> how can we make this an opportunity for Bitcoin

It already is. It's teaching people the wrong things about blockchains, but it's teaching them about blockchains.

Beyond that, imho the main way to make it an opportunity is the boring way: make bitcoin and lightning better by fixing/improving all the hard stuff that remains, and add things that further differentiate it from fiat systems. People will show up to something that works better and is better when they've run out of all these doomed to fail shortcuts. I don't think the answer (not that it's your answer) should be to bring these doomed to fail shortcuts to bitcoin.

One clarification: I'm not saying that stablecoins are going to be good for Bitcoin. More like: stablecoins are winning, how can we make this an opportunity for Bitcoin.

Agreed on the rest.

m0wer

I'm here to learn, so don't take what I say as if I meant it to be the absolute truth.

All good. I'm just a bit on one this morning and I'm tired of the newly popular narratives:

It's all NGU talk with new rationalizations to me.

Why wouldn't Tether run a centralized, publicly verifiable ledger?

It would make them a money transmitter. If they outsource it to "blockchains" and merely issue stable tokens they can evade such regulations. That's why I said federated (ie PoS), e.g. 

What I'm missing is how valuable that separation is in practice for stablecoin users. Valuable enough to pay more for it?

I'd guess not. I don't think stablecoin users care about the network or trust or any of that. They care about cost and probably somewhat ease of use. I think that's what Tether's support-all-chains strategy has shown.

bitcoin

lightning

econ

Bitcoin Stablecoins and the Freedom to Choose

> I'm here to learn, so don't take what I say as if I meant it to be the absolute truth.

All good. I'm just a bit on one this morning and I'm tired of the newly popular narratives:

1. AI fixes bitcoin because agents will use it (when people don't and don't value it) ... with no evidence afaict
2. Stablecoins are coming to bitcoin and will make bitcoin better, faster, stronger ... also with no evidence

It's all NGU talk with new rationalizations to me.

------------------

> Why wouldn't Tether run a centralized, publicly verifiable ledger?

It would make them a money transmitter. If they outsource it to "blockchains" and merely issue stable tokens they can evade such regulations. That's why I said federated (ie PoS), e.g. [Stripe's Tempo](https://tempo.xyz/).

> What I'm missing is how valuable that separation is in practice for stablecoin users. Valuable enough to pay more for it?

I'd guess not. I don't think stablecoin users care about the network or trust or any of that. They care about cost and probably somewhat ease of use. I think that's what Tether's support-all-chains strategy has shown.