Leaving aside Naval's recent ZCash pumping, this is a good observation. Stablecoins exist at the whim of the state. I suppose everyone here probably agrees with this, but it's nice to hear it stated so cleanly.
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
Leaving aside Naval's recent ZCash pumping, this is a good observation. Stablecoins exist at the whim of the state. I suppose everyone here probably agrees with this, but it's nice to hear it stated so cleanly.
Those extra steps might be significant for legal challenges, though. "Private" companies can do lots of things governments aren't "allowed" to.
Indeed, but I do think many in crypto are hand waving these types of concerns away. The point really should be you are trusting a company or government vs. trusting the tech/network with bitcoin.
I had to check what he said about Zcash.
For a smart guy this is a dumb take
Yeah, feels like he's pumping his bags.
Mission majorly accomplished
Both types are trash. But CBDCs are way worse because they’re minted by the government.
The best form of CBDC/stablecoin would be a Chaumian token - like that used in Cashu - issued by the central bank. it would maximize privacy
Chaumian ecash works where the 'mint' (could be the central bank) digitally signs a bearer asset which is worth 1$ (or 1 euro or whatever). It has a serial number to avoid double-spending. The cool thing is that the mint (i.e. [central] bank) does not see the serial number when it's signing the bearer asset
The Bank of International Settlements had a pilot program using ecash for CBDC, called Tourbillion and there was a project in switzerland that was working on ecash without any connection to Bitcoin, but I can't find it now.
satoshi vision?
Sure, it's more appropriate to say stablecoins are just shitcoins with extra steps. Or even better, CBDCs are just shitcoins with extra kyc steps.
#1259056
Eh... They're indistinguishable from credit or bank notes... seemingly to front-run actual CBDC's like Europe and Chynah are implementing
Indeed. There is a difference. It all depends on your actual concerns about the two things.
I think the key differentiation is supply, a central bank is in complete control of supply/issuance with CBDC's, whereas stables are more elastic to accommodate economically driven credit expansion (and provide the dollar an off-ramp from the fed).
Yep, for sure.
Hardly! They are based upon real deposit.