Exactly. It's going to take ages before the world completely abandons the USD. Despite signs that the currency is weakening, other currencies are faring worse. Not even BRICS has been able to create an alternative currency that would compete against the US Dollar. The "de-dollarization" process doesn't happen overnight. Slowly but surely, the USD will lose traction until another currency takes its place as the world's reserve currency.

There are theories as to which will be the USD's replacement in the future. I'd be surprised if it happens to be Bitcoin, especially when people are losing faith on central banks and the government. El Salvador already declared BTC as legal tender, while Argentina's president Javier Milei proposed to shut down the central bank and use Bitcoin. Is this a sign that Fiat currencies like the USD and EUR will die soon?

Exactly. The risks of holding stablecoins are much higher than simply holding Fiat. Stablecoins are only convenient for people living in countries with a high inflation rate. The rest won't have any need to use a stablecoin, unless they want to get higher interest rates with their savings. "De-Fi" provide attractive rates for stablecoin deposits not found anywhere else. You'll have to decide what works best for you.

What matters is that you protect yourself against the volatile nature of the crypto market. As long as you win more than what you lose, there should be nothing to worry about.

We can't stop people from selling their crypto to Fiat. After all, the majority wants to make money. Holding crypto without selling is something that only a true believer would do. If you don't sell, there's no reason for the government to collect taxes from you. However, you'll be tempted to sell when you need the money to buy things you can't spend your crypto on. That's when you need to pay your taxes.

I have no problem with crypto taxation as long as it's done fairly. At least, the US doesn't charge as much taxes as India does. 

It's insane. People are wasting money into worthless tokens that are only driven by hype. What real use cases does a "meme" coin provide? Nothing. It seems like Solana will become the #1 chain for this kind of garbage. It's the only thing that's been "pumping" SOL's market price (besides the sale of the Saga smartphone). I wonder how low will Solana go once the "meme" coins hype comes to an end?

Instead of focusing on "meme" coins, people should pay more attention to serious cryptocurrency projects. I'm talking about Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the likes. You're more likely to build generational wealth with BTC and ETH, than any of the "meme" coins listed across mainstream crypto exchanges. Considering that "meme" coins are a passing trend, expect 99% of them to die in the future. Only Dogecoin will survive because it's the oldest "meme" coin in existence. Crypto land behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so expect the unexpected.

Even if Bitcoin turns centralized in the long run? Scaling should be done in a responsible manner to help prevent BTC losing its core aspects of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Why do you think chains with a big block size (BCH and BSV) didn't succeed? Because they chose to sacrifice decentralization in favor of high performance and cost-efficiency. Layer-2 networks like the Lightning Network are a much safer bet. Even though the LN is flawed by design, it's a temporary solution meant to scale BTC without driving it away from its decentralized principles. If the LN shuts down or gets compromised, the main BTC blockchain will still be running as usual.

Developers need to get their act together by focusing on fixing the LN's issues to make it a reliable scaling solution for all. Improving UX (user experience) is the first thing they need to do. At least, we have plenty of options to choose from. If you're in a hurry and want to save money, why not use an altcoin ("shitcoin") instead?

Of course not. But the FED can make a partnership with Ripple to make its own CBDC. Ripple can manage network operations (nodes, consensus, etc), while monetary policy will be in the hands of the FED. A much easier route would be to declare any of the popular USD-backed stablecoins as the official US Digital Dollar. It could be Ripple's new stablecoin, Tether's USDT, Circle's USDC, or even PayPal's PYUSD.

Given how popular crypto/Blockchain tech has become, I think this will happen a lot faster than we've previously imagined. I'm just speculating here. I don't think the FED will use a public blockchain network because that would reveal all of its activities on-chain (transparency). A privately-owned chain, or a chain with privacy features would be most suitable for the new CBDC. The future can't be predicted, so we can only hope for the best.

By "subnetworks" do you mean "sidechains"? If that's the case, then yes, they're a much safer and reliable option than the LN. Bitcoin's use cases can be expanded far from the areas of finance. I've seen sidechains providing smart contracts functionality, as well as, decentralized storage capabilities. Unfortunately, these chains aren't as widely-recognized as the LN. The latter has strong marketing from crypto companies, businesses, and exchanges alike.

Although adoption for the LN is still low, it's certainly greater than sidechains. The solution to the high fee problem is already there. What's challenging is making people use alternative solutions to have a better experience with Bitcoin. With plenty of altcoins to choose from, why focus on scaling Bitcoin, anyways?

Wasn't DAI collaterized by crypto assets (particularly ETH)? If it's only backed by smart contracts, then it should be called an "algorithmic stablecoin" instead. TRON's USDD is one of them. But I get what you mean.

Decentralized stablecoins like DAI and USDJ are a much better choice because they lack a central authority/operator. This means the risk of loss is much lower than centralized counterparts. In the case of DAI, the stablecoin is governed by MakerDAO (a Decentralized Autonomous Organization). MKR holders can influence the future direction of the stablecoin. If USDT and USDC were like that, things would've been better by now. At least we have a choice. Who knows what would be the future of the stablecoins industry?

Of course. I'm aware of the differences between stablecoins and CBDCs. What I meant was central banks (in this case, the FED) making a partnership with a crypto company to launch the new CBDC. The US could hire Ripple, Circle, or even Tether for the creation of the new "Digital Dollar". Or they can use an existing stablecoin and officially declare it as the digital USD.

I believe Ripple has a better chance for this, because it has its own blockchain network (or should I say "Distributed Ledger"). Tether doesn't have its own Blockchain, while its USDT stablecoin lives across multiple public blockchain networks. PayPal has its own stablecoin (PYUSD), but it's far behind giants such as USDT and USDC. I wonder how successful Ripple's new stablecoin will be?

Speaking of Fiat deposits, I've always wondered why decentralized gambling dApps don't accept stablecoins tied to the value of USD. I think it's because developers fear strict government regulations, and don't want to be charged for encouraging money laundering and/or tax evasion. After all, stablecoin transactions are KYC-free (if I'm right). USDT and USDC would've been great options for decentralized gambling. For the paranoid, DAI is even better because of its truly-decentralized design.

While some decentralized casinos struggle with high network fees and a terrible user experience, L2 chains could be the solution to all of their problems. Would you imagine betting at the speed and cost-efficiency of a traditional centralized casino without the added risk? This could be the future of the gambling industry. No matter how far decentralized casinos go, they will never get to replace their centralized counterparts. I'm fine with that as long as gamblers have a choice.

And developers seem to be "going on with the flow". They aren't focused on the quality aspect of their project as they've used to do in the past. I remember the early days was all about innovation mainly in the privacy and smart contracts area. Nowadays, it's all about worthless "meme" coins and NFTs with no purpose in life. The vast majority of these coins live within existing Blockchain networks. It's even worse these days because anyone can create a token without any coding knowledge whatsoever. This added convenience is what has made a lot of scams possible.

I sure hope we get to see independent Blockchains focused on utility and quality than anything else. Maybe with "Wall Street" joining the game, developers will start taking things more seriously? It's a crazy world we're living these days, so expect the unexpected.

The real problem are algorithmic stablecoins. They're not backed by anything. You can lose it all in an instant if they fail to hold the peg against the USD. This is what happened with Terra/LUNA's UST stablecoin.

USD-backed stablecoins are a much safer bet. But there's also the risk of losing it all if the stablecoin issuer fails to match the supply with its USD reserves. USDT is one of those stablecoins with a shady history. Who says it won't lose its peg in the future? For what I know, nothing lasts forever. I'd suggest you diversify your investment to minimize risks as much as possible. You'll thank me later.

I don't get why the US wants to tax staking income if no Fiat (USD) transactions are involved? You only pay taxes if you sell your ETH to USD. Not if you earn and "hodl" ETH without selling. At least, that's how I understood it from the very beginning. If things have changed, then it means the US government is treating ETH as a security instead of a commodity.

Nonetheless, staking on centralized exchanges brings too many issues I'd like to avoid in the first place. Non-custodial staking is the way. Maybe the US will start hunting down ETH addresses using on-chain analytics tools (Chainalysis) to detect "tax evaders"? With how strict crypto regulations are becoming, we should expect the worse.

Convenience goes above all else. And right now, gamblers have no intention of abandoning centralized casinos. I think decentralized and centralized casinos will co-exist for generations. A gambler will choose a casino depending on his/her needs. If you're living in a country where gambling is illegal, you should seek a decentralized casino that's privacy-focused (no KYC). Otherwise, you should stay on a centralized casino for complete peace of mind.

I sure hope gambling dApps improve to a point where it becomes cost-effective and easy enough to participate on them. Layer-2 seems to be the future for this. Who knows if someday decentralized casinos become as comparable as their centralized counterparts?

It feels good to hold a digital currency tied to the value of real USD, when the currency of your country is worth nothing. In this case, holding a stablecoin like USDT or USDC is a much better choice. But for people already living in the US, it's best to look elsewhere. If stablecoins had some kind of insurance, they would've been a much safer bet.

One would hope there isn't another crash like the one experienced by UST (Terra/LUNA's stablecoin) a while ago. Tether is one of the high-risk stablecoins due to its shady practices. Constant money printing and lack of regular audits is a no-go for me. This is a "free market", so anyone can choose what's best for them depending on their needs. Just don't invest more than what you can't afford to lose, and there should be nothing to worry about.

I think Ripple has a better chance of getting the CBDC project on-track because of its well-established presence in the crypto industry. Unlike Tether, Ripple has its own Blockchain meant to be used for both internal payments (using XRP) and interbank transfers using ordinary Fiat currencies (USD, EUR, etc). It could work hand-in-hand with the FED to launch the new "Digital Dollar". Why should the FED bother making a new digital currency from scratch? It's easier for the US government to hire a reputable crypto firm/company for its own CBDC.

Although the new currency will be developed by a company, the FED will still have full control over it (monetary policy, etc). If Ripple's stablecoin becomes the official US CBDC, we should expect XRP to go all the way to the moon. It could strengthen the USD's position as the world's reserve currency, too. We're living in an uncertain world these days, so anything's possible.

Ripple, Inc. recently proposed the creation of a USD-backed stablecoin. It aims to compete with already-established players (mainly USDT and USDC) on the market. For years, the XRP Ledger was believed to become SWIFT's replacement in the future. It hasn't materialized yet, but XRP is already used by many banks worldwide. It enables interbank payments at a fraction of the cost. Settlement times are near-instantaneous.

Now if Ripple succeeds with its stablecoin project, would it become the US' official "Digital Dollar"? For what I know, Ripple, Inc. is an American-based company headquartered in . The FED might work hand-in-hand with the company to radically transform the USD as we know it. Do you think this is possible? If not, why? What if it becomes a reality? Will such a move strengthen the USD's position as the world's reserve currency?

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Of course. Bitcoin's supply can't be manipulated by anyone. Of course, this would be subject to the network's consensus mechanism. But what if the "Elite" manages to acquire most of the network's hashrate? Then, it will be possible to change the Blockchain's rules with ease.

At this point, I believe it's impossible to do such a thing. Especially when getting ahold of 51% of the network's hashrate will require a hefty sum of money. The cost will be greater than the benefit. Therefore, banks funding Bitcoin Core won't have any negative impact over the cryptocurrency's principles in the long run. It will remain decentralized, immutable, and censorship-resistant as usual. Considering that Bitcoin is the future of money, there's a possibility world governments will adopt it as their own. El Salvador did it, while Argentina is next on the list to do so. Who knows if Fiat becomes history soon?

If a "meme" coin has strong community backing, it could last for a long time. Dogecoin was once thought to be a failure, only to succeed after it gained the attention of Elon Musk. Now it's hard to believe it'll go away anytime soon. The same could happen with other coins such as Shiba Inu and Pepe. While "meme" coins don't hold any value, they're a great way to learn how crypto works due to their inexpensiveness. You can send money around the world without "breaking the bank" (subject to the Blockchain's network fees).

Crypto newcomers will surely get into "meme" coins before trying out serious project such as Bitcoin or Ethereum. As long as scammers are taken down, there should be nothing to worry about. Who knows what future will "meme" coins have?

Why can't the LN succeed the same way ETH-based L2 networks (Arbitrum, Base, Optimism) succeeded? I guess that's because people consider Bitcoin as an investment than a currency. ETH is viewed among many as a "utility token", especially when it's needed for interacting with smart contracts (dApps). I don't know how BTC developers are going to pull it off, especially when many exchanges still haven't adopted the LN yet. Coinbase recently made a partnership with Lightspark to add support for the LN.

Maybe there's hope after all? If the LN gets perfected, it could become the main railway for day-to-day BTC transactions. The future is unpredictable, so anything's possible.