It’s actually more of a win-win situation if you look closely.

Stablecoin issuers earn yield from holding U.S. Treasuries, which sustains their business model. Meanwhile, people in distressed economies get practical access to a digital dollar, often cheaper and faster than navigating restrictive exchange rules or paying steep conversion fees at money-changers. That’s meaningful when local currencies are unstable or losing value.

Of course, not all stablecoin issuers are trustworthy, and some governments under economic distress may ban or limit these instruments. But when the setup works, both sides benefit.

▲

kipchak a day ago | parent [-]

The foreign individual is likely better off in game theory terms, but their country is collectively likely worse off due to a reduction in their central bank's independence and ability to perform seigniorage/print money. Difficult to ban for the foreign nation, and probably results in a greater need for dollars for their government also.

	▲	kragen 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably not. You would be right if we were talking about honest, competent central bankers. But most people live in poor countries. Why are those countries poor? Every country is different, but poor countries are mostly poor because they are governed by kleptocrats, generally including their central bankers, and hyperinflation in particular is a constant menace. When the central bankers aren't directly kleptocratic themselves, they are very often incompetent but loyal, similar to most of Trump's nominees. In this situation, generally speaking, things that put power over individuals' lives back in the hands of those individuals, instead of the kleptocrats' hands, will improve the situation not just of the individuals but of their whole country.