5 ms·
This question presumes the envisioned future is where each person has their own non-custodial wallet that holds stablecoins that they use in transactions, no?
by godot 5y ago
This question presumes the envisioned future is where each person has their own non-custodial wallet that holds stablecoins that they use in transactions, no?
If the current trajectory is any indication, it's more likely that everyday users would mostly hold custodial accounts at organizations (e.g. Coinbase, like banks) and use stablecoins that way, which control aggregate wallets, and trackability stays within the org level (also like banks). Probably not as easy for the public to access (possible in data hacks) but just as easy for government access.
- elevaet 5y agoAmusing how it's gone from "be your own bank" back around to centralization, but this time with a colossal energy footprint behind it. Same shit, bigger pile I guess.
- tenuousemphasis 5y agoYou can always build centralized systems on top of decentralized ones in order to mitigate the scaling costs of decentralization. It's essentially impossible to build a decentralized system on top of a centralized one in order to mitigate the downsides of centralization.
- spupe 5y agoI don't think that's the case. If Paypal wanted, and it was legally allowed, they could anonymize my data to an extent where not even their own team could know who I am. We don't do it because it would be open to fraud and scams, not because it is impossible.
- tenuousemphasis 5y agoYou didn't actually address anything I said. I'm not talking about privacy at all.