3 ms·

Visa is a tiny little middleman compared to a Federal Reserve, however crazy that may sound. Visa is a) only one of similar middleman, b) it has no power over b

by Yizahi 1y ago

Visa is a tiny little middleman compared to a Federal Reserve, however crazy that may sound. Visa is a) only one of similar middleman, b) it has no power over bank accounts or any other entity holding USD, it's only involved during a transaction. In fact, I could probably survive without touching Visa/MC for a long time (and without touching their Chinese or other alternatives). I can for example wire money from bank acc to bank acc directly and people can self organize to do that at scale and not involve a proxy. It's just won't be as convenient, no cards, no card terminals etc. There are multiple proto alternatives too, for example BLIK in Poland. EU has pretty robust bank system. All that text above is just underscore this - a future Fed owned token would be on a completely different level of control. Cross border control too. Regarding alternative token systems - a) outside of maybe 2-5 tokens all others won't be adopted and die out (unless enforced in a totalitarian way), b) the survivors will share the same traits, copied from one to another, after all they will be controlled by the same orgs - central banks. And finally - no, you won't be able to sell tokens to money. Only if the owner of all tokens (a central bank) will graciously allow it. For example in the pilot in my country it did not. Thinking logically - if token system is created to restrict freedoms and bring more control to the govt, why would that govt allow "exiting" this new system? Everyone who cares and all potential targets will sell this token and go back to using money. So of course any bridges will be either heavily restricted (for the inner circle, corrupt officials, oligarchs etc.) or won't be allowed at all from the start.

scyclow 1y ago
Again, not saying this is a totally crazy scenario, but you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system. Good luck using fedwire/swift without a bank. The difference is whether the rules are encoded in public infrastructure and are easy to see, or they're hidden within private systems and institutions. Also, you can always write wrapper coins for other stable coins that don't have any spending restrictions. And yeah, issuers can play whack-a-mole and ban those contracts. But at that point we're talking about a coin that no one would even recognize as money any more. Why would anyone use it? If they're already on the blockchain it would be a pretty seamless switch to just use the native token. And at the end of the day, if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD (as the legislation requires) then you can functionally spend your money with the same restrictions that are on your bank account anyhow.
- StackRanker3000 1y ago
  > you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system You’re handwaving this away. Just because something is theoretically possible, it doesn’t mean that it’s as likely to happen as something else that is order of magnitudes less complex (imposing the level of fine-grained control discussed in this thread on the existing system, versus building it in from the beginning in a new one). Friction and inertia matters in the context of preventing government overreach > Why would anyone use it? Because the government mandates it. Because the only employers that will hire you pay out wages in it. You can imagine many scenarios where individuals don’t have much of a choice. Which could be a reason for someone to want this idea to not catch on, lest the current system gets replaced by something worse. Cheerleaders and enthusiasts may take the opposite view > if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD Yes, if. And for how long? I’m not saying a motivated totalitarian regime controlling all levers of powers could necessarily be prevented from implementing their dystopia anyway, but we also don’t have to expedite technology that would make it significantly easier for them
  - scyclow 1y ago
    This is a very strange scenario you're describing where: a) the global economy has moved onto the blockchain; b) the government has repealed all the major points of the legislation that we were originally talking about; c) the government has also exhibited complete dictatorial control over the logic of the major stablecoins, and banned all of the functionality that makes them actually useful; d) people decide not to use the blockchain's native token to settle transactions for some reason. Remember, issuers want people to use stablecoins because they get to invest the funds in treasuries and hold onto the interest. If everything is blacklisted then no one will want to use them and the issuer won't make any money.

by Yizahi 1y ago

scyclow 1y ago

Again, not saying this is a totally crazy scenario, but you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system. Good luck using fedwire/swift without a bank. The difference is whether the rules are encoded in public infrastructure and are easy to see, or they're hidden within private systems and institutions. Also, you can always write wrapper coins for other stable coins that don't have any spending restrictions. And yeah, issuers can play whack-a-mole and ban those contracts. But at that point we're talking about a coin that no one would even recognize as money any more. Why would anyone use it? If they're already on the blockchain it would be a pretty seamless switch to just use the native token. And at the end of the day, if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD (as the legislation requires) then you can functionally spend your money with the same restrictions that are on your bank account anyhow.

StackRanker3000 1y ago
> you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system You’re handwaving this away. Just because something is theoretically possible, it doesn’t mean that it’s as likely to happen as something else that is order of magnitudes less complex (imposing the level of fine-grained control discussed in this thread on the existing system, versus building it in from the beginning in a new one). Friction and inertia matters in the context of preventing government overreach > Why would anyone use it? Because the government mandates it. Because the only employers that will hire you pay out wages in it. You can imagine many scenarios where individuals don’t have much of a choice. Which could be a reason for someone to want this idea to not catch on, lest the current system gets replaced by something worse. Cheerleaders and enthusiasts may take the opposite view > if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD Yes, if. And for how long? I’m not saying a motivated totalitarian regime controlling all levers of powers could necessarily be prevented from implementing their dystopia anyway, but we also don’t have to expedite technology that would make it significantly easier for them
- scyclow 1y ago
  This is a very strange scenario you're describing where: a) the global economy has moved onto the blockchain; b) the government has repealed all the major points of the legislation that we were originally talking about; c) the government has also exhibited complete dictatorial control over the logic of the major stablecoins, and banned all of the functionality that makes them actually useful; d) people decide not to use the blockchain's native token to settle transactions for some reason. Remember, issuers want people to use stablecoins because they get to invest the funds in treasuries and hold onto the interest. If everything is blacklisted then no one will want to use them and the issuer won't make any money.