BTC-maximalist perspective: atomic swaps to exchange "local" stablecoins via LN; BTC as foundational reserve.
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.
-
The Golden idea is designing the game theory of the system so that speculators, investors and the chain itself has interests to protect the peg... It’s all about Schelling points.
-
I think that's the applicable framework as well. I would find it interesting if, in your blog post, you can go into detail about how you see the low-level mechanics panning out (plus scenario-analysis, if relevant).
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
She can’t use Bitcoin today to save her salary 6 months into the future with probabilistically strong certainty
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.