pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @telcobert 6 Aug \ parent \ on: Is it possible to develop a Stablecoin with Cashu? bitcoin
They are both 'credit risks'.
Counterparty risk refers to the other party of a contract (e.g. delivery of rice or oil),
Issuer risk to the issuer of a financial instrument (e.g. bond or bill of exchange).
Counterparty risk is significantly greater in terms of complexity, volatility, and contagion.
– Bitcoin M0 (commodity money) has none of these two risks (there are others).
– Contract parties paying with eCash settles C/P risk (Cashu and Fedimint can do)
– Issuer risk (slow/fast rug) must be eliminated on the mint level (needs Bitcredit Protocol).
More about this in a few weeks. Stay tuned.
- The project is NOT "replicating". Austrian economists have some serious objections with the old system.
- Why? So Bitcoin can work in the real economy.
If you listen to the Pod, it describes the needed changes and the motivation.
As I mentioned, this simply does not work, there is no such choice because there CANNOT be. Real goods flowing needs elastic medium of exchange.
Hayek wrote quite lucidly in "Prices and Production" if you care about economics.
If not, I have no time to teach this.
The answer is No.
This "thing" is not "operating as or behind a financial institution".
It is a peer-to-peer "thing".
Assertive comments produce bad karma if claimed without verification
As regards bills of exchange, the documentary correctly recognises several evils:
-
Bills of Exchange should not be disconnected from gold or silver. True. That's why Bitcredit Protocol is strictly denominated to Bitcoin.
-
Bills of Exchange should always be paid at maturity. True. That's why Bitcredit Protocol requires verifiable redemption in Bitcoin to a specific Taproot address on maincain.
-
Bills of Exchange "can be" issued against thin air. Nuance needed. They can but should not. Such "dry" bills were never accepted in free circulation. The ancient church even strictly forbade their issue under "usury" rules. Modern government does the opposite, it enforced "dry" money, because of its systemic corruption.
What Cal Washington apparently does not know:
Merchants strictly only accepted commercial bills issued "against value". This means they were created as medium of exchange ("money") as the first leg against a sale of B2B goods. (Akin to Bitcoiners "proof-of-work"). Financial ("dry") bills were rightly not accepted as money. Bills issued against goods correctly cancel out when used to purchase final goods in the second leg of real exchange. The proceeds were needed and used to redeem the bill. It is an enabler of exchange.
It is not the fault of the instrument if nation states pervert it by corrupt laws, enforcing legal tender and dry issuance against government bonds.
In no way does this diminish the urgent need for the (unperverted) instrument in the Bitcoin system, so that business and trade can start to adopt Bitcoin.
So you claim. Did you notice that Businesses don't do businesses with Bitcoin? Even after 15 years the real economy is on fiat.
I think I know why that is so.
And we are building what's needed so that businesses can use Bitcoin. If you don't get it or don't want to get it, is totally irrelevant.
That's the point. Businesses use bills of exchanger peer-to-peer, amongst themselves.
There's no financial institution.
Normally, I do not engage with trolls, but I have a free minute. So:
-
What's the difference between a 'money' and a 'digital commodity' according to 'DarthCon' and why would Bitcoin M0 be the former instead of the latter?
-
Where does the whitepaper talk about B2B 'credit instruments' according to you?
First: As (from your past comments) a provably total clueless troll, you don't get to call others "clueless normies".
- Bitcoin is a digital commodity.
- A bill of exchange is a negotiable peer-to-peer credit payment instrument. Basic knowledge.
Last: At least listen before talking your rubbish.
Too few bitcoiners "willing to spend bitcoin"
That's exactly the critical point: To "create Bitcoin spenders" businesses must pay workers in bitcoin, so they "earn Bitcoin". Workers must spend most if not all their earnings.
Economically, that can only work if we re-create the socalled "Wage Fund" in Bitcoin like we had in Gold Standard times before fiat.
It is fairly clear how this can be done and built.
"this time it clicked more with me"
Glad to hear it. Bitcoin in the real economy requires quite a different thought model, not "gold producer" for M0 but "circular trade finance" for M1.
"they turn it into colones"
Exactly the sore spot. Sellers do that because - for all their faults - colones capability includes a Wage Fund for the earning/spending paradigm.
In a full Bitcoin system the sellers at the Uvita market accept bitcoin and then don't exchange it for colones but they redeem the bitcoin-denominated bills of exchange which paid for their merchandise on stock. Circularity.
Sounds promising. It may be a starting point for the MoE layer.
If you are open to discuss this (also to clarify some old things) how about a DM?
It always comes back to volatility.
To enable Bitcoin as a viable Medium of Exchange, a volatility solution needs to be available first. Only then this makes sense for retailers.
Your pet project sounds great.
We are currently building the merchant/retailer mode of Bitcredit wallet on a corporate grade mint implementation in Rust, for smartphones. Since both our efforts seem to aim for Medium of Exchange in the Real Economy, they may be complementary.
Let's chat if interested: npub1924xzcxh5hal80afljr7sl7qsr6572y95e3qw0ejdstatsx7ma7sqj4f6r
The citations - including Adam Smith - are correct, but they do refer to private, consumption credit. This is the well-founded usury problem.
It is a very different thing with trade and industry. Business needs credit for working capital. Refer to Book 2, Chapter IV, to understand the necessity of commercial credit:
“The borrower may use it [money lent at interest] either as a capital, or as a stock reserved for immediate consumption. If he uses it as a capital, he employs it in the maintenance of productive labourers, who reproduce the value, with a profit. He can, in this case, both restore the capital, and pay the interest, without alienating or encroaching upon any other source of revenue. If he uses it as a stock reserved for immediate consumption, he acts the part of a prodigal, and dissipates, in the maintenance of the idle, what was destined for the support of the industrious.”
"At the market only around 10% of people pay with bitcoin, while 95% of the sellers accept. That made me feel a bit sad and surprised. This is a buyer education problem, not a seller problem."
Education certainly is certainly necessary. But we already have great education efforts and organisations in Bitcoin. And - I sense - they all do a very good job. So this is not the gap.
It is high time to recognise that the problem is elsewhere. Before education, the monetary economics must be right, and they are not yet, at this moment. We educate only half the story.
The starting point for real economy cannot be "buy bitcoin" because the finalty of "buy" is "sell".
Bitcoiners who want to see Bitcoin succeed in the real economy need the finality of "spend" for which we must "earn" not "buy". This needs a Wage Fund which Bitcoin does not have yet. Businesses then use this Wage Fund to pay workers, workers can "spend" this "earned" bitcoin for their daily life and needs. Everybody, not only the lucky few who have money to save.
Sadly, how to achieve that is a long story and it requires open minds. Not many will be interested.