I think this is probably true. 

I'm curious if you see stable coins going away? They currently seem to be the favored approach of the suits. What is going to change this?

Perhaps it doesn't need to change. We who want to use Bitcoin will do so, while the rest of the world has their shitty 2 or 3% inflated annually stable cbdc coin. 

But I worry that Bitcoin will not be so useful as I hope of lots more people don't start accepting it in trade.

People and businesses that accept and use today any stablecoin, will be the ones that will accept CBDC in a blink of an eye, without questioning anything.

[![darth_cbdc_compliance.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/Kz3vS74B/darth_cbdc_compliance.jpg)](https://postimg.cc/Q9srcTQd)

Choose wisely with who you are dealing.

DarthCoin

https://twiiit.com/ArkLabsHQ/status/2031006474894455043

nitter

Stablecoins don't need another blockchain. They need a way to inherit the properties of the one that already won.

But I think tiero could have made the case stronger. It's essentially an argument against all the idiots who think blockchain is some magical thing that gives them special powers.

Tiero starts with a description of credit card flows:

Some argue this complexity [of credit card payment flows] is inherited from legacy intermediaries: chargebacks, settlement delays, correspondent banking. In reality most of it is structural. Authorization, holds, and conditional capture exist because commerce comes with conditions.

And the stablecoin solution to this seems to be...a new blockchain!

Modern blockchains were not necessarily optimized for payments. Yet every one of these projects assumes the answer is a new blockchain. New consensus mechanisms, new validator sets, new execution environments.

But tiero suggests that programmability is the solution, not "blockchain."

Fraud, dispute resolution and compliance checks don't disappear because the instrument is smarter. The question is whether those services are bundled into the network you depend on, or composed into the instrument on terms you define.

I can see a world where the major tradfi payment processors try to maintain their capture of customers by keeping them on their proprietary blockchain, but I suspect that this won't work very well. Part of what is going on here is that users want to be able to send money to anyone. The frustration of different pots of money will produce a lot of friction. If I've learned anything from researching Tether's success, its that they didn't try to keep people on one particular chain.

bitcoin

I like concept of this article:

> Stablecoins don't need another blockchain. They need a way to inherit the properties of the one that already won.

But I think tiero could have made the case stronger. It's essentially an argument against all the idiots who think blockchain is some magical thing that gives them special powers. 

Tiero starts with a description of credit card flows:

> Some argue this complexity [of credit card payment flows] is inherited from legacy intermediaries: chargebacks, settlement delays, correspondent banking. In reality most of it is structural. Authorization, holds, and conditional capture exist because commerce comes with conditions.

And the stablecoin solution to this seems to be...a new blockchain!

> Modern blockchains were not necessarily optimized for payments. Yet every one of these projects assumes the answer is a new blockchain. New consensus mechanisms, new validator sets, new execution environments.

But tiero suggests that programmability is the solution, not "blockchain."

> Fraud, dispute resolution and compliance checks don't disappear because the instrument is smarter. The question is whether those services are bundled into the network you depend on, or composed into the instrument on terms you define.

I can see a world where the major tradfi payment processors try to maintain their capture of customers by keeping them on their proprietary blockchain, but I suspect that this won't work very well. Part of what is going on here is that users want to be able to send money to anyone. The frustration of different pots of money will produce a lot of friction. If I've learned anything from researching Tether's success, its that they didn't try to keep people on one particular chain.