StableCoins might increase crypto adoption by big companies ?

[landoffaucets]

You all might be knowing that Steam used to accept payments in bitcoin through BitPay, but they abruptly stopped it stating the price volatility of bitcoin to be the issue.
Stablecoins eliminates this very issue, could this encourage Steam or other companies like Amazon,etc. to start incorporating cryptocurrencies into their payment systems.
Is it possible some stablecoin might outperform bitcoin regarding this?

Yeah, but the problem with stablecoin is that these coins are backed by fiat money, and these money are not backed. So, they do not solve the problem with centralized power, they are not an alternative to the bank system, they only use blockchain technology and that´s all.

[poornamelessme]

Stablecoins could in theory lead to crypto adoption, but there are some big IFs. First, what does the SEC think about it? Secondly the fees need to be less than credit cards/paypal, as otherwise why wouldn't the company just be better off using fiat?

But if those two things (especially the SEC) can be worked out, then yeah, I think stablecoins make the most sense in regard to both company and user adoption. Also makes the most sense for 3rd world countries w/ hyperinflation.

[wxa7115]

You all might be knowing that Steam used to accept payments in bitcoin through BitPay, but they abruptly stopped it stating the price volatility of bitcoin to be the issue.
Stablecoins eliminates this very issue, could this encourage Steam or other companies like Amazon,etc. to start incorporating cryptocurrencies into their payment systems.
Is it possible some stablecoin might outperform bitcoin regarding this?

But that is not really the reason why we have stable coins, bitcoin was actually created with the intention of being a currency used to pay for all kind of products, it is just that the adoption level has not reached the level where we can use it to buy everything that we want, stable coins were created with a very different objective in mind, they were created to allow investors to protect themselves from the volatility of this market.

That is it, they perform their function really well and it allows you to get a coin that behaves like fiat without having to deposit that money in a bank account, but stable coins will never be used massively as no one is using them to buy anything.

[poornamelessme]

You all might be knowing that Steam used to accept payments in bitcoin through BitPay, but they abruptly stopped it stating the price volatility of bitcoin to be the issue.
Stablecoins eliminates this very issue, could this encourage Steam or other companies like Amazon,etc. to start incorporating cryptocurrencies into their payment systems.
Is it possible some stablecoin might outperform bitcoin regarding this?

But that is not really the reason why we have stable coins, bitcoin was actually created with the intention of being a currency used to pay for all kind of products, it is just that the adoption level has not reached the level where we can use it to buy everything that we want, stable coins were created with a very different objective in mind, they were created to allow investors to protect themselves from the volatility of this market.

That is it, they perform their function really well and it allows you to get a coin that behaves like fiat without having to deposit that money in a bank account, but stable coins will never be used massively as no one is using them to buy anything.

The problem is although bitcoin was created with the intention of being a currency, it really hasn't worked out that way so far. And the issue isn't just adoption, or speed of transactions, or fees (which are still pretty big hurdles). It's volatility.

Do you really think an everyday person not involved in crypto (or even those most who are), will use btc in the same way they use fiat? Ever?

Unless BTC hits a certain level and stays there for years, with huge money backing it to prop up the price, I don't see it ever occurring. Nobody wants to buy a TV at 1K then find out 2 months later that same amount of btc is now worth 5K... or a year later is 20K.

As for stablecoins, I agree that they weren't designed to be used as an everyday currency for purchasing goods. However, in theory, they would be very well suited for that task IF the SEC allows it, fees are less than what credit cards charge companies and transaction speed is at least in the same ballpark as credit cards. Lots of IFs, but it's one of the real ways crypto could hit mainstream.  We could argue however that at that point, such a coin may not even be considered a real cryptocurrency, or at least not a decentralized one, as I expect it'd have to be centralized somewhere to maintain its price.

[wxa7115]

You all might be knowing that Steam used to accept payments in bitcoin through BitPay, but they abruptly stopped it stating the price volatility of bitcoin to be the issue.
Stablecoins eliminates this very issue, could this encourage Steam or other companies like Amazon,etc. to start incorporating cryptocurrencies into their payment systems.
Is it possible some stablecoin might outperform bitcoin regarding this?

But that is not really the reason why we have stable coins, bitcoin was actually created with the intention of being a currency used to pay for all kind of products, it is just that the adoption level has not reached the level where we can use it to buy everything that we want, stable coins were created with a very different objective in mind, they were created to allow investors to protect themselves from the volatility of this market.

That is it, they perform their function really well and it allows you to get a coin that behaves like fiat without having to deposit that money in a bank account, but stable coins will never be used massively as no one is using them to buy anything.

The problem is although bitcoin was created with the intention of being a currency, it really hasn't worked out that way so far. And the issue isn't just adoption, or speed of transactions, or fees (which are still pretty big hurdles). It's volatility.

Do you really think an everyday person not involved in crypto (or even those most who are), will use btc in the same way they use fiat? Ever?

Unless BTC hits a certain level and stays there for years, with huge money backing it to prop up the price, I don't see it ever occurring. Nobody wants to buy a TV at 1K then find out 2 months later that same amount of btc is now worth 5K... or a year later is 20K.

As for stablecoins, I agree that they weren't designed to be used as an everyday currency for purchasing goods. However, in theory, they would be very well suited for that task IF the SEC allows it, fees are less than what credit cards charge companies and transaction speed is at least in the same ballpark as credit cards. Lots of IFs, but it's one of the real ways crypto could hit mainstream.  We could argue however that at that point, such a coin may not even be considered a real cryptocurrency, or at least not a decentralized one, as I expect it'd have to be centralized somewhere to maintain its price.

While your points are correct it is inevitable for bitcoin to be this volatile, the supply of bitcoin is very limited not only because of the 21 million limit that satoshi imposed but also because they are huge whales that are holding millions of bitcoins and they are not moving them or doing anything with them at all, so the main factor when it comes to determine the price of bitcoin is the demand.

And so far the demand is mostly been driven by speculation, but there is also another factor, bitcoin is being used only by a few million people and if there is a strong increase in that number then the price is bound to move erratically.

[Katashi]

I somehow agree that stablecoins might increase the crypto adoption if more companies use as other option for payment but once their users become more knowledgeable in crypto and knew the difference between centralized and decentralized coins then there is a big possibility to increase demand for Bitcoin and other altcoins which they think is more profitable compare to stablecoins.

[purifymec]

If the banking sector also considers stable coins as potentially useful, then why are we not yet paying for goods with their help? I often hear people pay for the purchase of BTC or another crypto coin. It turns out that stable coins remain a means to avoid trading volatility? Does she have no other purpose?

Stablecoins still remain at the level of the conductor for trading, and all for the same reason why crypto is still not very common. This is the difficulty of acquiring. An ordinary person will like the speed and transparency that cryptocurrencies give, they can even study the system of making a profit and investing on the taklimakan platform. But this will not be enough until a simplified crypto purchase scheme is introduced. Now even having instructions does not always help. Since not all exchanges work for different countries.

[superman2019]

If the banking sector also considers stable coins as potentially useful, then why are we not yet paying for goods with their help? I often hear people pay for the purchase of BTC or another crypto coin. It turns out that stable coins remain a means to avoid trading volatility? Does she have no other purpose?

Stablecoins still remain at the level of the conductor for trading, and all for the same reason why crypto is still not very common. This is the difficulty of acquiring. An ordinary person will like the speed and transparency that cryptocurrencies give, they can even study the system of making a profit and investing on the taklimakan platform. But this will not be enough until a simplified crypto purchase scheme is introduced. Now even having instructions does not always help. Since not all exchanges work for different countries.

Perhaps the question is whether to use a stable coin or bitcoin is a matter of taste and practice. But given that any transactions can be seen freely through the blockchain regardless of the time of day, this casts doubt on the need to use bank transfer systems. That is why the US government there is blocking the libra. They want to simplify access to cryptocurrencies, and solve the problem of access to finance for non-banking people. This is a huge sphere of influence, and therefore the government says that the reserve fund must master it

Haha, look at the entire trading range, do you see those there who are interested in fair competition? Not. They are stablecoins and will be used as protection against hyperinflation in crypto trading. And so far, this scheme has worked perfectly, as Tether's trading volume shows.

[mr_random]

If the banking sector also considers stable coins as potentially useful, then why are we not yet paying for goods with their help? I often hear people pay for the purchase of BTC or another crypto coin. It turns out that stable coins remain a means to avoid trading volatility? Does she have no other purpose?

It is not easier for global companies to adopt stable coins for daily payments. As a payment form, stable coins should be fully backed up with the currency or another real physical asset which has a good volume on world financial markets. Using stable coins for payment is not a bad idea because the low price fluctuation will not affect strictly to the payment amount.