Bitcoin Forum

There are many stable coins in the market with a different name. The only difference between them is the blockchain they use and the assets they collateral. Stable coins are usually backed by fiat currency, commodities, crypto assets, and Seigniorage but they all have the same purpose. Recently terra announced a stable coin backed by bitcoin and rumors spread that near protocol is going to issue another stable coin. My question is why do we need so many stable coins when they all serve the same purpose?

What I saw from the market is they are trying to overthrow one another from the top position. The total stable coin supply is $180 billion. Is it possible to merge all these coins into one universal crypto stablecoin so that users do not need to switch between these stable coins again and again?

We don't actually need many of them but it's the developers that keeps on making about it because there's the competition from the issuers. They're also making money from it if they're being liked and used by the people. As long as there's a demand for it and they're seeing the market of it.
I think that's what is going to make them develop as much as they can, thus, there's also no law about it that stops them from producing as many as they can.

To diversify trust, and the issuer also competes to make a bigger profit.

It's unlikely. Unless governments go hard on cryptocurrency and forced everyone to use their own stable coin/CBDC, which is worse. A quite unlikely scenario, IMO. On another hand, there literally exist countless cryptocurrenices, and most of them also have the same purpose, nope, each of the users as does the developers themselves won't be interested in uniting the whole thing.

It’s not a good way to do this concept.All the coin had different set of people and different set of investors and developers.It was totally merger less concept.To merge of two coins need of the agreement.But the new coin merge to another willl demand the huge amount of merge.Now other coins will accept this,instead they try to increase the capital and try to sustain independent.

I hope you wouldn't mind but can you share the breakdown of this amount?

If there can't be only one crypto then there can't be one stable coin.

It's not just the chain they used and the collateral backing them that's different. There's also the centralization part where the issuer can freeze your stable coin even if it's stored in your personal wallet. Read this thread if you want more info https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204055.0

It's possible but this totally -depend with the stable token provider whether they wanna merged their stable token into the universal stable token or not. I just try to remind you that basically there was no different in the stable token. The only thing that makes it different is the provider from the stable token and code that used to secure the stable token.
They are all the same but different companies that issued these stable tokens.
I think that even if these stable tokens have not merged and it's still fine.

 Considering these are backed by companies most of the time, that means these companies would have to merge together as well and I doubt that would happen, not just economically but legally neither. I mean lets take a look at USDT which is the biggest right now, Binance has BUSD, so Binance would have to swallow bitfinex and tether as a whole, which I doubt legally could be done, even if they can afford to do that, which they probably can't. This is the main reason, its backed by companies and as long as they are, it will not happen. We need to stop using the major ones though, it gives them so much money and power, the centralization is horrible. The day tether gets banned everywhere, will be the day we realize our money is not backed 1 to 1 ratio and they can't pay us all.

This answer why we don't really need a stable coin at first place. Any currency will reach a certain stability by time goes by like with FIAT money. Although we call it stable coin refering to the USD while the dollar itself is not that stable.
This form of tokens was mainly created as a trade instrument within exchanges.

It's possible to happen but the main question is whether these developers wanna try to do that. Those developers have their own vision and it can be said that if that's almost impossible to merge the stable tokens that developed or maintained by the different team. The possible thing that to create a new universal stable token that will be representing the whole of stable tokens in our ecosystem.
I think that the answer is yes but with various factor that appeared and it can become a big no.

It's not a big deal, I think diversification in the crypto space makes it easier for us to choose, without over complicating matters when it doesn't affect the market too much. Personally, I think it only needs collateral and it really creates the trust of the community. Of course, competition also helps push the market up.

But is there any guarantee so far ? I think that whatever options exist in the crypto space will not always provide a sure guarantee for everyone and everyone who has believed in one of the products in cryptocurrency is purely because of his own analysis and research results.

In my personal assessment, I don't think we need many stable coins. Because the more the many the risk is more getting higher as well.
Second, stable coins will only be good as long as they have a good community and backed by a strong fiat currency. Due to if not, it won't last
long in the end.

"The more the merrier", as least we have options on what stable coins we are going to used.

However, I doubt that we are going to see them merging, I mean this is business and from that standpoint, everyone of them, at least the people behind the project wanted a piece of the action and to make money out of everyone who is going to used their stable coin.

Actually its a good thing also. These stablecoins arent came from a single company and they are owned by differrent ones. What if one of them got hacked or compromised? If its merged as one then you could consider a huge chaos about that. Atleast by many stable coins we could pick a good choice or a safer one to trust with.

The so-called stablecoins are coins whose prices are always stable with fiat currency benchmarks globally, so that would be great even if there are not many models and there are only a few that are used very often by everyone with the support of a very diverse network.
So I think it's very clear that what doesn't have a stable and lasting price like fiat currencies, then it's not a stablecoin even though the name is taken from a stablecoin that is already popular.

The diversification of the market creates competition, and we all know that they are not a group.
There's really no need for that idea, it's centralizing the field. Stablecoins in this market have an important property that separates the high risk/high return character of cryptos from the frequent volatility of crypto assets, making stablecoins a more suitable cryptocurrency for storage and as a medium of exchange value.

Merged all of stable tokens into the one form will not solve the problem. The fact that even the stable tokens have issued by various developers with their own name and people are not even feeling confuse to know the difference between it. In my opinion that if we are seeing it correctly and then you  can know if people are not feeling so difficult to know the difference between these stable tokens.
Im also using various stable tokens based on what i need. These stable tokens have been offering the different features from one to the each other.
That's why the competition is very strict these days.

business competition, that's what I see from the emergence of many stable coins today. can we manage that? the answer is no! because all developers are free to create stable new coins as long as it is reliable and also has real liquidity. all we can do now is choose which one is best for us (personally).

This is the future. Get used to it. Everybody will be issuing their own stable coins and nobody will care or do anything about it. Do they have less assets to back the tokens? Do they have any assets at all? Nobody cares. Even if you manage to merge them, some other crook will pop up and make his own stable coin. In the end you can't convince them all.

I don't like the idea. We need lots of stable coins as that will push on a much tight competition. They might have the same purpose but the actual implementation and future developments are varied with each other. The goal is, how to solve all issues and a single stable coin can't solve it.

We need these several options as being limited to only a few options or a single one might just lead to more problems.

We can compare these to other blockchains network problems like the reason why altcoins are made.

But who's going to do it?

Wouldn't this centralise an already centralised system even further?

There are simply too many questions that are unanswered in my opinion for this to work out. People can and should be able to create their own stablecoins wherever they see fit - especially when it comes to cross-chain compatibility. You simply can't have native UST on the NEAR protocol, for instance.

While all currently existing stable coins are pegged to the USD, they are not exactly the same. The philosophy and characteristics with which some of them are built differ form each other. For example, USDT is being viewed as centralized stable coin while DAI is viewed as decentralized. Holding your funds on the centralized stable coin have some risks attached to it when compared to decentralized stable coin(s).   
You can read more here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5385516.0;  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204055.0).

Another aspect to look at is that merging all stable coins will not encourage healthy competition, and might lead to centralization on the long run. While we don't need too many stable coins but the ones that are existing will encourage healthy competition as well as improvement in the technology they were built on.

Different stable coin issuers means different companies so merging may take a lot of talk and agreements between them its not easy to happen especially when it comes to profit. Much better if they will issue coins separately and have different advantages from each other so investors will have many choice of what they want to use.   

https://i.imgur.com/WEgboef.png

You can also check this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/stablecoins-soar-in-value-as-everything-else-in-crypto-shrinks#:~:text=The%20total%20market%20capitalization%20of,compiled%20by%20The%20Block%20show.


Now what I am seeing is every blockchain is bringing its own stable coin. Most of these blockchain has their own supporter and investors but is the volume of all the stable coin really so significant that we need a stable coin for each blockchain? Why do we need so many of the same things!!! why we can not use an existing one if there is nothing new we are achieving.

Of course, not all products are guaranteed to be absolutely secure, but we are talking about the top stablecoins. It is completely easy. I don't have a problem with those coins. Maybe people are afraid of the problem too much. As mentioned above, space competition also helps to drive the market. Each person will have their own assessment ability, but there is no need to be too difficult USDT, USDC, BUSD, UST,.... are too common to access.

even I think it's impossible to realize. it's not just from different companies, of course, everyone in the company talks about how stable coins they make will be profitable for them too. many choices and leave it to the user. because everyone has their favorite. no problem with stable coins, they also have their market support.

So it's healthy competition. Different stabelcoins, supported by different blockchains, have their own commissions and their own collateral. It's just like real life. You wouldn't like it if you were offered to buy only one car on the planet, even if it had all the useful features that only you need. Competition and variety are important in the industry. In addition, all of these stabelcoins are built on different blockchains, which means you can't come up with one common project, simply because it can't function equally across different blockchains.

Let me know if it affects your trading or not. Consolidation is a superfluous idea when we see diversity and assurance from it. Don't draw your own paranoid scenarios in your head because it won't change anything. We all know the major stablecoins all have their own collateral and they are not a collective. By nature, they are stable coins, so competition is gradually driving the market bigger. 

This thing can be done anytime even you can create an aggregate stable token to be used by any stable token. I mean something called YUSD and this stable token can be exchanged with whole of stable tokens that available in the market. When you are owning YUSD and this is also meaning if you are owning the universal stable token as well.
You can create your own solution for this and this is how it's working today. You didn't even need wait the developers to create their universal stable token.

with each stable coin having its own blockchain, so it is clear that there is competition for investors and they profit from using the blockchain, of course the need for fees will be higher. I think it is difficult to unite, considering this is a business competition with the same field that will never unite. but I think each choice will have its own consumers, while those who are not able to compete will be degraded, isn't this a positive competition to pamper consumers, because of course they will improve services to get consumers

In the future, we will not only see stablecoins that are stable in USD but also in other currencies such as rub, yuan, pound,... So to put your problem back, merging here is still necessary. Is that okay? The variety of stablecoins is not a big deal as they do not have a large impact on user usage.

This is actually a competitive system in the cryptocurrency world, every development must offer something tempting for cryptocurrency users. But if to combine stable coins into one that is quite difficult, the article must unite several people into one container. They must also think about what benefits they will get if they agree to make it happen.

All stable coins are not the same, some claimed to be backed by Fiat but its a lie, even if its decentralised stable coin or centralised stable coin none of them really really back Fiat in the open world, I think this backing of a thing is just online, I don't trust but still use stable coins like USDT and USDC, regulation is lacking here don't you think? Maybe CBDC will take over in near future.

Hmmm, you got a point here, I also agree especially when some country will start their own stable coins which are backed by their respective fiat currency. I believe that there are lot of stablecoins now which is backed or pegged with USD is because they have different goal as don't have with other stablecoins let's exclude the network/chain they are deployed.

Do you believe these reports? Me not.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/VcNv0hgvQ2a3Ochjs5TqR/59e77f0c076544a88f977d1d36b76dbf/tether_assuranceconsolidated_reserves_report_2021-06-30.pdf
If you're talking about creating a new global currency, then the big question is who will control the issue.

Well I do agree with you because the purpose that leads to creating one project and another is to fix a particular problem or create competition which would make every other projects to keep fighting to be better than another. That would keep the developers on their toes and they will keep working hard so that they would maintain their platform and be able to retain their users.

If there is just only one stablecoin and let's say for example it is USDT, they will do as it pleases them when they see that there is no competition for them. So we do need competition for the community to thrive.

What you say is true too, how can fiat money be able to compete with stablecoins because the two are very different.
But why can you be sure that CBDC will take on an expert in the near future?
Does CBDC also have more power than USDT and USDC,?

There is nothing to do with these, how many projects are on the market with their own blockchain, there will probably be so many stablecoins, because each project praises its own stablecoin, and then there is competition in the market, as for me, I would also like to see one stablecoin on all blockchains.

We still have many big problems that still need time to be solved, so when we look at the problems that people mention and think that they are difficult to approach. It is better to see the problem according to its general nature, and not to look at it from a personal point of view, wanting to satisfy your own, then solve it yourself. Maybe the OP should look at it in a simpler way.

Switching between the stable tokens were so easy and it cost only a few seconds to do that. You can also use one stable token forever and the choice is yours. In this case univercal stable token aggregate is not actually needed at all. People are so smart and they have their own stable token as their own choices. I just wanna try to remind you that if you can also send various stable tokens easily even converting from the one to the each other. This mean when you are bridging your stable token and you can switch it easily. Im sure that if we didn't need stable token which was act as aggregat.
Universtal stable token was a useless idea for sure.

We don't need monopoly in crypto so having wider range is stable coins is good thing. If they are trusted I don't see a problem with having more of them.

Economic liberalism and freedom brought me to the crypto world. After a couple of years in crypto I reached a cognitive dissonance. I hate regulation, but I strongly believe stable coins are crying for it. Change my mind.

merging all stable coins into one coin only really difficult, most of them have different algorithm about pegging their value to dollar. some of them even have value less $1 such as stable coin in wave recently that reach 0,65. personally  i see it as difficult thing to unite them.

Yes, I’ve also had the same thought that having too many stable coins in the market is totally unnecessary. But there’s nothing we can do about it, developers just want to make money and that is it, they will keep on competing with each other and you will still keep on seeing more and more stable coins being released into the market. It is never going to stop. If there is the possibility of merging all the stable coins together I will say that it would be into two places.

There are some stable coins that are centralized and regulated (e.g USDT) : these ones can go together, while the ones that are decentralized such as DAI can be merged together. That way we will have just two stable coins, a centralized one and the other that is decentralized.

Most, if not all, stable coins are simply privately owned products. What you propose is just as possible as asking that all beer producers start making only one common and this same. Of course it is impossible and be prepared for the fact that the number of stable coins will increase rather than decrease.

Different altcoins have got different backing mechanism. Having their own stablecoin will let them have stability in fund management against the unexpected market crash/drops. This is the reason why developers try to have their own stablecoin. Making every stablecoin get unified into a single one is good, but the same could create controversy with the backing. Switching between stable coins isn't a big deal, and different stablecoins have difference in the marginal variation. This too serves as a people going for specific stablecoins.

In my opinion, it's about money that will be gained by creating the stable coins, shortly, it's about Business done by a company by offering their own project (in this case stable coin), with their very interesting offers, promises, advertisement, and also all strengthen that they offer over other stable coins.

and to merge them?
I don't think that it can be because they come from different developers, companies and also projects. They are trying to compete each other by offering their best stable coin.

For me, I will no matter of how they create new stable coins again or not, it's like other altcoins that are coming new almost everyday.
I just need to use some of them that considerably needed and matched with what I need, it's enough.