3 ms·

Yes, stable-coins do. But if you have a crypto where the entire point seems to be "it should be worth more tomorrow than today", then it is stupid to use it to

Yes, stable-coins do. But if you have a crypto where the entire point seems to be "it should be worth more tomorrow than today", then it is stupid to use it to transact in rather than to hoard. On the other hand, stable-coins suffer the same problems as visa. They're centralised, and subject to zealous regulations.

mritterhoff 1y ago
I expect my index funds to be worth more tomorrow than today (on average), but still manage to pay for things with USD. If buying, selling and transacting fees are low enough, I don't see why bitcoin's (to pick one) value changes would matter much.
- munksbeer 1y ago
  Well that's the point isn't it? You don't buy an index fund in order to transact in it. On-ramp has costs, then transaction has costs. And in my country at least, selling crypto (which is what you're doing when you buy something with it) is a taxable transaction. So now I have to keep all my transactions and report them to HMRC each year if I do that. It's not going to happen. If people wanted to transact in crypto, they'd be doing it by now, it has had more than enough time.
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    Well, people do transact in crypto, especially in sectors that face censorship from payment processors, like the currently mentioned Japanese porn games.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      I pay my VOIP bill in crypto. It's just easier and I usually pay a year or two at a time. I've had to pay my DNS registration in crypto from time to time too. I don't know why but sometimes the anti-fraud AI at the bank gets triggered by my DNS provider and that's literally the only method I have for paying them.
boredhedgehog 1y ago
> They're centralised, and subject to zealous regulations. The currency wouldn't have to meet any particular definition of a stablecoin as long as it is inflationary. It could be exactly like Bitcoin but with a different mining algorithm.
saurik 1y ago
If there merely exists anything which is more valuable tomorrow than today, it is also equally "stupid" to have cash instead of whatever that thing is... and like, that isn't even theoretical: you are generally encouraged to hold more random assets than cash (if you are allowed to and if you can handle the volatility, of course). The reality is that, even if the stocks you own are going to the moon, if you need food or want a television, it isn't at all "stupid" to sell some of your hoard to buy stuff.
x-complexity 1y ago
> On the other hand, stable-coins suffer the same problems as visa. They're centralised, and subject to zealous regulations. Not all stablecoins are the same. There exists 2 main categories: Fiat-backed (as initially described), & collateral-backed. (There also exists hybrid versions, but they're a combination of the 2, and as such will be covered by just mashing the 2 categories together.) Fiat-backed stablecoins (USDC, USDT) are centralized: Their connection to external cash/bonds requires them to have an accountable name to be attached to. Collateral-backed stablecoins (GHO, DAI/USDS) don't have to be centralized. A primitive form of this is a stablecoin (S) that can take in any other token as collateral and return $X amount of S stablecoins, up to a limit of (total_token_value * collateral_limit). However, it is known that this structure is inefficient capital-wise, when compared to fiat-backed stablecoins.

mritterhoff 1y ago

I expect my index funds to be worth more tomorrow than today (on average), but still manage to pay for things with USD. If buying, selling and transacting fees are low enough, I don't see why bitcoin's (to pick one) value changes would matter much.

munksbeer 1y ago
Well that's the point isn't it? You don't buy an index fund in order to transact in it. On-ramp has costs, then transaction has costs. And in my country at least, selling crypto (which is what you're doing when you buy something with it) is a taxable transaction. So now I have to keep all my transactions and report them to HMRC each year if I do that. It's not going to happen. If people wanted to transact in crypto, they'd be doing it by now, it has had more than enough time.
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  Well, people do transact in crypto, especially in sectors that face censorship from payment processors, like the currently mentioned Japanese porn games.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    I pay my VOIP bill in crypto. It's just easier and I usually pay a year or two at a time. I've had to pay my DNS registration in crypto from time to time too. I don't know why but sometimes the anti-fraud AI at the bank gets triggered by my DNS provider and that's literally the only method I have for paying them.

boredhedgehog 1y ago

> They're centralised, and subject to zealous regulations. The currency wouldn't have to meet any particular definition of a stablecoin as long as it is inflationary. It could be exactly like Bitcoin but with a different mining algorithm.

saurik 1y ago

If there merely exists anything which is more valuable tomorrow than today, it is also equally "stupid" to have cash instead of whatever that thing is... and like, that isn't even theoretical: you are generally encouraged to hold more random assets than cash (if you are allowed to and if you can handle the volatility, of course). The reality is that, even if the stocks you own are going to the moon, if you need food or want a television, it isn't at all "stupid" to sell some of your hoard to buy stuff.

x-complexity 1y ago

> On the other hand, stable-coins suffer the same problems as visa. They're centralised, and subject to zealous regulations. Not all stablecoins are the same. There exists 2 main categories: Fiat-backed (as initially described), & collateral-backed. (There also exists hybrid versions, but they're a combination of the 2, and as such will be covered by just mashing the 2 categories together.) Fiat-backed stablecoins (USDC, USDT) are centralized: Their connection to external cash/bonds requires them to have an accountable name to be attached to. Collateral-backed stablecoins (GHO, DAI/USDS) don't have to be centralized. A primitive form of this is a stablecoin (S) that can take in any other token as collateral and return $X amount of S stablecoins, up to a limit of (total_token_value * collateral_limit). However, it is known that this structure is inefficient capital-wise, when compared to fiat-backed stablecoins.