pull down to refresh
347 sats \ 7 replies \ @om OP 30 Dec 2022 \ on: Fiatjaf asks the right questions about stablecoins bitcoin
My answer: yes but not on L1. Taro is an abomination because in case of a fork Tether or Circle would have power to decide the winner (as it arguably is already the case with Ethereum).
There's Liquid exactly for playing with toys like that, anything bigger is an overkill for inherently centralized stablecoins. For example, BUSD doesn't deserve a chain more secure and decentralized than BSC because they will probably die on the same day anyway.
I think USDT-denominated LN over Liquid would be nice. Do we want to leave USDT LN to the Raiden guys?
This is a great point about a stablecoin issuer "backing" a fork. A possible way around it is using contracts to stablize sats. HRF actually has a bounty out for this.
reply
I have written my concerns about this in another comment, I'll paste it here:
The problem with Bitcoin-backed stablecoins is that Ethereans already tried Ether-backed stablecoins and failed, and the problem is not specific to Ether.At some point the demand for the stablecoin exceeds the supply of BTC/ETH that people are willing to provide as backing, and at that point you have to either find some other backing or depeg. DAI chose the former and is now about 50% backed with USDC. But if Circle can destroy your stablecoin with a press of a button, wouldn't it make more sense to just use USDC directly?
reply
I'm not sure if that was the reason for the switch, as much as ETH's volitility;
(Article explains that DAI, which, at the time was only using ETH and BAT, chose to add a third asset, USDC following "black Thursday" (March 12, 2020), where the price of eth dropped 30% in one day.)
But yeah, Circle can kill DAI, so "defi" using DAI has the same problems of defi using usdc, which wasn't the case once. Add to that the controversial choice to custody the USDC with Coinbase (a few days before the founder was found dead) and you have a centrally held asset that can be seized by both its custodian and the issuer of one of its main collaterals, not to mention the fact that both Coinbase and Circle operate primarily in the US. There are a few trusted third parties that ALL must 'give the green light' for a DAI transaction to work.
reply
Is this how Kollider create their “synthetic stable” balances. Could they claim the bounty?
reply
You idiots! There's no such thing as stable.
So any and all efforts to try to create such a mythical beast will always fail without exception.
Just hold self custody BTC on chain.
Imagine when everybody figures this out. There's only 21 million BTC for 8 billion people.
Stop getting distracted.
reply
I'm not sure how you would read that reply as a pro-stable reply, the entire point is how many third parties could stop it.
reply
I was just piling onto your point.
reply