Below is my 2 sats that I posted on Twitter in response to seeing this thread.

TLDR: I wonder if a bitcoin-backed stablecoin concept on Lightning could accelerate this process by (1) getting people onto the network by giving them the familiar unit of account which will be needed for some time still; but (2) WITHOUT feeding the fiat beast in terms of additional demand for fiat-denominated assets that serve as the collateral for centrally-issued stables like Tether.

I'm sure this will get some hate :) Just sharing it as I see it. But love the sentiment and appreciate all that you do Darth. I also like and agree with Jimmy's point re: businesses owned by Bitcoiners, but that of course will take time.

I deeply sympathize with the sentiments here. Trust me, the last thing I want is for the fiat system to exist for a day longer than it needs to...

However, we are not going to get there by shouting within our own echo chamber. The market has been abundantly clear that the vast majority of people are nowhere remotely close to embracing bitcoin payments and have an insatiable appetite for dollars as their unit of account. That's okay - it takes time for sure.

But at this point I think we also need to embrace stepping-stone technologies like Taproot Assets which bring stables to Lightning. Stablecoin payment volumes currently do at least 1000x that of the Lightning Network - the market is being unambiguously clear here (and I say that as an individual and entrepreneur who is wildly bullish on Lightning and on Bitcoin as an eventual MOE/UOA).

So the essential question is:

Do stablecoins on Lightning accelerate getting people onto the Bitcoin network and make it easier for them to transition their MOE/UOA over time?

OR,

Do we lengthen fiat's lifespan by doing so?

I think it likely depends on what type of stablecoin we're talking about. Centrally-issued stables backed by fiat-denominated assets represent a new source of demand for those assets, so it's easier to see the argument that the fiat system could get extended.

But there could be other flavors like overcollateralized bitcoin-backed stables. Not only would these give individuals the familiar unit of account that they are insatiably demanding, but it would represent additional demand for BTC collateral instead of fiat. As this model grows and more people switchover, it starts to directly suck lifeforce from the fiat system. @david_seroy has written about this (and I similarly recognize that TAs on their own may not be enough to make this completely trustless but imo is a critical ingredient).

As with most things, I don't think it's perfectly black or white, but think it's an important conversation to be having. What do people think?