the design of these stablecoins as based on two mechanisms: (1) the collateralized mechanism and (2) the algorithmic peg mechanism
- nathias 5y ago
  This is not the focus of this paper, but they do mention consumer safety and KYC and AML issues, which if the ecosystem matures they will try to enforce for sure.
wolverine876 5y ago
> backed by fiat centralized stablecoins will be used by governments and banks to further their control over people. Democratic government is the people; it is the people having power over things. Other sources of power, like big business and wealthy people, like to spread ideas deriding government (e.g., the Koch Brothers), so that the power shifts to them. Who has power over your favorite cryptocurrency? If government gives up regulatory power, who gets that power? Reasonably, the American people want control over the currency and money supply in their own country.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  We don't live in true democracies. Too many gullible people. Few politicians to vote for, the ones backed with hundreds of millions from rich people, who are the ones in charge at the end.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    There's plenty of truth to your criticisms, but it seems to me that potentially they lead to nihilism (in the US that would produce arguments like "I don't vote, there's no difference between the two parties"). I prefer to think we can still influence the direction that policymaking takes, even if it's an uphill battle. Unless by "true democracies" you meant "direct democracies" since that's absolutely true, almost no one does.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      I don't think whether something leads to "nihilism" or what any of us "prefer" to think has any bearing. Even as a representative democracy, the distribution of power is by Supreme Court decision not one-citizen, one-vote, one unit of power over the government. The US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially that money was free speech and so its effects on elections could not be limited. So the wealthy, or any wealthy interests internationally that have national entities that can spend money, have a hugely disproportionate hold on elections due to their ability to frame the information and motives behind elections, often with large amounts of coordinated misinformation. So both financially, and informationally, the US democracy is not only legally corrupt, but any corporation that needs to negotiate with the government at any level, is virtually forced into participating in that legal corruption or be at a severe disadvantage. The non-wealthy also suffer from that severe disadvantage, but have no wealth to balance it. So in the zero sum game of power politics, they have lost considerable power relative to any formal democracy, representative or not. The legal corruption is both self-perpetuating and a malignant motivator for new scales and means of further corruption. The people in government, and people with money, are both being selected and incentivized, with stick and carrot, to be, and to further enable via their levers on government, even worse systemic corruption. The US is not a healthy representative democracy and it isn't unreasonable to wonder if it is on a runaway path to worse outcomes without a clear mechanism for a turnaround in sight.

vmception 5y ago

read the paper, the Federal Reserve knows this too and isn't advocating for FEDcoin in this paper. They even know the word "composability" and have lended credibility to the term and context as morphed by the smart contract space. > . On public blockchains, this also allows for 24-hours-a-day/7- days-a-week/365-days-a-year transactions.5 Second, stablecoins are typically built on DLT standards that are programmable and allow for the composability of services.6 In this context, “composability” means stablecoins can function as self-contained building blocks that interoperate with smart contracts (self-executing programmable contracts) to create payment and other financial services.7 These two key features underpin the current use cases of stablecoins and support innovation in both the financial and non-financial sectors. > The public algorithmic stablecoin sector is highly innovative and difficult to categorize. However, one can generally think of the design of these stablecoins as based on two mechanisms: (1) the collateralized mechanism and (2) the algorithmic peg mechanism

nathias 5y ago
This is not the focus of this paper, but they do mention consumer safety and KYC and AML issues, which if the ecosystem matures they will try to enforce for sure.

wolverine876 5y ago

> backed by fiat centralized stablecoins will be used by governments and banks to further their control over people. Democratic government is the people; it is the people having power over things. Other sources of power, like big business and wealthy people, like to spread ideas deriding government (e.g., the Koch Brothers), so that the power shifts to them. Who has power over your favorite cryptocurrency? If government gives up regulatory power, who gets that power? Reasonably, the American people want control over the currency and money supply in their own country.

rmbyrro 5y ago
We don't live in true democracies. Too many gullible people. Few politicians to vote for, the ones backed with hundreds of millions from rich people, who are the ones in charge at the end.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  There's plenty of truth to your criticisms, but it seems to me that potentially they lead to nihilism (in the US that would produce arguments like "I don't vote, there's no difference between the two parties"). I prefer to think we can still influence the direction that policymaking takes, even if it's an uphill battle. Unless by "true democracies" you meant "direct democracies" since that's absolutely true, almost no one does.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    I don't think whether something leads to "nihilism" or what any of us "prefer" to think has any bearing. Even as a representative democracy, the distribution of power is by Supreme Court decision not one-citizen, one-vote, one unit of power over the government. The US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially that money was free speech and so its effects on elections could not be limited. So the wealthy, or any wealthy interests internationally that have national entities that can spend money, have a hugely disproportionate hold on elections due to their ability to frame the information and motives behind elections, often with large amounts of coordinated misinformation. So both financially, and informationally, the US democracy is not only legally corrupt, but any corporation that needs to negotiate with the government at any level, is virtually forced into participating in that legal corruption or be at a severe disadvantage. The non-wealthy also suffer from that severe disadvantage, but have no wealth to balance it. So in the zero sum game of power politics, they have lost considerable power relative to any formal democracy, representative or not. The legal corruption is both self-perpetuating and a malignant motivator for new scales and means of further corruption. The people in government, and people with money, are both being selected and incentivized, with stick and carrot, to be, and to further enable via their levers on government, even worse systemic corruption. The US is not a healthy representative democracy and it isn't unreasonable to wonder if it is on a runaway path to worse outcomes without a clear mechanism for a turnaround in sight.