Okex announce markets for all regulated stable coins

[gentlemand]

https://support.okex.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018227491

That includes TUSD, USDC, GUSD and PAX

Anyone have any idea how this is going to work? It seems pretty darned weird to me. All they're going to do is fracture the markets until there's multiple piddly ones that no one can apply serious action to.

[1Referee]

I'm afraid that this is just the beginning of what will turn out to be a stablecoin hype.

It's the perfect way for unregulated garbage exchanges to remain relevant with how they don't have to mess with actual fiat pairs, and when you don't mess with fiat, it means that regulators are less likely to whoop your ass. In that regard, it won't surprise me at all when more of these USDT exchanges will adapt to it and list as many of them as possible.

Instead of eliminating single points of failure, we keep adding them to this ecosystem and it's going to hurt badly at one day. People will only realize how fundamentally flawed stablecoins are when they implode in their face.

It also grants governments an extra opportunity to hurt the crypto ecosystem by simply seizing the actual fiat reserves backing the stablecoins. Governments have proven to seize assets backing legal instruments they consider to be a problem, and it will happen again. It's foolish to not expect it to happen again.

[BitHodler]

It's the perfect way for unregulated garbage exchanges to remain relevant with how they don't have to mess with actual fiat pairs, and when you don't mess with fiat, it means that regulators are less likely to whoop your ass. In that regard, it won't surprise me at all when more of these USDT exchanges will adapt to it and list as many of them as possible.

Instead of eliminating single points of failure, we keep adding them to this ecosystem and it's going to hurt badly at one day. People will only realize how fundamentally flawed stablecoins are when they implode in their face.

Agreed. I really thought that we would be seeing more exchanges incorporate fiat base pairs, which would significantly strengthen the market overall, but we're dealing with an influx of toxic stable tokens instead.

Another thing is that with how we will be dealing with more stable coin base pairs, the order books will become a whole lot thinner, and thus easier to manipulate by whoever has deep enough pockets.

It will be an ugly pop for sure in case things go wrong catastrophically, but with how people here live by the day, they don't give a shizzle about these stable coins gaining more ground by the day. They will do the crying later, when it's too late.

[figmentofmyass]

https://support.okex.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018227491

That includes TUSD, USDC, GUSD and PAX

Anyone have any idea how this is going to work? It seems pretty darned weird to me. All they're going to do is fracture the markets until there's multiple piddly ones that no one can apply serious action to.

yeah, it might fracture liquidity unfortunately. if USDT traders move to another stablecoin market, both markets will be less liquid.

then again, people are always complaining about how USDT is too big and is gonna be the next goxing. those people should be happy to see USDT liquidity decline and the risk spread around to other third parties.

Instead of eliminating single points of failure, we keep adding them to this ecosystem and it's going to hurt badly at one day. People will only realize how fundamentally flawed stablecoins are when they implode in their face.

It also grants governments an extra opportunity to hurt the crypto ecosystem by simply seizing the actual fiat reserves backing the stablecoins. Governments have proven to seize assets backing legal instruments they consider to be a problem, and it will happen again. It's foolish to not expect it to happen again.

how can you eliminate single points of failure when it comes to fiat markets? that seems impossible unless every transaction is p2p. there's not nearly enough p2p liquidity to satisfy trading demand.

can't they hurt the crypto ecosystem by seizing the fiat reserves of exchanges? stablecoins represent the exact same risk. but i'll tell ya, i'd much rather hold a stablecoin from gemini or circle than tether, if we're worried about bank seizures.

so i don't see this stuff as all that bad. it's a way for everyone to offload some of their bitfinex/tether risk exposure.

[1Referee]

how can you eliminate single points of failure when it comes to fiat markets? that seems impossible unless every transaction is p2p. there's not nearly enough p2p liquidity to satisfy trading demand.

can't they hurt the crypto ecosystem by seizing the fiat reserves of exchanges? stablecoins represent the exact same risk. but i'll tell ya, i'd much rather hold a stablecoin from gemini or circle than tether, if we're worried about bank seizures.

so i don't see this stuff as all that bad. it's a way for everyone to offload some of their bitfinex/tether risk exposure.

The thing with stablecoins is that they can be used pretty much on any exchange that supports them, and that without abiding by their respective regulations within the jurisdictions they operate in. In case a government doesn't like exchange X and Y, or doesn't seem to be able to shut them down, the easiest way to crack down on these exchanges is to cut off that what grants them their income and can be cut off easily, and that's the fiat reserves of these stable coins.

What happens if the government right now seizes the bank account(s) of Tether (assuming for the sake of argument USDT is backed completely)? It will hurt Binance, Bitfinex, OKEx, Huobi, ZB, Hitbtc, Coinbene, Bittrex, Poloniex, etc. That's one heck of a blow to this whole ecosystem.

That's basically my main concern, and not so much fiat exchanges such as Coinbase who are compliant and licensed to deal with fiat.

[figmentofmyass]

how can you eliminate single points of failure when it comes to fiat markets? that seems impossible unless every transaction is p2p. there's not nearly enough p2p liquidity to satisfy trading demand.

can't they hurt the crypto ecosystem by seizing the fiat reserves of exchanges? stablecoins represent the exact same risk. but i'll tell ya, i'd much rather hold a stablecoin from gemini or circle than tether, if we're worried about bank seizures.

so i don't see this stuff as all that bad. it's a way for everyone to offload some of their bitfinex/tether risk exposure.

The thing with stablecoins is that they can be used pretty much on any exchange that supports them, and that without abiding by their respective regulations within the jurisdictions they operate in. In case a government doesn't like exchange X and Y, or doesn't seem to be able to shut them down, the easiest way to crack down on these exchanges is to cut off that what grants them their income and can be cut off easily, and that's the fiat reserves of these stable coins.

What happens if the government right now seizes the bank account(s) of Tether (assuming for the sake of argument USDT is backed completely)? It will hurt Binance, Bitfinex, OKEx, Huobi, ZB, Hitbtc, Coinbene, Bittrex, Poloniex, etc. That's one heck of a blow to this whole ecosystem.

That's basically my main concern, and not so much fiat exchanges such as Coinbase who are compliant and licensed to deal with fiat.

it will hurt the customers of those exchanges, less so the exchanges themselves. if the value of USDT drops to $0, the exchanges are still "solvent" with regards to USDT reserves.

and i get what you're saying---blow to the ecosystem and all---but isn't it better to have gemini, circle and others issuing stablecoins rather than only tether? isn't more options better than less?

if stablecoin holders on binance are split evenly between TUSD, USDC and USDT and only tether goes down, isn't that better than if 100% are using USDT? that's sort of like 100% of the ecosystem trading on gox: disaster waiting to happen, amirite? talk about single points of failure!

i'm definitely worried that tether could have bank accounts seized. that's why i'd rather see stablecoin regulatory risk spread around to other custodians, rather than seeing 100% of the risk borne by tether holders.