3 ms·
I've yet to understand the argument often made that we need a stablecoin to replace fiat for faster or safer transactions. US banks already create money out of
by _heimdall 1y ago
I've yet to understand the argument often made that we need a stablecoin to replace fiat for faster or safer transactions.
US banks already create money out of thin air and a vast majority of that money only exists in a database. If they want it faster they could just do that.
- XorNot 1y agoBecause cryptobros desperately need a legitimate reason crypto is the future, and thus valuable, and definitely not a round of tulipmania.
- _heimdall 1y agoThe argument isn't only made by cryptobros though. Banks seem to be pointing at the same need and I just don't see why. At best it gets around regulation if a stablecoin isn't treated the same as fiat. With either, though, a bank can already create and give out whatever they want and track it in a database (all be it a more standard db and not a blockchain or public ledger).
- XorNot 1y agoBanks are run by finance people with a profit incentive. They're susceptible to trends - see subprime lending and CDOs in 2008 where even the big boys who knew it was a bad idea eventually started doing it.
- _heimdall 1y agoThat still doesn't do it for me though. Banks in the US are somewhere between a legally protected monopoly and a racket. They would only make more money if they can charge higher fees or convince the economy as a whole to make more or larger transactions. If banks could do either of those with a stablecoin they could do it with USD, which again is effectively a stablecoin that lives in the banks' private databases.