| ▲ | andai 12 hours ago |
| If the admins can "lock all transactions", what's the point of it being a crypto? |
|
| ▲ | colordrops 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Exactly. Stablecoins make zero sense. |
| |
| ▲ | pants2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unbacked stablecoins like USR make no sense - but USDC is one of the few real uses that crypto has. | | |
| ▲ | Jommi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | USR is not unbacked. You have a severe misunderstanding of the whole situation if you say that. | | |
| ▲ | oersted 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, the article itself says "unbacked" right upfront: > an attacker was able to mint tens of millions of Resolv’s unbacked stablecoins (USR) and extract roughly $23 million in value | | |
| ▲ | gwd an hour ago | parent [-] | | If I understand the situation properly, the system is only supposed to mint backed stable-coins; the hack resulted in unbacked ones. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mememememememo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Decentralized. Stable. Pick one. | | |
| ▲ | Jommi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Decentralized
> the transfer of authority, decision-making, or operational functions away from a central authority to smaller, local, or distributed nodes, systems, or entities DAI is decentralized and stable |
|
| |
| ▲ | SubNoize 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Micro transactions? Giving agents access to money ? | | | |
| ▲ | boringg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unless you are also trying to prop up the us government by buying treasuries (us based stable coins) | | |
| ▲ | rchaud 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most Treasuries are held by US banks, investment firms and municipalities. I'm pretty sure those firms hold a good chunk of global stablecoin volume, given the nonexistent regulation of crypto in the US relative to other countries. |
| |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you can send them around easily without having to deal with bullshit payment systems | | |
| ▲ | snypher 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No-one in the real world wants to be paid with a $USR. Most everyone wants a cashapp/zelle/PayPal/wire transfer. The bullshit payment systems gained ground on crypto while crypto became more difficult/less usable | | |
| ▲ | lagniappe 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | PYUSD is run by PayPal afaik. | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't know what USR is, but I would prefer to be paid in USDT or USC if Wealthsimple supported it as deposit method. When I withdraw, I do Deel -> Wise -> Interac e-Transfer -> Bank -> Interac e-Transfer -> Wealthsimple. This is incredibly stupid and I am forced to buy Canadian dollars. For groceries or electronics, you can buy gift cards using crypto. | |
| ▲ | mothballed 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you track the FATFs crushing of bearer bonds, bearer notes, non-KYC/non-AML offshore banking, and Hawala it almost perfectly tracks with the rise of crypto. |
| |
| ▲ | troad 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But you do have to deal with bullshit payment systems. I can't receive stablecoins in my regular bank account, I'd have to set up some crypto nonsense on DankRocketBets or whatever for it to even work. Why would I do this when I can already receive actual USD without any extra ceremony? Stablecoins are a solution in search of a problem. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem presents itself when you have dirty money to launder. It isn't a product for non-criminals but they have to convince enough gullible people to participate and blend in with them. | |
| ▲ | Jommi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you can receive. you just need to set it up. there are like 50 (many YC) startups fixing this today trying to offer your the best and cheapest service | |
| ▲ | rossjudson 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Crypto is how you can invest in crime without doing crime. | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If your employer does direct deposit of USD into your USD bank account, you don't need stable coins. This is not the case for most people outside of the U.S. | | |
| ▲ | troad 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am outside the US. Many of my assets are in USD and USD-denominated securities. I've never touched a stablecoin. Waiting to hear what "most people outside the US" are supposed to need those stablecoins for. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most people don't realize they're inside a plexiglass shielded financial jail until they try to do something like wiring money for some legal activity in someplace spicy or on the FATF grey list. If you fall into the middle bands of uses, or in the upper class that can just bend or make the rules, then the financial system is well oiled and it looks like the people questioning it are just cranks. It's true that a lot of those in the outer bands are criminals but others are things like "buying a truck to build an orphanage for starving Iraqi children just outside of terrorist territory" or "wanted an investment visa in some corrupt island paradise and as it turns out no bank will open up account for purposes of 'international wires to the Comoros' " | | |
| ▲ | troad 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh yeah, "most people outside the US" are looking to build orphanages in deeply sanctioned war zones. How could I have forgotten. Come on now, that's absurd. If this is your best use case for stablecoins - groping for concocted scenarios to rationalise their existence
- I stand by what I said earlier: they're a solution in search of a problem. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | One of the two is very close to something that actually happened to me. I tried to open up a bank account for paying immigration related costs to a particular shithole country, which is both legal and was part of a fully legal endeavor, but no bank would do it. The other example is somewhat concocted but rooted in the time I spent in Iraq and noting almost all transactions are performed outside the banking system, in part because banking is inaccessible and people often don't have access to KYC documents. It's really not absurd. As soon as you start trying to do anything interesting the KYC/AML burdens get greater until eventually you realize the compliance officers are just trying to get you to go away (or just deny you outright), get interesting enough and then suddenly despite fully complying with the law you find the walls are closed around you. Most people never find out because they never have occasion to try, they do a bunch of boring domestic transactions plus maybe some international trade with a few well known entities, then they just shout people are making up absurdities. | | |
| ▲ | troad 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Clearly your situation of trying to obtain residency in the Comoros by investment would raise eyebrows at banks whose job it is to monitor tax compliance. I don't think you're describing an everyman kind of scenario. I also don't entirely understand why you're even rationalising the purpose of the account to the bank. Can't you just open an account for any purpose? It takes me five minutes to open an account online, and I've never once been asked to explain or justify anything (in many decades). I use my accounts robustly, including for international transfers (I've lived on two continents in the last four years). I even once paid for a trip to North Korea out of an ordinary bank account. My bank never batted an eye. Maybe you're just dealing with a bad bank, or an over-regulated banking system (Europe?). You realise you can walk into any US bank right now and they'll just open an account for you with nothing more than some accurate ID? And the same holds for much of the rest of the world? The problem you're trying to solve is already solved. >> The other example is somewhat concocted but rooted in the time I spent in Iraq and noting almost all transactions are performed outside the banking system, in part because banking is inaccessible and people often don't have access to KYC documents. Unsophisticated semi-literate farmers are the last demographic anyone is reasonably expecting to open their crypto brokerage accounts and start trading synthetic USD derivatives. These are just not realistic scenarios. This is what people say when they rack their brains trying to come up with some reason stablecoins might be useful. I feel like you're just confirming that they're a solution in search of a problem. | | |
| ▲ | lmm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > You realise you can walk into any US bank right now and they'll just open an account for you with nothing more than some accurate ID? There's an ocean in the way, not to mention how risky visiting looks right now. I changed my name recently and the one US bank that I managed to get an account with (so that US clients can pay me without weirdness) won't accept any kind of documentation without going there in person (and I'm not sure I can provide anything they'll accept even if I did go there in person). What now? | |
| ▲ | mothballed 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pick an FATF grey list country that isn't sanctioned by your country. Then try to wire money there. Let me know how it goes and whether you really aren't asked to explain anything. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This comment isn't really beating the rap that the primary purpose of stablecoins is to facilitate crime. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | codebje 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps you meant: stablecoins are a scam in search of a victim. |
| |
| ▲ | kogasa240p 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Monero is better for that task. | |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Until it becomes another bullshit payment system |
| |
| ▲ | Saline9515 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Stablecoins enable cash-like (instantly redeemable and verifiable) payments for large amounts, for almost free. In EU countries, you can't now buy a car with cash. You have to buy a bearer's check from your bank, which is expensive, requires that both parties have a brick and mortar bank, and doesn't work cross-border. Stablecoins solve this. | | |
| ▲ | Ekaros 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was good while ago, but last time I bought a car I just did bank transfer. SEPA transfers are entirely free. Was kinda amazed that they just handed me keys when I showed them the receipt from my own online bank... | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a calculated risk. They know the VIN number and I assume made a copy of your photo ID. |
| |
| ▲ | stevage 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do stablecoins fit in here? You can buy a car with crypto but not cash? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kogasa240p 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Makes it easier to do pump and dumps, was never about "privacy" or "decentralization" as web3 types parroted 4-5 years ago. Monero is the exception btw. |
|
| ▲ | hrmtst93837 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | anonym29 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stablecoins aren't cryptocurrencies in any sense of the word. It's just electronic FIAT. |
| |
| ▲ | Ekaros 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They are cryptocurrencies. But they are not fiat. They are IOUs of fiat. Token represents promise of some other party to possibly redeem(if you collect enough tokens) to convert it to more commonly accepted fiat they promise they somehow hold. Your money is safe with us. We promise. With lot less oversight than most other solutions for holding money... | |
| ▲ | amarant 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean they use Blockchain, right? Isn't that like the only real requirement for the name crypto? As long as you burn as much electricity as Andorra does in a week just to make a transaction, you're probably a cryptocurrency. And that's their sole benefit it seems. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most blockchains nowadays are not proof of work anymore. | |
| ▲ | anonym29 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I mean they use Blockchain, right? Isn't that like the only real requirement for the name crypto? Absolutely not. Cryptocurrently exclusively refers to permissionless, decentralized, cryptographically secured, irreversible, fungible monetary system with a disinflationary or non-inflationary supply, following a voluntary, collectivized governance model. A vast majority of tokens colloquially referred to as "cryptocurrency" couldn't be further from these principles. There are no stablecoins that are cryptocurrency. Ethereum is not cryptocurrency. Any coin issued by a corporation (e.g. Ripple) is not a cryptocurrency. | | |
| ▲ | YawningAngel 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If your definition excludes Ethereum your understanding of the term so differs from everyone else's that we aren't talking about the same thing | | |
| ▲ | anonym29 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ethereum is a great utility token. Smart contracts absolutely have utility in the digital economy. It's just not a cryptocurrency, is all. It had a massive premine, there's no supply cap, it's subject to OFAC censorship, and has effectively demonstrated that just ~4.8% of the total ETH supply can vote to cause rollout and widespread adoption of a fork that reverses transactions. We need different words for these fundamentally different things, because conflating them causes real confusion, as this very hack demonstrates. People are surprised that an admin can lock transactions precisely because the word "cryptocurrency" led them to assume properties that don't exist in stablecoins. | | |
| ▲ | rando1234 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Where did the 4.8% number come from? Is it based on the validator stake? How does that compare to the number required to fork Bitcoin as a function of it's supply? |
|
| |
| ▲ | amarant 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is there even any currency that meets that definition? Iirc even bitcoin had some kind of reversal back in the day, or am I misremembering? I seem to recall bitcoin splitting in 2 for a while as there was some disagreement on whether the reversal should be made or not. Idk, it's been a while and my memory is fuzzy. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0x3f 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't know how this specific thing works, but I don't really see any fundamental problem with mixing and matching. If you believe in the benefits of crypto, then 50% crypto is still possibly better than 0%. It's not like I forgo a lock on my front door just because my windows are made of glass. |
| |
| ▲ | mnkyprskbd 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Currency isn't a homebrew computer or backyard car project; it is either centralised or not; there is no in between. Blockchain with central authority is the worst of both worlds. | | |
| ▲ | sota_pop 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Very much this, it’s all the technical rigour, code debt, and none of controls/reversibility. At least when I report fraud to credit card or my bank, they can stop or undo/chargeback a transaction. | |
| ▲ | stan3223 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And if it is centralised, what is the point of blockchain? Just run it out a Postgres database. | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really. At a traditional bank I have to trust n people with varying degrees of access. Et ceteris paribus, any reduction in n is an improvement, even if n is not zero. Of course n can be smaller and the specific people less trustworthy, but that's quite a different thing. | | |
| ▲ | mnkyprskbd 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At a traditional bank you have your national deposit insurance scheme; you get that in return for converting your "assets" to the said nations issued currency but accept the authorities control of the money supply and your funds. With decentralised money, you get the safety of a globally distributed attestation backed by cryptography without a single authority controlling the supply of money or your funds. There is no halfway option. You either have a single authority that can exercise control or you do not; number of delegates for exercise of control is almost irrelevant since you can change banks. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean you're just making bare assertions, of course there are halfway options. Different components of the account or relationship can have different parameters. Most crypto products are not the equivalent of depositor accounts anyway, they wouldn't be insured necessarily at a traditional bank either. |
| |
| ▲ | ribosometronome 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That access is to provide account support, no? Reverse fraudulent transactions and the like. A "bank" could just not do that save for if you're a large enough client to merit attention but why would I want to bank there if I'm not a large enough client? | |
| ▲ | snypher 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ok so we are expected to trust; the creator/s, some random hacker, whoever else has the key? So the value here is between 2 and 'many'. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're expected to do your own research about how it works, who the keyholders are, and what permissions they have. You're free to choose only projects where n=0. If you choose n>0, you have to work out your trust and confidence level. You're always free to use the traditional financial system as well. |
| |
| ▲ | nkrisc 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If my money in the bank is stolen I have legal recourse. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | is insured by the FDIC legal recourse? | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | FDIC does not cover bank theft[]. FDIC deposit insurance does not protect against losses due to theft or fraud, which are addressed by other laws.
That's covered by private bankers bond insurance, much like you could get for a decentralized stored pots of gold or you can buy insurance in the form of put options (like on IBIT) on the loss of value of bitcoin or if your cold wallet is stolen you can initiate legal proceedings against the thief.[] https://www.fdic.gov/news/fact-sheets/crypto-fact-sheet-7-28... | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's good to know. I guess that makes sense though as those swindled by Madoff had to recoup their money through Madoff's estate instead of FDIC. I guess Hollywood has mislead us yet again in pretty much every bank robbery scene with dialog like "Nobody panic. We're not stealing your money, we are stealing the bank's money". | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | babypuncher 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The primary selling points of cryptocurrencies are all hinged on the promise that they are decentralized and can't be controlled by a single entity. Without that, all they are is a new version of PayPal or a credit card network that requires many orders of magnitude more compute resources to maintain. |
|
