4 ms·

> The approximate aggregate risk-cost of major (top 10) stablecoins is somewhere south of .001% per day, and is better than the aggregate risk-cost of national

> The approximate aggregate risk-cost of major (top 10) stablecoins is somewhere south of .001% per day, and is better than the aggregate risk-cost of national fiat currencies This thinking is dangerous and stupid. Learn from history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday This "stablecoin" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up. Fixing exchange rates is folly, yet here we go again...

K0balt 1y ago
Why would I care if a stablecoin blows up? My payment cost allocation more than compensates for that possibility and my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.
- jcalvinowens 1y ago
  > my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized. Please elaborate :)
  - K0balt 1y ago
    My theoretical potential losses compared to the costs of the payment processsors I ditched, and the chargebacks we used to deal with. International payment processing is quite expensive, both on a teansaction and on an administrative basis. My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing overhead, without counting fraudulent chargebacks and “we are going to freeze your account because we can” risks. FWIW in the last 60 years I have lost way more money to fraud and theft dealing with banks and cash then I ever will using cryptocurrency. On a total, or a percentage basis. I see the risk profile, when properly managed, to be much, much lower using blockchain solutions.
    - jcalvinowens 1y ago
      > My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing Okay, yes: what you're describing is the actual utility of these things. I think you underestimate how many people dealing in them are using them much less intelligently than you are. They are being marketed in an extremely dishonest way, as a safe long term store of value. I regularly overhear normal people at my local bars talking about how they're "investing big in stablecoins" and it terrifies me.
K0balt 1y ago
>>This "government issued fiat currency" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up. What you are saying is a risk endemic to all fiat currencies, including stablecoins. All symbolically represented forms of value quantization are subject to a failure of confidence. Cryptocurrencies are nothing new in this regard. All money is memetic in nature.
- jcalvinowens 1y ago
  That's like saying "base jumping isn't really more dangerous than flying commercial, after all we're all going to die anyway". Fiat currencies have militaries. Your stablecoin doesn't.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    That’s one of the reason the stablecoins won’t be taking my assets? Idk what your point is but it doesn’t seem like you are debating from a point of rational examination. Weird, people on the internet spewing BS? Who’d have thought?
    - jcalvinowens 1y ago
      Well, losing three months of revenue is going to really hurt when the stablecoin inevitably eats shit: hope you're prepared for that. The risk is obviously lower because you aren't parking money there. I could certainly see how you might come out ahead in fees for certain international transactions. But your original claim was that the aggregate risk-cost of dealing in stablecoins is lower than real currencies, and that is absolutely preposterous: you aren't accounting for all the risks.

K0balt 1y ago

Why would I care if a stablecoin blows up? My payment cost allocation more than compensates for that possibility and my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.

jcalvinowens 1y ago
> my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized. Please elaborate :)
- K0balt 1y ago
  My theoretical potential losses compared to the costs of the payment processsors I ditched, and the chargebacks we used to deal with. International payment processing is quite expensive, both on a teansaction and on an administrative basis. My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing overhead, without counting fraudulent chargebacks and “we are going to freeze your account because we can” risks. FWIW in the last 60 years I have lost way more money to fraud and theft dealing with banks and cash then I ever will using cryptocurrency. On a total, or a percentage basis. I see the risk profile, when properly managed, to be much, much lower using blockchain solutions.
  - jcalvinowens 1y ago
    > My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing Okay, yes: what you're describing is the actual utility of these things. I think you underestimate how many people dealing in them are using them much less intelligently than you are. They are being marketed in an extremely dishonest way, as a safe long term store of value. I regularly overhear normal people at my local bars talking about how they're "investing big in stablecoins" and it terrifies me.

K0balt 1y ago

>>This "government issued fiat currency" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up. What you are saying is a risk endemic to all fiat currencies, including stablecoins. All symbolically represented forms of value quantization are subject to a failure of confidence. Cryptocurrencies are nothing new in this regard. All money is memetic in nature.

jcalvinowens 1y ago
That's like saying "base jumping isn't really more dangerous than flying commercial, after all we're all going to die anyway". Fiat currencies have militaries. Your stablecoin doesn't.
- K0balt 1y ago
  That’s one of the reason the stablecoins won’t be taking my assets? Idk what your point is but it doesn’t seem like you are debating from a point of rational examination. Weird, people on the internet spewing BS? Who’d have thought?
  - jcalvinowens 1y ago
    Well, losing three months of revenue is going to really hurt when the stablecoin inevitably eats shit: hope you're prepared for that. The risk is obviously lower because you aren't parking money there. I could certainly see how you might come out ahead in fees for certain international transactions. But your original claim was that the aggregate risk-cost of dealing in stablecoins is lower than real currencies, and that is absolutely preposterous: you aren't accounting for all the risks.