Conversation

1) A good point someone brough up recently: really 'stablecoin' is used to mean multiple different things.
Quote Tweet
Just as the outside view skeptics predicted, during a large market move a stablecoin blew out. Just not the stablecoin they predicted. Which was predictable, if you knew the details. This isn't a comment about good vs bad--it's about how important it is to know the details!
Show this thread
Replying to
2) One thing it can mean is "stablecoin backed 1:1 by USD in a US bank account". That's what current drafts of US regulations are looking to license, as a first step.
10
220
3) Another is "stablecoin backed >= 1:1 by liquid debt assets, treasuries, and USD". Non-zero price risk, but generally they stay very close to $1 because they can be redeemed. E.g. USDT has stayed within a few % of $1 during this crash, and hearing $1b+ successfully redeemed
22
347
4) A third is "stablecoin backed >= 1:1 by a very volatile asset". Those are 'algorithmic' stablecoins. If the underlying crashes they can go down. A lot. e.g. UST.
Image
12
233
5) Really we shouldn't use the same word for all of these things. What we call 'algorithmic stablecoins' aren't really stable in the same way that fiat backed stablecoins are. They're more like structured products, and they need upside if they want to justify the risk.
53
487
6) This might not seem as important to people in crypto, because we already know that algo stablecoins are pretty different from fiat backed ones. But in the policy space, that message often gets lost. We need to be explicit about it.
57
730
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
Quote Tweet
Do we really need #StableCoin s? If we believe that Fiat is declining we should not try to peg ourselves to it. Even from the tax point of view a USD pegged stable coin can only be useful in the USA and in other parts of the world you need €, £, ¥, etc stable coins. I think the
Show this thread
1
Show replies