Remix.run Logo
narrator 6 days ago

Can you do fractional reserve banking with stablecoins where you lend out the underlying dollars to people and don't have full reserves? That's what makes banking tricky. When there are a surge of loan defaults across the banking system the money supply shrinks rapidly unless the government bails them out. Thus, the need for regulation.

One reason the U.S government has to like stablecoins is because Tether is one of the biggest buyers of U.S treasuries that they use to back their stablecoins.

vintermann 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Can you do fractional reserve banking with stablecoins where you lend out the underlying dollars to people and don't have full reserves?

In a manner of speaking. You need to trust that the issuers have the reserve they claim. There's no way around this, unless the asset in reserve is equally ethereal (i.e. another cryptocurrency).

Tether, for one, almost certainly doesn't have the reserves.

arcticbull 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Correct, this is fundamentally the oracle problem. There is no link between the blockchain and the real world which is why only money-like instruments have been successful for whatever value of success this constitutes.

chipsrafferty 2 days ago | parent [-]

Is there a link for Fiat?

arcticbull 2 days ago | parent [-]

First of all, wut. Second, that's irrelevant because stable coins rely on fiat backing (ostensibly) so you're stacking a new problem on top of what you perceive to be a different problem. If you believed that to be a problem then stable coins give you that problem twice as hard. And a whole mess of new ones too, like zero recourse against the newly intermediated offshore issuers in low-or-zero regulation locales.

seviu 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You would be surprised about tether though

They are now really backed. It might be they weren’t. Now they definitely are.

https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=usdt

All these years all this Fud and so far nobody demonstrated what you clam.

They are also the faster to block their stablecoin whenever there is a hack.

SXX 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Madoff Ponzi scheme also ran for at least 20 years. And yeah around 1% of total USDT supply is blocked so yeah Tether can very well live on those blocked funds:

https://dune.com/phabc/usdt---banned-addresses

seviu 5 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t discuss the past. In 2017 it was tether the one that caused the bubble that put BTC at almost 20k, by issuing tokens backed by nothing

Now they generate more than 10B per year in profits. And they have been using that to collateralize their usdt

It’s clear they are now fully backed. Another question is whether they want to comply with regulations (they don’t comply with MiCA, I doubt USDC does either) but that’s another question

Hate it or love it, they aren’t going anywhere anymore

ForHackernews 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have they ever passed a real audit? Not an attestation, not a pinky-swear from a no-name Caribbean bank?

SXX 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Hey they didnt scam everyone just yet! This is proof it's very safe. </sarcasm>

seviu 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That link contains audits, and proof of reserves. What are you talking about.

They got bad rep with zero proof

ForHackernews 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

An "attestation report" is not an audit.

Tether claims accounting firms won't audit them, but that sounds like a convenient self-serving lie to me:

> In an interview with DL News, he said the Big Four accounting firms — Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG — are afraid to work with Tether because they fear it will damage their reputations.

> “None of the Big Four companies will audit us,” Ardoino said. But he said securing one of them as Tether’s auditor is a “top priority.”

Is that credible to you?

[0] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/markets/tether-ceo-just-told...

seviu 5 days ago | parent [-]

Must admit it isn’t

Usdc is audited by Deloitte on a monthly basis.

It would be pretty stupid for Paolo to end up being naked, now that his business is printing money left and right.

To make it clear I am not pro tether, I am against visceral hate which was justified years ago but I feel it isn’t anymore. Tether gained my sympathy by freezing quite promptly funds from various hacks.

Circle on the contrary have failed every single time.

https://cryptobriefing.com/circle-lazarus-group-accusations/

Anyways this is totally unrelated

It will make for a good Netflix documentary once they get their audit

topranks 4 days ago | parent [-]

There is a grain of truth in what you say, but your conclusions are off.

Tether started as a way to pump the Bitcoin price, under the guise of better facilitating payments on crypto exchanges. They’d issue Tethers out of nowhere and use it to buy BTC and wash trade.

It was so successful it got to the level many people thought of it as “as good as dollars”.

This led to massive demand for it outside of Bitcoin pumpers - with criminals, sanctions evaders, money launderers of all kinds. Your granny needs to buy tethers to send money to the scammer she’s on the phone to.

So yes I do think they’ve probably moved away from issuing unbacked tethers. But only because they’ve found another niche which is also extremely suspect.

There is nothing to commend these guys. It’s a massive scam.

topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not real audits by a major firm.

Just pinkie promises. David Gerard discussed a while back:

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/30/tether-produ...

FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Garbage. An audit reviews a trail of origin. Tether got an attestation, that said no more, and no less than, "At this exact moment in time, the balance in this account is $X". You could take a short term loan for the majority of that and no-one would know.

You and I can't buy a house on a mere attestation of accounts - funnily enough, lenders want to see how we acquired that money. But these clowns can stand on stage at Davos and say "Yeah, we've banked over half a billion a day USD for the last two years, trust us, we don't need an audit". I know that comparing investment to revenue is not apples-to-apples, but to get an idea of what that incoming cash looks like? You're on the scale of Saudi Aramco. Samsung. Alphabet.

They kept firing their auditors. They had one done, and then refused to release it, saying "it was not of use to anyone because it was in Mandarin Chinese". What the actual fuck?

Their bad rep is their own fault.

"Tether and Bitfinex are completely independent and unrelated!" Oh yeah, why are the same two people who signed a loan contract on Tether's behalf ... the same two people who signed it on Bitfinex's behalf?

Or let's look at their bank, Deltec, who also made statements to "support" Tether... or specifically, let's look at some of the highlights from a fucking trainwreck of an interview their "Deputy CEO" gave to CNBC:

- was conducted from his gaming rig

- about Deltec's (and therefore Tether's) money movements being several times larger than all the banking in their country was due to people misunderstanding the country's two banking licenses, the names of which HE "couldn't remember right now" (the Deputy CEO of a bank who can't remember the name of the banking licenses where they operate?!?), and he "wasn't sure which [banking license] the bank has, but we might have both"

- oh yeah, said Deputy CEO's "resume": 33 years old, by his LinkedIn claimed to have graduated HEC Lausanne in Switzerland with a Master of Science at the age of 15... celebrating his graduation by immediately being named Professor of Finance at a university in Lebanon. While dividing his spare time between running hedge funds in Switzerland (called Indepedance [sic] Weath [sic] Management) and uhh... Jacksonville, FL.

Once CNBC's viewers started ridiculing and questioning both Deltec Bank and Tether, said Deputy CEO was hastily removed from Deltec's "Leadership Team" page on their website. Once that was questioned, he was re-added...

... and then the entire bank website was replaced with a low-effort WordPress template. Their online banking was Javascript hard coded to refuse all login attempts.

"Sounds legit to me", say the crypto bros.

topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the company who have never produced a real audit despite years of saying they would?

If they are fully backed they’d get an audit. The fact they don’t should tell you all you need to know.

immibis 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They do exactly this. Buying treasuries is a form of fractional reserve.

It's worth noting that no full-reserve bank has ever gotten a US banking license, even though many have tried.

ForHackernews 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, you can! Just get Paolo to fire up the tether printer: https://cryptonews.net/news/altcoins/28875896/

have_faith 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In FIAT money lending is the act of money creation, rather than lending existing money held in account. I’m guessing that wouldn’t have a parallel with stablecoins because the technology won’t let you just make new money at will?

worik 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> In FIAT money lending is the act of money creation

That depend on how you view money. Lending does increase the volume of money in circulation, in that sense it creates money. But that view is too simple to be useful.

The regulators that regulate, and in particular control reserve ratios (complex calculations that banks have to make about the relationships between their various assets) and base interest rates are the real creators of money.

The side stepping of those regulators is interesting. The conventional view is that it will lead to the same sort of financial instability as existed before the gold standard was abolished and we (pretty much the entire western world) moved to modern banking and fiat currency.

A hundred years of quite stable money was quite an achievement.

nulbyte 5 days ago | parent [-]

> That depend on how you view money. Lending does increase the volume of money in circulation, in that sense it creates money. But that view is too simple to be useful.

Far from being too simple, it is the primary method of money creation in modern economies.

> The regulators that regulate, and in particular control reserve ratios (complex calculations that banks have to make about the relationships between their various assets) and base interest rates are the real creators of money.

Simply setting rates does not create money. It can influence it, but it is not the ultimate cause. Lending is. Reserve banks can and do lend, but commercial banks are responsible for the majority of money creation.

worik 5 days ago | parent [-]

You are suffering frome the twin delusions of simplicity and certainty

Money is fiendish complex and cannot be counted with a one dimensional model

You are deceiving yourself that you understand

didroe 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The underlying feature of FIAT money creation is debt. And debt is a very natural thing (existing before money) that will just manifest in the crypto system instead.

topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not unless you lie about what money you have and just print them out of thin air.

topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only a fool would think Tether have never had an audit done out of fear it would prove they’re fully backed.

graeme 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, you can absolutely do that with stablecoins. Why couldn't you?

elteto 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

How would the “out of thin air” value creation work in a blockchain ledger?

Pardon my very naive understanding of both subjects.

majormajor 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Person A deposits $100.

Person B borrows $100, all the coins move on the ledger.

The ledger could facilitate the transfer while the bank maintains an "IOU" for person A's $100. The bank would be betting that not everyone will come withdrawing at once, just like a regular bank.

Regulation is the only thing that can prevent this from being done with any sort of crypto. The same IOU-based business model as happened with cash, gold, etc, could very easily be implemented using the technology. If you don't like fractional reserve banking crypto isn't a magic bullet that makes it impossible, especially since the general public probably wouldn't be sophisticated enough to know how to stick to "true" crypto vs "IOU-based fractional crypto facades."

But generally regulatory regimes have decided that the productivity advancements offered by the investment-through-loans of major portions of deposits are worth the risks. I don't think the GENIUS act allows this, though, so there's one regard where stablecoins are more-regulated. I worry about the edge cases, though - seems like requiring stablecoins to be paid off preferentially incentives using them for deposits, which could harm circulation if the reserves or followed, or which could screw over non-stablecoin deposit-holders if an institution doesn't comply and then goes under.

(This is closer to how regular banking works than the naive "banks create money by incrementing a number in your account." After all, banks are generally either (a) expecting those loans to be spent or directly giving the money to third parties like car dealerships or home sellers - which is likely to physically move the money to other banks, institutions, or cash, not just recordings in their internal tables.)

thinkharderdev 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As far as I understand, the backing assets aren't on-chain. I give tether $100, they create and issue me 100 USDT on-chain. But they can take my $100 and lend it out. Now whoever Tether loaned the $100 to has $100 and I have 100 USDT so $100 has been added to the money supply, just like with a normal bank.

nl 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It depends on the stablecoin mechanism.

Algorithmic stablecoins[1] don't have a one-for-one backing in real world assets so can in theory create new coins "from thin air". The amount they can do this depends on the exact algorithm and the backing assets, and the practicalities of unstable crypto pricing make this difficult in practice.

For example the well-known DAI stablecoin[2] is backed by a mix of crypto assets, but is overcollateralized to avoid problems when one of the backing assets drops in value. The is sort of the opposite of "creating money out of thin air"...

Non-algorithmic stablecoins can do it by being backed by "high quality loan assets", in which case the conventional, non-crypto credit creation mechanism applies.

[1] https://www.kraken.com/learn/algorithmic-stablecoins

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_(cryptocurrency)

seviu 5 days ago | parent [-]

Dai might have been algorithmically backed but it’s now a flavor of usdc since it’s backed in its majority by usdc.

So far all algorithmically backed stablecoins have failed. Remember Terra Luna.

immibis 5 days ago | parent [-]

> So far all algorithmically backed stablecoins have failed. Remember Terra Luna.

So that's a sample size of 2, and from those 2, 1 has failed. Not exactly "all"

seviu 5 days ago | parent [-]

I gave you the most dramatic example. So far no undercollateralized, algorithmically backed $1 stablecoin has sustained a reliable peg at scale over multiple years.

Zero. Nada. There was always somebody somewhere exploiting it.

TerraUSD USN USDN Basic Cash

All failures so far, every time a death spiral.

FRAX started as algorithmic and had to move to over collateralization

Same with DAI

You really can’t call them like that once they become backed by USDC

immibis 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your bailey:

> all algorithmically backed stablecoins have failed

Your motte:

> no undercollateralized, algorithmically backed $1 stablecoin has sustained a reliable peg at scale over multiple years

jekrb 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

theres no reason a bank couldn't take a stablecoin deposit and fractionally lend against it

thats effectively what already happens with their own internal ledgers anyways

graeme 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are defi loans for example. You take an asset like BTC and loan stablecoins against it.

The underlying asset can be rehypothecated, Celsius did this before going bust iirc.

Tether is also the underlying backer of crypto market cap, and has never done an audit of their assets. They've made loans to various crypto market participants.

In theory there are auto liquidation rules etc. In practice humans have not yet managed to create a financial system they can't make asset bubbles with

topranks 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The same way it does in Excel.

You fire up Excel. Put some numbers in the boxes. Say those numbers are dollar bills you have under the bed.

Then you do SUM(A1:A10) to show your total funds. It has to be legit because Excel doesn’t lie right?

Onavo 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The reward function in the smart contract can be made to increase over time.

elteto 6 days ago | parent [-]

That’s not the same though. Banks literally make money out of thin air when they extend a loan (oversimplified of course). They can choose the time and place to do so without having to wait for “checkpoints”. They can even run themselves into the ground by creating too much money (if there is no reserve requirement).

immibis 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Banks make bank-account-dollars (a form of IOU) but they can't make cash-dollars. When you withdraw, the bank has to give you cash-dollars from its pool and can't just print some. Only reason they're considered equivalent is... uh... because I said so? And they're legally allowed to denominate their bankdollars in dollars.

Anyone can print IOUs, but not everyone can legally call them dollars. That's the only advantage banks have over the rest of us.

Same on the blockchain but without the privilege of conflation. You can have a smart contract that has $100 of ether but trades in 200 shares valued at $10 each. But the blockchain systems prevent you from pretending that bank-ethers and cash-ethers are the same thing. You can label them the same but they're not the same and the system knows that. Even Wrapped ETH, a contract that literally just prints and destroys WETH 1-to-1 with the ETH it holds, i.e. a full-reserve zero-fee bank, isn't interchangeable with actual ETH.

Onavo 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They can all be modeled. Reserve requirements can be written in a similar way to flash loans.

sagarm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Then bank runs or regulation seem inevitable.