3 ms·

I was under the impression that they were asking for payment in stablecoins, not bitcoin? Did they change their mind?

Hendrikto 7mo ago
Given that 99% of stablecoins are USD-denominated, and that the vast, vast majority of those are custodial, Bitcoin makes much more sense for Iran.
- Pay08 7mo ago
  With Iran's hyperinflation, why wouldn't USD make sense?
  - ultrattronic 7mo ago
    I think they’re kinda mad at the US at the moment
    - Pay08 7mo ago
      They're risking another January-like protest if they don't stabilise their economy.
  - surgical_fire 7mo ago
    I think they don't want strengthen USD, nor risk having their assets frozen by sanctions.
  - bryceneal 7mo ago
    To add more context to what I believe the parent commenter was referring to, the vast majority of USD stablecoins are custodial, meaning the funds can be frozen arbitrarily at any time by the custodian (i.e. Circle). This is why when cyberthreat actors steal millions in USD stablecoins by hacking a protocol or a large wallet, the very first thing they do is convert those stablecoins to something else.
wslh 7mo ago
That would be very risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized.
vunderba 7mo ago
I’ve heard a lot of discussion about them accepting payments in Chinese yuan. I wonder if there’s a stablecoin pegged to it.
- skippyboxedhero 7mo ago
  China issued a stable coin about five years ago. It is used for all retail payments (I believe, small value, payments for govt employee salaries, etc). Somewhat bizarrely, it is significantly more privacy-protecting than payments in the West. Quite funny to read comments from people asking what use is crypto. Can tell they have probably never left West Virgina. Don't think it would be that useful for Iran though as they are already RMB earners, and RMB financial markets are still a bit questionable (there is depth, I don't think anyone knows why this depth exists or what it is actually for, just state-linked banks moving paper between themselves furiously).
- dragonelite 7mo ago
  Yeah pretty since the start of the conflict there was talk of companies could use Chinese yuan to get an pass through. It also makes more sense they would use the Chinese yuan the West can track or block those transactions. Not only that the Chinese Yuan is probably more interesting given they can buy more things with it from China things like consumer tech/products, chemicals and rare earths for weapon systems etc.
- sunshine-o 7mo ago
  Tether has one on ethereum but same problem if the US gov tell tether to whip their address it is game over. China has probably one on another blockchain but I am not sure how easy it is to exit their ecosystem or convert it to anything else...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
arduanika 7mo ago
No. Welcome to the petrobitcoin economy. Edit: Piecing together from other comments, it sounds like these tolls are denominated in USD ($1 per barrel), but as an implementation detail, they're charging in BTC as the instrument of choice, not a stablecoin. They phrase the tolls in USD "so the price is stable", and since the whole transaction is quick, BTC entails "just a small carry risk while holding". They sidestep the stablecoin technology, which is "risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized." The latter comment was downvoted, possibly for paranoia, but Iran can't afford not to be paranoid. The major stablecoins at least claim to be custodied in Western institutions in a quasi-compliant-ish manner. If the USG started strong-arming Cantor, and so forth, who knows where that would end. Iran would much rather live with a tiny taste of BTC price volatility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691369 So my read of this is: - Iran is threading the needle, working within the limited options they have in a US-dominated world economy. - The death of the petrodollar is slightly exaggerated here, although it's a small symbolic step, and obviously the broader war is going to have implications for US hegemony.
sunshine-o 7mo ago
I believe the only stablecoin that is "uncensorable" is the old MakerDAO DAI (pegged to USD with vaults overcollaterised with other tokens). Not sure if there is a lot of liquidity left. Its successor USDS has implemented all the mechanisms to censor some addresses but if I remember correctly this hasn't been activated yet. All the other ones: USDC, USDT, EURC and the ruble one can be whipped out easily. So more risky for them than good old dollars. Please correct me if I missed something.
- littlecranky67 7mo ago
  You can issue any stablecoin via bitcoins taproot asset protocol. Transfer even over lightning. Thus it is uncensorable. USDT has this enabled.
  - sunshine-o 7mo ago
    Indeed, very interesting ! Apparently it is very recent [0] Now I am still wondering, does the taproot asset protocol make it really uncensorable? because on Ethereum an address can be blacklisted by Tether and the USDT frozen (through the ERC20 contract I believe). And I would be a bit surprise that Tether, which is more and more integrated and compliant with regulations, would start minting USDT on a system that doesn't have an asset freezing mechanism... - [0] https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/03-31-2026-tether-reintroduces-usdt-to-bitcoin-via-taproot-assets-307580926568145 https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/03-31-2026-tether-rei...
    - littlecranky67 7mo ago
      I am not deep enough into the tech complexity, but AFAIK the token on TAP is traceable by the owner, just as bitcoin is. While not on-chain, the proof file that the new owner gets during transfer includes the full history and lineage of that token. I.e. the moment you want to exchange the stablecoin token for the underlying asset (being it fiat USD, gold or whatnot) the stablecoin issuer can refuse to do that exchange for whatever grounds they have - probably based on regulation. So if a sanctioned entity (russia, iran) owned that token before, it is in the history and the stablecoin issuer can refuse to swap. BUT: Good luck tying the public keys to real-world entities like russian goverment. Other than on-chain with bitcoin, you would only revel the public key if you traded with that entity, and are part of the lineage. The keys are not revealed to the entire world. Plus, this also does not prevent fungibility of the token, you can still transfer the token to whatever other wallet you like, selling it to someone who does not care/check if it is tainted.

Given that 99% of stablecoins are USD-denominated, and that the vast, vast majority of those are custodial, Bitcoin makes much more sense for Iran.

Pay08 7mo ago
With Iran's hyperinflation, why wouldn't USD make sense?
- ultrattronic 7mo ago
  I think they’re kinda mad at the US at the moment
  - Pay08 7mo ago
    They're risking another January-like protest if they don't stabilise their economy.
- surgical_fire 7mo ago
  I think they don't want strengthen USD, nor risk having their assets frozen by sanctions.
- bryceneal 7mo ago
  To add more context to what I believe the parent commenter was referring to, the vast majority of USD stablecoins are custodial, meaning the funds can be frozen arbitrarily at any time by the custodian (i.e. Circle). This is why when cyberthreat actors steal millions in USD stablecoins by hacking a protocol or a large wallet, the very first thing they do is convert those stablecoins to something else.

wslh 7mo ago

That would be very risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized.

vunderba 7mo ago

I’ve heard a lot of discussion about them accepting payments in Chinese yuan. I wonder if there’s a stablecoin pegged to it.

skippyboxedhero 7mo ago
China issued a stable coin about five years ago. It is used for all retail payments (I believe, small value, payments for govt employee salaries, etc). Somewhat bizarrely, it is significantly more privacy-protecting than payments in the West. Quite funny to read comments from people asking what use is crypto. Can tell they have probably never left West Virgina. Don't think it would be that useful for Iran though as they are already RMB earners, and RMB financial markets are still a bit questionable (there is depth, I don't think anyone knows why this depth exists or what it is actually for, just state-linked banks moving paper between themselves furiously).
dragonelite 7mo ago
Yeah pretty since the start of the conflict there was talk of companies could use Chinese yuan to get an pass through. It also makes more sense they would use the Chinese yuan the West can track or block those transactions. Not only that the Chinese Yuan is probably more interesting given they can buy more things with it from China things like consumer tech/products, chemicals and rare earths for weapon systems etc.
sunshine-o 7mo ago
Tether has one on ethereum but same problem if the US gov tell tether to whip their address it is game over. China has probably one on another blockchain but I am not sure how easy it is to exit their ecosystem or convert it to anything else...
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

arduanika 7mo ago

No. Welcome to the petrobitcoin economy. Edit: Piecing together from other comments, it sounds like these tolls are denominated in USD ($1 per barrel), but as an implementation detail, they're charging in BTC as the instrument of choice, not a stablecoin. They phrase the tolls in USD "so the price is stable", and since the whole transaction is quick, BTC entails "just a small carry risk while holding". They sidestep the stablecoin technology, which is "risky for Iran because the top stablecoins could be freezed. They are centralized." The latter comment was downvoted, possibly for paranoia, but Iran can't afford not to be paranoid. The major stablecoins at least claim to be custodied in Western institutions in a quasi-compliant-ish manner. If the USG started strong-arming Cantor, and so forth, who knows where that would end. Iran would much rather live with a tiny taste of BTC price volatility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691369 So my read of this is: - Iran is threading the needle, working within the limited options they have in a US-dominated world economy. - The death of the petrodollar is slightly exaggerated here, although it's a small symbolic step, and obviously the broader war is going to have implications for US hegemony.

sunshine-o 7mo ago

I believe the only stablecoin that is "uncensorable" is the old MakerDAO DAI (pegged to USD with vaults overcollaterised with other tokens). Not sure if there is a lot of liquidity left. Its successor USDS has implemented all the mechanisms to censor some addresses but if I remember correctly this hasn't been activated yet. All the other ones: USDC, USDT, EURC and the ruble one can be whipped out easily. So more risky for them than good old dollars. Please correct me if I missed something.

littlecranky67 7mo ago
You can issue any stablecoin via bitcoins taproot asset protocol. Transfer even over lightning. Thus it is uncensorable. USDT has this enabled.
- sunshine-o 7mo ago
  Indeed, very interesting ! Apparently it is very recent [0] Now I am still wondering, does the taproot asset protocol make it really uncensorable? because on Ethereum an address can be blacklisted by Tether and the USDT frozen (through the ERC20 contract I believe). And I would be a bit surprise that Tether, which is more and more integrated and compliant with regulations, would start minting USDT on a system that doesn't have an asset freezing mechanism... - [0] https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/03-31-2026-tether-reintroduces-usdt-to-bitcoin-via-taproot-assets-307580926568145 https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/03-31-2026-tether-rei...
  - littlecranky67 7mo ago
    I am not deep enough into the tech complexity, but AFAIK the token on TAP is traceable by the owner, just as bitcoin is. While not on-chain, the proof file that the new owner gets during transfer includes the full history and lineage of that token. I.e. the moment you want to exchange the stablecoin token for the underlying asset (being it fiat USD, gold or whatnot) the stablecoin issuer can refuse to do that exchange for whatever grounds they have - probably based on regulation. So if a sanctioned entity (russia, iran) owned that token before, it is in the history and the stablecoin issuer can refuse to swap. BUT: Good luck tying the public keys to real-world entities like russian goverment. Other than on-chain with bitcoin, you would only revel the public key if you traded with that entity, and are part of the lineage. The keys are not revealed to the entire world. Plus, this also does not prevent fungibility of the token, you can still transfer the token to whatever other wallet you like, selling it to someone who does not care/check if it is tainted.