> It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent.

I think the unspoken part here here is that the lack of transparency is a feature for some users.

I'm generally a cynic on cryptocurrencies and I think they're kind of terrible for society in a lot of ways, so none of what follows should be taken as a positive opinion on cryptos. I'm just explaining how they work.

There will always be two competing interests with regards to currencies:

1. On the one hand, consumers make mistakes and get scammed, and want reversible transactions.

2. On the other hand, sellers don't want reversible transactions: if you sell a bike for currency and the transaction gets reversed, you don't get your time back even if you get the bike back in mint condition--and getting the product back at all isn't always possible, if the product was a tattoo, a class taught, or some intellectual property.

In traditional financial systems, anyone operating a financial system in a centralized way always gets bullied into reversing transactions. If you're the bank running it, you just screw over the seller most of the time because they are too small not to work with you and the customers you bring, and buy insurance for the rest of the time.

With stablecoins, so far, this hasn't happened. Sure, if you complained to Circle about getting scammed in USDC, in theory they could just un-issue your spent coins and issue you some new coins, but that would be in violation of their entire crypto ethos. Like fiat, the value of the currency is only based in belief in the issuing central entity, but unlike fiat, part of that belief in the issuing entity is built around them not reversing transactions.

Will that belief be enough to hold it, forever? I don't know, but I think it's definitely a stronger power than people believe it is, even if it's not literally the power of electricity being poured into hashing.

As a side note: not all stable coins are issued by a central entity. There are two other types of stable coins I'm aware of:

1. Collateralized: Examples: DAI, VAI, and I think MAO. Basically, anyone can borrow (mint) these currencies by storing other assets in the protocol. So for example you can deposit $1000 worth of Ethereum into the DAI protocol and that allows you to borrow some safe amount of DAI which is minted on demand, say 400DAI. If the value of your deposited Ethereum falls too close to $400, the protocol automatically sells the Ethereum to reclaim DAI which is then burned to keep the price of DAI from falling. But assuming your margins stay safe, you're able to repay your DAI at your leisure.

2. Algorithmic: Examples: TERRAUSD, IRON. These are paired with a second, unstable cryptocurrency (TERRA/LUNA, IRON/TITAN) which is used to stabilize the coin. If the price of the stablecoin rises above $1, you mint more and distribute it in some way, diluting the coin to bring its value back to $1. If the price of the stablecoin falls below $1, you mint more of the unstable coin and use it to buy back and burn the stable coin. In case it isn't obvious: this only works if the unstable coin has value for some other reason, and in both the example cases--it ultimately didn't and both coins came unpegged when the unstable coin crashed to 0. FRAX/FXS worked this way originally I think, but ultimately they've moved to a more collateralized model.