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?
I've tried to talk some sense into the Kollider/stablesats guys but they wouldn't listen.

A side chain is L2. As far as I get it, RGB is kind of a sidechain anyway except it wants you to say "single use sigil signers" instead of "block validators".
At some point the demand for the stablecoin exceeds the supply of BTC/ETH that people are willing to provide as backing
Well, let's see how the experiment MoC is already making with DoC and BTCx... Perhaps the fact that the reward to BTCx holders increases when the demand for DoC does, that could balance out nicely, and perhaps that approach has a chance to work.
A side chain is L2. As far as I get it
Well, as I understand, a side chain always requires its own token and a peg-in/peg-out mechanism, whereas a layer 2 doesn't. That's the reason why I said (believe) that a layer 2, like LN, or a layer 2/3, like RGB, are "closer" to BTC, but I may be wrong.
reply
Well, let's see, but I don't expect increased rewards to do much. Bitcoiners are usually not that much into DeFi stuff (see also the self-destruction of renBTC).
OK I see what you mean now. This is a giant mess as Liquid calls itself an L2 (example: buildonl2.com) but the drivechain guy refuses to even say that Liquid is a sidechain. I underestimated RGB it seems.
reply
I don't think we were discussing bitcoiners here, but stable coins and the rest of the people needs for them. Bitcoiners aren't much into DeFi, of course, but some other people as they might need a stable value for their day to day transactions, they might also be interested into being a counterpart for them and to stack some sats while doing that.
renBTC is a joke running on top of a PoS (that stands for piece of shit, doesn't it?) bigger joke, and it shouldn't be a surprise that it destroys itself or that SBF and friends (or any other) do it at some point. :-)
I wouldn't call Liquid a level 2. I don't know much about it, because from the little I've seen and hear, I haven't really liked much of it and I haven't made any effort to further understand it.
RGB, on the other hand, is a true level 2 (on top of BTC) and 3 (on top of LN), and has nothing to do with side chains, thus not requiring any native token other than BTC and sats, although it can provide the issue of other tokens, as part of its functionality. RGB is a complex system, and I still have a lot to learn about it, but I really think it's worth the effort, unlike Liquid (of course I might be wrong about Liquid).
reply
deleted by author
reply
Probably, but who'd use it right away? A digital version of the USD or the EUR backed by Bitcoin would be much easier to understand and faster to adopt for many people, I guess, as a first step into going full BTC later.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Yes, probably, but as I said, a majority of people would understand much easier and would be more prepared to adopt something called Dollar-on-Chain, or something similar with a familiarity with a currency they already know, rather than something called stablesats. Of course most users won't probably care about how something is achieved and focus on the results, therefore I think they'll be more likely to go for a stable synthetic dollar (or euro) rather than a estable BTC part.
reply