7 ms·
Exactly. A 'stablecoin' that is regulation-compliant is undistinguishable from a bank.
by lottin 1y ago
Exactly. A 'stablecoin' that is regulation-compliant is undistinguishable from a bank.
- drexlspivey 1y agoExcept you can send payments with an http request
- zaik 1y agoA bank could easily provide such an API without any need for a new coin.
- solumos 1y agoDoes that API support sending $50 to my unbanked aunt in Mexico?
- baq 1y agoDoes Tether?
- arccy 1y agonoone reputable would want to touch Tether and their anti-regulation stance.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sethhochberg 1y agoI'm curious though, what would she do with that crypto once she had it? Presumably she'd need to exchange it for cash since retail acceptance of crypto is pretty low, and the local exchange place that takes WhateverStablecoin and hands out cash is going to take some commission. And at that point it seems like we've just reinvented Western Union or Moneygram. In your view is the advantage of the hypothetical stablecoin way of doing this that it exists outside of the money-transfer provider ecosystem until its actually exchanged?
- conception 1y agoWestern Union exists, yes.
- wbl 1y agoOr $10,000 to my flexibly financed uncle in Bogota?
- kurthr 1y agoWell, if you're big enough to be TBTF, then you can lever up stablecoin risk because you know you'll be bailed out after they let the little guys tank.
- ETH_start 1y agoThis is nothing more than a trope to absolve government of its responsibility for worsening people's lives. The government imposes massive fines on huge banks, when they are found to have inadvertently banked criminals. And by criminals I don't mean people who were convicted of a crime. Just people a regulatory agency alleged — at some point in time after the bank serviced them — are criminals. So what banks do is become increasingly paranoid about who they will they bank, meaning anyone who falls into the "high risk" category, is extrajudicially punished through systemically high risks of being debanked. In this way, the state can punish certain groups without due process.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoExcept that you can do FX and global transfers much more quickly and easily.
- glitchc 1y agoNah, most banks globally have a mechanism to send and receive USD. That's sufficient for all use-cases.
- solumos 1y ago> mechanism The mechanism often involves correspondent banks, and is generally pretty expensive ($25-$65). For scale, we’re talking about transfer fees measured in cents with stablecoins.
- glitchc 1y agoAll of the cost is tied to compliance. A Swift message costs pennies, it's the due diligence behind it that banks charge for. Stablecoins will not change the compliance requirements
- MichaelZuo 1y agoHas anyone ever provided an argument against this? I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce.
- x-complexity 1y ago> > All of the cost is tied to compliance. A Swift message costs pennies, it's the due diligence behind it that banks charge for. Stablecoins will not change the compliance requirements. > I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce. Taking the statement literally as-is: Yes, a strictly > 0 amount of overhead is required to perform said compliance activities. But the overhead similarly can *never* be 100% of the money being transferred over. And right now, the transfer costs have only ever been shown to grow, and never shrink in isolation. They only shrink when a new competitor comes in to provide said service, which has rarely ever happened because of said regulations that progressively saddle them with more requirements. ------ > I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce. Interpreting this emotionally: You're leaving out the implicitly-made conclusion that most pro-crypto people will make: That the current banking system *has* to be accepted as-is, useless systems & fee-draining & all that jazz, *and* that they should just take it. You've already lost all attempts to convince them with that rhetoric. By not putting in more clarifying statements, the gaps have been filled in with the negative implications that will turn them away from supporting your view. It will be seen by pro-crypto people as own-side points scoring.
- kiitos 1y agoRegulation-compliance is kind of a requirement for, well, everything, stablecoin or otherwise, so not really sure what the point is here...
- conception 1y agoStablecoins don’t need to have proof of reserves or any other normal regulatory requirements banks have.
- hoppp 1y agoCircle has proof of reserves, fully regulated and I can use USDC like a regular ERC20, so I think they want the same.
- kiitos 1y agoFull attestation doesn't guarantee stable 1-to-1 valuation, even with all of those things USDC isn't equivalent to 1USD and treating it as if it were carries risk.
- hoppp 1y agoDefinitely,but the Us dollar also carries risk so really there are no risk free assets.
- kiitos 1y agoI mean, in the absolute sense, sure, but the "risk" carried by USD is a categorically different, exponentially smaller thing than the "risk" associated with any stable coin. They're not really comparable.