The simple fact is that there just isn't enough incentive for those devs to focus on smart contracting capabilities. Bitcoin dev funding has become concentrated in the hands of a few powerful organizations that pay for the upkeep of Bitcoin core and for developments along lines that are beneficial to them rather than the community. Blockstream's Element sidechain and Liquid federation exemplify this. The ground reality which many here prefer to ignore is that bitcoin community has not been able to develop a smart-contract focussed dev pool.
I think the question is more one of priorities than it is about funding. Regardless of how centralised or not you feel development has become, I still believe the decisions would be made based on what provides the greater benefit for the network as a whole. It's possible I'm being naive, but I think more people overall will benefit from things like privacy and scaling enhancements than they would from smart contracts. Throwing money at smart contracts wouldn't suddenly make them more useful to the average person. |
|
|
|
So it's imho it's closer to "failed experiment", although it's not even known enough to be called like that by such a number so it would matter...
In some ways, DeFi still feels like a solution in search of a problem. For most people, it doesn't serve a real-world use case yet. Which is why it's primarily used as a buzzword to peddle scam tokens and fleece the gullible at the moment. Conceptually, it's a fine idea, but I'm certain there's a long road ahead before people really need this technology. I wouldn't say it has "failed", just that it hasn't discovered its true purpose yet. |
|
|
|
|
I started writing a reply on another topic about this earlier today, but by the time I hit "Post" it was gone. I'm guessing it got nuked because they didn't link a source.
Lots of sites seem to be reporting it's a "crisis", but it's difficult to see how strong demand can somehow be interpreted as a bad thing. It'll be interesting to see what impact it'll have now that Grayscale have temporarily suspended issuance of new placements. Maybe things will calm down a little.
|
|
|
|
OP has apparently taken an interest in amateur philosophy now. Yet somehow thinks philosophy belongs in the economics board. And they're, astoundingly, still completely oblivious to how people might find them annoying. Yes, it's a total mystery.  |
|
|
|
|
Most of them are effectively blogs dressed up as news sites. Vultures that re-purpose stories from anywhere they can find them. Even if it's actually old news, which is a trick they commonly pull when it's a slow week. There's not a great deal of journalistic integrity involved.
|
|
|
|
I am expecting the authorities to shut down USDT altogether like they did with Liberty Reserve.
Maybe, but something tells me it won't end there. While it would definitely knock a fair amount of confidence out of the market, some people wouldn't give up at that point and would probably switch to a different pegged token. The implosion of Gox wasn't enough to put people off using exchanges, despite making the risks abundantly apparent, so the implosion of USDT probably won't be much different. Doesn't matter how many people get burned, it's seldom treated as a learning experience. |
|
|
|
Simply i rather own USDT.
If usdt goes down ill go to usa goverment door officials and ask where the f is my money homie !
Yes, I'm sure they'll get right on that after they've referred you to the IRS for a nice little chat. They've got a fantastic track record with this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
For this kind of attidude.... Be nice and respectful  Respect is earned. As is contempt. You've brought this upon yourself. Stop acting as though you have something to offer us. Take the hint, your so-called " info" isn't wanted. |
|
|
|
What is the purpose of this topic exactly? I am a bit confused once I read it, doesn't seem to focus on a single goal.
OP needed to feed their ego. It probably occurred to them that no one was going to listen if they posted their usual gloomy predictions. Circumstances have forced them to change their tune in order to get attention. Don't worry, though. I'm sure they'll revert back to their regularly scheduled FUD format as soon as the situation permits them. |
|
|
|
there are lots of people that are making use of it and Tether is like the most popular stablecoin in the market, a lot of traders are making use of it and they don’t even consider other good stablecoins there are out there. Tether is no longer fully pegged to US dollar so why would anyone continue and they have also have a lawsuit against in New York,
It's very much a " path of least resistance" kinda deal. Regardless of how shady it looks, traders want the liquidity. It's shortsighted and risky, but it's convenient. They'll keep using it until it blows up in their face. |
|
|
|
.. they 'can'. Whatever they to, 100% SEC / CFTC et al will shut it down, even after 7 + years. No way doing such (bigger) without engagment with regs
Tech doesnt solve that - get real
Oh, that's right, you believe that only the fervent followers of your worthless clonecoin understand what regulations are. News flash, zealot, Liquid has been developed with regulatory conformity in mind: businesses can quickly issue Liquid-based security tokens with the click of a button, and establish sophisticated rulesets to conform with their regulatory requirements with no software engineering experience required. token rules do not have to be written at the smart contract level–as is the case with other blockchain platforms–and can be easily adjusted via the Liquid Securities control panel to allow issuers to adapt to fast-evolving digital asset regulations. Looks like tech does, in fact, solve that. Now kindly go away with your regurgitated faketoshi propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
Ask it in reverse. The real question is, "Are the masses ready for Bitcoin?"
They're really not. Most people can't recognise the importance of securing their own wealth and maintaining financial sovereignty. And even if they could, most of them would probably do a half-arsed job of it. Or would entrust their funds to a third party custodian, missing the point completely.
This is probably the last thing you would expect a Bitcoin user to say, but until people can change their mindset, mass adoption is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be encouraging it.
|
|
|
|
If you have no respect for the community, and you violate the rules and regulations of good conduct, then you must be prepared to bear the consequences. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or censorship.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG: I had MANY MANY posts censored with absolutely no violation of the rules, someone just did not like what I was saying. You posting LIES to support censorship does not make you a freedom loving person, it makes you corrupt and every bit as insecure as any petty dictator that needs to control what people say. Many people in this community are nice, honest, freedom loving people. If you read the ORIGIONAL posting rules of this forum, it was very open to anyone. Back when BitCoin was about freedom, and not just getting rich. Even though you try to mix yourself in with good people, your actions betray you control freak dishonest tendencies You'll find freedom cuts both ways. You're free to post it, but mods are free to delete it if people are reporting your posts as undesirable. We're under no obligation to suffer fools. Try to remember that. Crying censorship doesn't give you a free pass to annoy people. |
|
|
|
For me, this is very fishy. Why the congress is so concerned about Libra/Diem?
Same reason they didn't like the Liberty Dollar. Described by some as “the Rosa Parks of the constitutional currency movement,” Mr. von NotHaus managed over the last decade to get more than 60 million real dollars’ worth of his precious metal-backed currency into circulation across the country — so much, and with such deep penetration, that the prosecutor overseeing his case accused him of “domestic terrorism” for using them to undermine the government.
Of course, if you ask him what caused him to be living here in exile, waiting with the rabbits for his sentence to be rendered, he will give a different account of what occurred.
“This is the United States government,” he said in an interview last week. “It’s got all the guns, all the surveillance, all the tanks, it has nuclear weapons, and it’s worried about some ex-surfer guy making his own money? Give me a break!” |
|
|
|
with libra diem launching next month, things are heating up. libra is what got congress really talking about crypto regulation, and i have a feeling it's about to thrust it to the forefront again. the bitcoin bull market is accelerating things too. there is always a chance that governments tread lightly in favor innovation in the DEFI space. wouldn't that be nice? Maybe they'll maintain a light touch approach while CBDCs are still in the research stage, but I can't shake the feeling their priorities will change if CBDCs ever reach the production stage. I suppose that's still a big " if", though. Part of me thinks these central bank currencies won't get off the drawing board for another 5 - 10 years. The corporations need to use their head start wisely. There's a remote possibility that if Diem is successful and can gather a large enough global userbase before any government coins are launched, it's conceivable that governments would just co-opt that system instead of attempting to recreate it themselves. |
|
|
|
May be some people will be interested but that will be very few because everything is available in the internet. Why would anyone purchase a book while it’s available on the internet?
That was my initial reaction, but I suppose there is a certain sentimentality about it. I wouldn't buy it, but I'm sure there are enough people that will. And at 30 bucks a pop, it's not like they need to sell that many to turn a tidy profit. I'll echo the others in the topic who've said it's unethical and crass, though. |
|
|
|
are there any stablecoins that don't fit that definition? most people think DAI is decentralized, but DAI is actually majority backed by centralized assets like USDC, PAX, and WBTC. there are huge third party risks involved. the way i see it, different stablecoins come with different risks: - the odds of USDC or GUSD becoming unpegged due to insolvency (like a bank account getting seized) is extremely low because their issuers are super compliant in terms of licensing and AML. the odds of that happening to USDT are much higher.
- however, the odds of USDC or GUSD becoming infungible (or having your account closed or being reported to regulatory authorities) is much higher than with USDT, since tether and bitfinex are much more lax with AML/KYC stuff re secondary markets.
- "decentralized" stablecoins like DAI represent another risk: bad smart contract execution, bad governance, network congestion, etc can cause unexpected and catastrophic losses, like the $4.5 million lost in DAI during the crash in march.
Plus, if governments are looking to pursue CBDCs, every single private stablecoin is at risk from regulatory pressure. CBDCs won't need to compete with stablecoins for market share if stablecoins are simply legislated into obsoletion. I think their days are numbered. |
|
|
|
A deliberate effort to obscure their identity. Maybe they changed the settings on their spellchecker so they didn't have to make a conscious effort to remember to change all the spellings manually each time they posted. Do you think that more than one person posted from the satoshi account? I don't personally, no. Pretty sure satoshi was an individual. I get the sense all those posts were made by one personality. My use of " their" is purely in the place of not knowing their personal pronouns. |
|
|
|
That being said, I might have to buy some BitCoins now.
Yes, let's all play along. You pretend you're buying now. Then, next time there's a dip, you'll inevitably post another troll topic where you make up a story about how much you lost and act like we're all terrible people and gave you bad advice. Be honest. You're buying gold and nothing else until your lord and saviour Peter Schiff instructs you otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Of course, it could all be misdirection. A deliberate effort to obscure their identity. Maybe they changed the settings on their spellchecker so they didn't have to make a conscious effort to remember to change all the spellings manually each time they posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
