Conversation

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.

220

9:37 AM · May 12, 2022Twitter Web App

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

Replying to

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.

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.

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.

730

Replying to

Would like to send you a proposal for an energies,retail convinience and logistics conglomerate in subsaharan Africa 🙏🙏

Replying to

and

1b+ is nothing, the Q is what if 30b+ is redeemd?

Replying to

and

The Q is why 30b+ is redeemed? They could be sold on the market. Like today $190b trading volume of USDt. This Q is indeed what exactly U in the FUD stands for.

Show replies

@MoPfl_

Replying to