3 ms·
The big reasons I could see would be that a) you don’t trust the people behind the first one (or the country they’re based in, etc) b) the underlying technolo
by 542458 4y ago
The big reasons I could see would be that
a) you don’t trust the people behind the first one (or the country they’re based in, etc)
b) the underlying technology of the new coin is more appealing (tx/s, smart contracts, fees, etc)
That said, this is all Wild West and trusting any of these vendors to actually do what they say seems very risky.
- marban 4y agoSeems like I trust neither a nor b.
- charcircuit 4y agoFor b) you can get around that by creating wrapped versions of a more trusted stablecoin.
- joosters 4y ago'Wrapping' a coin implies trusting some other person to not run away with them.
- charcircuit 4y agoYou can easily create a smart contract that can wrap and unwrap tokens. This requires no extra trust.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoIf they exist in two different chains, they need a bridge which is very centralized.
- pigeons 4y agoTrust in the contract code and execution environment
- UncleMeat 4y agoYou missed c) you want to make a lot of money by creating a new stablecoin and granting some percentage of it to yourself.
- wiredfool 4y agoThe ability to create money out of thin electrons can't be undervalued. If you’re 80% collateralized and 1% is fu money, there’s no defense against going to 78% collateralized if the code allows it.
- zaphar 4y agoThe code can't exactly prevent it unless your collateral is another crypto asset but then you can't peg against something like the Dollar because the crypto asset is guaranteed to fluctuate in price. Code can't enforce anything outside of the blockchain. It has to rely on an oracle and oracles can lie.