4 ms·

Relevant note: 8% ($3.3B) of it was backed by deposits in SVB. The extent of the lack of trust here (resulting in such a strong depeg) is interesting. [0]: ht

• differentView 4y ago
  Luckily, it's now 0%. /s
  • jacooper 4y ago
    I imagine if they just said we had 8% of our reserves in SVB, now we have none. It would probably be interpreted as they didn't lose money and no body would notice.
• schemescape 4y ago
  Yeah, it seems like the SVB reserves are being treated as lost, even though my understanding is that most of the uninsured deposits should be returned (it’s not like SVB was a scam—they had substantial assets, even if not quite enough). This is the most tempted I’ve been to buy a stablecoin, but I will stay on the sidelines and just watch this one. Edit to clarify: USDC seems like one of the most “above board” stablecoins, but I’m still extremely skeptical stablecoins generally, given their collective history. Edit: one issue I see is that, given herd mentality and skittishness, it is possible that > 90% of USDC gets withdrawn quickly enough that you could get left holding the bag. Even if USDC is 99% backed, that doesn’t help if you’re left with the last 1% of it (unless the backing company decides to make you whole, at their own loss). I could see that scenario playing out in the crypto world, so I’m happy with my decision to stay away.