4 ms·

The point of stablecoins isn't to be interesting, it's to be stable. Be as boring as possible, please.

jMyles 4y ago
What proof do you need that collateralization, replete with shady or non-existent audits, is not a source of stability, and that something interesting, like approaches using pure mathematics, are more auditable and, in the short- and perhaps long-term, more stable? The dream collateralized stablecoin, audited in some transparent way, is still vulnerable to a good old fashioned heist. The gatekeeping of all projects that don't see the bank vault as the holy grail of community economics feels unbecoming of HN to me. This is creativity and science at work. Again, I understand that, in addition to sincere efforts to find an algorithmic solution, we get ponzi scum peddling their things. I don't understand why people buy those, and that's an element of human nature we can hopefully overcome as this process goes on. But you're watching collateralized coins fail, and your response is, "the only valid approach is collateralization!" ?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ahtihn 4y ago
  > that something interesting, like approaches using pure mathematics, are more auditable and, in the short- and perhaps long-term, more stable What approaches? Do you know of a known approach that isn't flawed in some way? Until proven otherwise, you can't create a stable coin with "pure mathematics".
  - jMyles 4y ago
    Obviously your comment is a sideways jab at DAI. But why? What's the problem? That it hasn't been able to scale? Or something? DAI is imperfect, but I think it's a sincere effort. It hasn't scammed anybody and doesn't appear capable of doing so. And more and better efforts will follow.
tinco 4y ago
You get it slightly wrong, the problem isn't that they're interesting. The problem is that they're marketed to be profitable. The most interesting stable coin is DAI. It's not particularly profitable, and it's stable and it will be stable no matter what.

What proof do you need that collateralization, replete with shady or non-existent audits, is not a source of stability, and that something interesting, like approaches using pure mathematics, are more auditable and, in the short- and perhaps long-term, more stable? The dream collateralized stablecoin, audited in some transparent way, is still vulnerable to a good old fashioned heist. The gatekeeping of all projects that don't see the bank vault as the holy grail of community economics feels unbecoming of HN to me. This is creativity and science at work. Again, I understand that, in addition to sincere efforts to find an algorithmic solution, we get ponzi scum peddling their things. I don't understand why people buy those, and that's an element of human nature we can hopefully overcome as this process goes on. But you're watching collateralized coins fail, and your response is, "the only valid approach is collateralization!" ?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ahtihn 4y ago
> that something interesting, like approaches using pure mathematics, are more auditable and, in the short- and perhaps long-term, more stable What approaches? Do you know of a known approach that isn't flawed in some way? Until proven otherwise, you can't create a stable coin with "pure mathematics".
- jMyles 4y ago
  Obviously your comment is a sideways jab at DAI. But why? What's the problem? That it hasn't been able to scale? Or something? DAI is imperfect, but I think it's a sincere effort. It hasn't scammed anybody and doesn't appear capable of doing so. And more and better efforts will follow.

tinco 4y ago

You get it slightly wrong, the problem isn't that they're interesting. The problem is that they're marketed to be profitable. The most interesting stable coin is DAI. It's not particularly profitable, and it's stable and it will be stable no matter what.