Using the network for commiting stuff (hashes, data, stablecoins, ownership) is great, specially using merkle trees that keep the blockchain and utxo size is under control. The minting and locking parts are what troubles me. I just cannot trust any locking/minting, since it depends on some point (outside the bitcoin network). If you trust that external party, I guess it is ok. IMHO.
reply
I don't prefer it, but I can imagine and put it to you: bunch of corporations sign onto some big lightning liquidity provider, and start issuing their own assets, like rewards points, for instances. For the first time, you would "own" them as long as the company existed, and you could trade them with other people on the lightning network. Of course they always belong to the company because the company would need to redeem the asset. But I don' think Wal-Mart or McDonalds will go out of business soon.
reply
Fiat must die, but before it does(and it will) it still has demand.
8.3% inflation hasn't reduced demand yet.🙄, but one day that will all change.
In the meantime, USDT, on Taro makes sense.
It's audited, making it a 100% reserve fiat. I know that's an oxymoron, but normies don't know that.
Most normies still think the digital dollars in their bank account are backed by gold. They don't even know the banks don't even back digital dollars with paper dollars.
They still "trust" the system. They don't trust math though, especially weird nerd math they were never taught in school.
Most of them don't even know crypto means cryptography.
I think stable coins make nice training wheels. Stablecoins on the bitcoin time chain allow normies to learn how to hold keys and send transactions.
They will need to learn how to do this before the fiat ponzi scheme collapses. When it does, Bitcoin will be there with all it's glorious mathematical scarcity.
Gradually, then suddenly, the training wheels come off.
reply
Thanks, have been wanting to learn more about it. Taro just massively expands the use cases on BTC.
reply
Waiting waiting for Taro alpha
reply