This mental framework seems unnecessarily / impractically binary.
Also above you said “There might never be a real need for them in the first place” :) Which is provably wrong. My aunt in rural post-USSR with low shit fiat salary & no access to dollar or sophisticated low-risk financial instruments, would love access to a stable store of value.
-
-
That point is contingent on the premise that current solutions will minimize the hypothetical competitive advantages of stablecoins. Your aunt would get access to stable SoV from current solutions.
-
Here is my problem with this. If you look at existing, fixed-supply coins as a “product”, then it’s only a good SoV after it’s already huge (3T+?) ... u feel me? Stablecoins (assuming they work) can offer stability even at 50million mcap. The promise is crazy.
-
Are you distinguishing here between seignorage and collateralized coins or generally referring to both?
-
Whichever works. Non-collateralized is more badass. All money is social consensus.
-
Non-collateralized is definitely the scalable approach. Why do you think it is immediately a SoV, even a tiny mc? Imo only collateralized seems to have the appropriate framework for that objective.
-
Assuming it works and is more or less stable right off the bat (I know, big if), it provides the “user” the “product” of stability immediately irregardless of its market cap (in theory). Bitcoin is only reliable after trillions...
-
What I’m saying is, BTC will only be SoV after massive adoption, whilst a functional stablecoin is a SoV immediately.
-
Agree with that. And, again, also on the hypothetical value prop of stablecoins. But I’m trying to better understand how they will happen, not why.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.