My god... this sounds like when those ECB economists concluded that bitcoin succeeding is bad for society, bad for wealth distribution. Like... conflict of interest, anyone? #739591
Also, "exploited by criminals"? Do you have any idea of what criminals do with your fiat currency? In cash form, of course, but even more so in bank money form. #734216
The Bank for International Settlements said stablecoins fail the three main tests of any money because they are not backed by central banks, lack sufficient guardrails against illicit usage and do not have the flexibility of funding needed to generate loans.
First of all, really ridiculous because it's a Eddie Izzard argument ("do you have a flag?!"), or a "Says who? The people with gold" point. Only I get to decide what's money--my shit. No obvious conflict of intellectual interest if a central bank says only moneys backed by central banks can be money?
Second, "guardrails against illicit use."
Now you're just displaying your economic ignorance on full screen. If there is illicit use of stablecoins as money, then obviously they have good use as money! So the very fact that you think bad people are using it (wrongly) undermines your point that it can't be good money. More memes:
It's not great for your paternalistic, dominating, total-control panopticon shit, but that's a you-problem, as the kids say.
Next: look at this paragraph
Their creators boast that by transferring money over the internet, they are more efficient than international bank transfers. However, the fact that they can be held anonymously has made them popular with crypto traders and a conduit for crime including drug trafficking and money laundering.
Statement made: stablecoins are more efficient
Connector word "however" sets up a counterargument (as in: _meat is the healthiest food. However, the WHO says it's carcinogenic; implication = it's not healthy)... as in, the thing FOLLOWING "however" is in some sense supposed to undermine the first claim.
What does it say? it says Bad PeopleTM like to use the money, not that it isn't MORE EFFICIENT than established payment rails.
Which asshat of a retarded/incompetent editor allowed this shit to go through?
If your counterargument consists not of a rebuttal of the claim but a separate point, (which, as an aside, is less than irrelevant since it undermines the broader argument advanced but whatever...), you have already lost the plot, goddammit.
Then there's an internal "report" that concludes.... shockingly... that stablecoins are no good, that they "'fare poorly' in the settlement function of money due to their lack of backing by central banks, which act as lenders of last resort in a crisis."
they are legit pegged to your own money?? dollar stables are dollar-financing, with dollar-bank account... what would stablecoin holder even run on?! Tether?
My god, some people's brains just don't work, I swear to god.
Finally, yes I believe that is what's going on (hashtag bitcoin). Just don't think you lot will be part of that future. BYEEEE
Pathetic.
archive: https://archive.md/m7BES