OK so my philosophy on "algorithmic stablecoins"
1) sometimes their market cap goes up, which is cool I guess
2) the whole notion of a "stablecoin" that isn't backed by something you're confident will retain most of its value makes no sense
Conversation
Isn’t that the premise of the treasury mint and its bond market? Backed by the guarantee of a government that is too big to fail? A fiat system that has supported civilization of eons suddenly makes no sense? Wow. Such a sweeping statement
1
4
Replying to
I'm not saying unbacked coins make no sense -- as you point out they often work!
But they're not "algorithmic stablecoins" because they're not stablecoins. Their effective purchasing power moves around, and that's ok.
BTC is cool! It's not a stablecoin, though.
Does this look stable to you? This is the USD. Fiat isn't stable either, purchasing power has been decreasing for decades...$1 is not stable. IMHO.
The main problem of current algorithm stablecoins is some people receives them for free while others have to pay an arbitrary price like $1. It is impossible to reach long term consensus on its value. Current designs are more of competitive games.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies
Do you know competitive electricity price maintained the same purchasing power since 1960s. Far more stable than any fiat currency in the world.
