Asset backed cryptocoins?

[blckhawk]

Asset-backed cryptocurrencies provide another layer of security to investors by having real asset dictating it's value that it's worth something. However, due to this additional factor, government would consider them a company that should be listed, and pay taxes and such. This would also make them easier to approach exchanges, but it would be just like another company with it's worth relying on these assets that has value in its local currency.

[X-ray]

Its been explained that its going to be hard to put value to the coin when the real asset lies somewhere else and the answer to the question of whether the real asset is real or not is uncertain. And when its proven real, how do you determine whether the team/developer are not making this project centralized?

The blockhain of this asset backed coin may not be centralize but the real asset like the gold reserves are. People somehow trusted this ZRCoin recently, its not going to end well. If the project ain't going to succeed in the production and sales, they are going to go back to the basics as to whether its truly decentralized.

I don't think the problem is putting value to the coin (like people not thinking the coin is worth the price of the US dollar, if it was backed by the US dollar).

The problem here is that, people don't actually think the company that has their own crypto-coins, actually own the asset. If you hold gold, or USD, you can have it in your bank, or next to you, which makes you feel a lot safer then holding an asset that just says they own X assets.

Isnt there SEC that usually do the audit against any massive stablecoins? I mean last time I heard from the news about the suspicion of Tether printing money out of nowhere and many people saying that Tether is faking their reserved fund and then after being audited by the authority it is revealed that indeed they have the following reserve fund.
If there is a stable coin I think the government should be in charge of auditing since it is owned by private company anyway and the one receiving the money for the taxes are government as well.
The stable coin by that will have no problem of gaining value because their assets are confirmed by the government.

[imstillthebest]

cryptos are already reffered to as an asset  or investment assets  but after reading further i can see that you are refering to an actual assets like gold , silver and simillar  .

yes there are asset backed cryptos but i already forgot thier names because majority of them are only a new projects came from an ico  . it supposed to help our economy if we can invest on them but cryptos itself can also help the economy if use on a proper way  so why not go for both  ?

[magneto]

No, it won't work.

Especially not when it's issued by a greedy government, like in the case of Venezuela and their petro crypto. The whole thing is just a pure disaster, trying to drag in whoever dumb enough to invest into it before completely ceasing development.

The thing is that whenever you have something backing a crypto, you end up having to trust that central party anyways. And that is against the whole idea of crypto - to decentralise.

[Wysi]

cryptos are already reffered to as an asset  or investment assets  but after reading further i can see that you are refering to an actual assets like gold , silver and simillar  .

yes there are asset backed cryptos but i already forgot thier names because majority of them are only a new projects came from an ico  . it supposed to help our economy if we can invest on them but cryptos itself can also help the economy if use on a proper way  so why not go for both  ?

Yes crypto will definitely help the economy of an individual and have less affect on those who are not involved in crypto but if we have a business based on crypto then it will help those who are not involved in crypto as well, I know it's not easy to run a asset backed crypto due to run ins with the government. While I was posting this OP thread I missed out to consider government's backlash for asset back cryptos.

[BitHodler]

The thing is that whenever you have something backing a crypto, you end up having to trust that central party anyways. And that is against the whole idea of crypto - to decentralise.

Exactly. I'm not necessarily against businesses launching their asset backed crypto, but the way it gets advertised as crypto's new hope or the next big thing is false and actually very shady as it is meant to mislead noobs.

Yes, some stablecoins do extremely well, especially USDT, but that's just from the perspective of a trader, while most non traders will rightfully never touch that stablecoin because it's against anything crypto in general stands for.

[ashmodeus]

i have no idea , since all of that basically just bullshit to me .
backed by gold,backed by silver,backed by diamond.
but well, as time goes , nothing is real about it.
about stable coins ?
oh come on , we know exactly USD is the biggest money on this earth, we don't need to ask where they get much USD to backing the price

[alexsandria]

We have seen some of the assets backed crypto coins in the market on the way and do you guys think this will be the future as this is directly based on national assets like gold and other products like charcoal and energy based products.  This will help in growth of country's economy if not taken over by greedy corporatesand and and will it have government's support or soft corner in the regulator's eye as it will bring in some money from outside.

That is totally unsettled in first place. A company backed asset by crypto is totally a tough one because there is a lot of potential risk out that in worst case scenario is that they might be turning down their businesses as if they have no more support. Usually a company looks always a head, in the future so when it comes to this that is totally understable if they are against in crypto but if they did not and confidently use crypto, well, there may be some unclear thoughts out there.

[TheUltraElite]

Especially not when it's issued by a greedy government, like in the case of Venezuela and their petro crypto.

I still consider that case to be a public stunt and to keep their economic state ongoing for the time being since the inflation rate became so high. High economy countries would not face this problem, but even if they do what would they do to stop it? They would not go for cryptocurrencies because that would mean losing support of the biggest financial institutions.

The whole thing is just a pure disaster, trying to drag in whoever dumb enough to invest into it before completely ceasing development.

And there is no way for people to predict whether they would continue or stop development.

The thing is that whenever you have something backing a crypto, you end up having to trust that central party anyways. And that is against the whole idea of crypto - to decentralise.

We talk about getting it decentralized but then we also have to use exchanges and services that "centralize" our coins.

[ajaymukund]

We have seen some of the assets backed crypto coins in the market on the way and do you guys think this will be the future as this is directly based on national assets like gold and other products like charcoal and energy based products.  This will help in growth of country's economy if not taken over by greedy corporatesand and and will it have government's support or soft corner in the regulator's eye as it will bring in some money from outside.

I think this is just a normal sponsorship activity like other businesses do with products or assets around the world. The purpose is to demonstrate the potential and value of the business.
I personally don't feel there is anything special here. What is even more remarkable is that it is Blockchain technology. It is making more and more billion dollar enterprises.

[Dart18]

Yeah but this is more of a centralized coins afterwards.

It will be good for one's country but what is the point?
Why not just use their own fiat currency for it?
Why go to the hardship of using crypto currency then backing it up with assets. That just sounds bad to me.
I guess we should see as they go on.

[target]

Team of developers had tried gold back tokens in crypto but non of them works. This is believed to be centralized when there is physical attributes to a project, its just not possible to store physical materials on blockchain to make tokens valuable since it can all be stolen, burned or lost. If you have gold for instance with XAUR project, its just easy to take the word of the team that they have the gold with them stored somewhere.

[JeffBrad12]

Asset-backed cryptocurrencies provide another layer of security to investors by having real asset dictating it's value that it's worth something. However, due to this additional factor, government would consider them a company that should be listed, and pay taxes and such. This would also make them easier to approach exchanges, but it would be just like another company with it's worth relying on these assets that has value in its local currency.

Who would guarantee that such cryptocurrency really have the assets backing it up anyway. That remind me of the venezuelan crypto which to be said backed by oil but well who know whether that's true or not since the country have absolute power over such a thing you might ended up buying a coin that's useless and backed by nothing.
I think any asset backed cryptocoins out there should be audited first before even releasing to the public, yes it can provide another layer of security but what's the good if the asset is basically nonexistent or innacessible.

[Theb]

The only asset-backed crypto I would like to see are security tokens that is being offered through STOs not the ones backed by fiat or any kind of precious metals or oil out there. Since security tokens are similar to stocks we might start to see some more stable coins in the crypto market. Not only they are stable but also they payout dividends just like what a normal stock of a company would do. The reason why I'm not into a fiat-backed crypto is simply because I won't be supporting any kind of government's push into the crypto market, supporting one state backed crypto is like accepting a digital version of their own digital asset. At least with security tokens you still get to involve yourself to a wide option of choices to diversify your portfolio.

[oktana]

Yeah but this is more of a centralized coins afterwards.

It will be good for one's country but what is the point?
Why not just use their own fiat currency for it?
Why go to the hardship of using crypto currency then backing it up with assets. That just sounds bad to me.
I guess we should see as they go on.

the level of validity they use also does not refer to transparency, so the asset only looks like a slogan on blank paper.

I prefer that they only use fiat backed and it doesn't matter if it is connected with centrality because crypto has its own market, here users also need the comfort and security of assets in the long run.

[Farma]

at the moment, I don't think that cryptocurrency that has great instability and is also decentralized can help the country's economy and be an asset to the country, or individuals. in fact, I think that this is quite dangerous because we don't know when prices will actually fall.
other than that the government will not do that because some of them are also fighting against cryptocurrency.

[bettercrypto]

cryptos are already reffered to as an asset  or investment assets  but after reading further i can see that you are refering to an actual assets like gold , silver and simillar  .

yes there are asset backed cryptos but i already forgot thier names because majority of them are only a new projects came from an ico  . it supposed to help our economy if we can invest on them but cryptos itself can also help the economy if use on a proper way  so why not go for both  ?

It is just like hitting two birds in one shot!
I think that is the best thing that crypto wants to achieve. It wants to boost not just the economy and technology but it will also help the entire countries through globalization. The ICO will ease the problem of every industry. There are many ICO projects that have been starting to create innovation and I know someday, crypto will not just be an asset or an investment but a way to fund a new develop tech or researches.

[CarnagexD]

We have seen some of the assets backed crypto coins in the market on the way and do you guys think this will be the future as this is directly based on national assets like gold and other products like charcoal and energy based products.  This will help in growth of country's economy if not taken over by greedy corporatesand and and will it have government's support or soft corner in the regulator's eye as it will bring in some money from outside.

 Tether for example has got into trouble for not being able to prove it is backed by a reserve of dollars.

It is really hard to believe on something we have not seen yet like the proofs of Tether that it is backed 1:1 by existing dollars, however last year a bank based in Bahamas receive a letter as supposed the proof of reserves. Tether has been the center point of question "Is it backed?" since it is the popular stable coin most used by the traders. They assured that it is 1:1 backed by their reserves coming from fiat currency, cash equivalents and other tangible assets. So basically the full circulated USDT across the globe is safe and backed.

The other asset backed coin - Venezuela's Petro - claims to be backed by oil. But no-one trusts the Venezuelan govt to make that oil available to give the coin value.

With the current state of venezuela right now? Most likely they will not get trust. A coin backed by oil with unstable price? who will believe on this?

People would be better off sticking with regular kinds of cryptocurrency. If you want assets like gold or oil, buy the gold or oil company shares directly.

In most cases people will surely buy gold for backing but with the modern technology we have some will choose a volatile one which is cryptocurrency.

[Google+]

when there are assets that have cryptocurrency support it is very difficult to happen because for now cryptocurrency still has no legality that can make cryptocurrency can be used for all payments in the world, so no one can provide a clear guarantee of cryptocurrency because it still does not have support from governments throughout the country.

[KrisAlex18]

at the moment, I don't think that cryptocurrency that has great instability and is also decentralized can help the country's economy and be an asset to the country, or individuals. in fact, I think that this is quite dangerous because we don't know when prices will actually fall.

with the unstable situation of thre market right now it is really hard to conclude that it could help or ease. Fluctuations are really hard to control because of its decentralized system, however, this decentralization is being embraced by the investors and traders to make gains and profits out of their own money. I just don't think that it could impact the market that huge because less than 3% of the worlds population are using cryptocurrency and that is less than a ten million of people factoring out those country who has not been in connect to the internet.

other than that the government will not do that because some of them are also fighting against cryptocurrency.

Some might and some might not. Naturally we have a different type and forms of the government and I think those democratic ones are going to go with these emerging ideas of cryptocurrency than to non-democratic type of government.