We need more decentralized stablecoins

[Baimovic]

I think we already have some decentralized stable coins in the cryptoqurrency market, then why do you wish to have more decentralized stable coins? Isn't USDT good, has large users, many traders use it as a trading pair coin, USDT is also known to keep its value, I think USDT is enough, no need for other stable new decentralized coins.

[1714971370]

1714971370

[1714971370]

1714971370

[1714971370]

1714971370

[heztida3]

Stablecoins will be utilized wherever Yes certainly need to have more decentralized stable coins later on the grounds that when worldwide appropriation occurs and making it as a substitution to fiat then the interest will be high.

[Krabby]

I think we don't need too many decentralized stablecoins right now, we just need a lot of competing stablecoins to thrive.
Because developing a decentralized stablecoin is difficult, and getting users is another particularly difficult challenge. Therefore, the development of competition between decentralized stablecoins will help the reputation of businesses increase. All of them have to try to do the best they can to serve users to gain a higher market share and from there they will be profitable in the business. Do you think this is a better plan?

[skarais]

It is difficult to break the dominance of USDT as a stable coin adopted by most exchange even though we have more stable coin issued. I don't really know much about the USDT case that poses a potential risk to its users. But so far USDT is still the stable coin adopted by exchanges. I believe the OP want a more stable coin that exchange can adopt, but realizing that might be difficult.

[Altcoinsintel]

Do you think we need more decentralized stablecoins? What will happen if centralized stablecoin issuers continue to freeze addresses at will? Will people lose confidence on centralized stablecoins? Or will this attract institutional investors and serious traders? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I lost all my interest in USDT upon learning about the freezing of tokens in Ethereum wallets. I have read about this and there is code in Solidity allowing ERC20 tokens to freeze. Tether also runs on other blockchains and I have no idea about Omni but it is 100% certain they can do the same with Tron Network and their TRC token as Tron also uses the Ethereum Solidity language for smart contracts.
I would prefer DAI over any centralized stable coin but perhaps this one line of code that allows freezing of tokens is what the banks and governments will be more interested in.

[BayAngelo]

First, i think address been freeze happens to be accounts with a suspicous activities. like wallet that stole from other people, hackers and the rest of them. we need more stablecoins to balance the system and reduce the issue of monopoly which can be played by usdt and usdc if not properly checkmate. For now, the available stable coins are perfect and functioning properly.

[cryptopediabd]

Currently tether stablecoin is famous. Centralized stablecoin is much easier to use than decentralized. But if u dont like usdt you can use dai or usdc also. So it's your choice dude.

[inoes]

I think it is quite a stable number of coins
that exists for now, if with the same concept and purpose they no longer need additions because the core of a stable coin is to make the coin price stable, it cannot be dumped or pumped, stable according to the value of fiat money. in fact in my opinion, stable coins are like fiat money that has infiltrated crypto.

[MCobian]

In my opinion there is no need to increase the number of decentralized stablecoins, that is enough with the current decentralization of stablecoins.
Increasing the number of decentralized stablecoins will only create unnecessary competition. Because adding coins that have the same function,
only creates new problems. But for now I am more comfortable using the centralized stablecoins, because they work properly. Moreover, centralized stablecoins are already listing on many popular exchanges, thus making it easier for users to move funds from one exchanges to another with centralized stablecoins.

[bryant.coleman]

In my opinion there is no need to increase the number of decentralized stablecoins, that is enough with the current decentralization of stablecoins.
Increasing the number of decentralized stablecoins will only create unnecessary competition.

Right now we have dozens of stablecoins and I agree that the number needs to be reduced. Competition is always good, but if everyone of the exchanges create their own version of the stablecoin, it will create unnecessary complications for the user. Why can't multiple exchanges use the same stablecoin, managed by a third party issuer? It will make the stablecoin more safer as well.

[hd49728]

I don't have any doubt that people often need to have a backbone in any market. It is USD in global financial market. It is gold in precious metal market. It is bitcoin in crypto market. It is ETH in ERC20 token market. It is Tether USD (USDT) in stable coin market.

What can be concluded from it? Tether USD will be a first biggest stable coin for many years. I know what people are trying to accuse Tether USD on their real backed asset for their minting USDT but I believe it will be the main stablecoin on the market. I don't need more centralized stablecoins and decentralized stablecoins you heard about are centralized stablecoins.

[Abiky]

Being a trader honestly I do not care if USDT is centralized or decentralized and the only thing that concerns me is the price must always remain stable which it always does so that is the reason why I always use USDT to store my crypto in dollars.

yes we might need more stable coin that works on decentralization but maintaining the price is a challenge and it requires the token owner to somehow have either massive capital to manage the price or centralization which then makes it easy to maintain the value.

There might be some projects upcoming in the pipe so we never know because a good decentralized stable coin can still take the tot spot above USDT but only if they have the plan to maintain the price as close to USD.

From a trader's standpoint, a stablecoin's organized structure/model is not of much importance. Regardless if a stablecoin is centralized or decentralized, they all can be easily traded on the market for quick returns. The main issue would be relying on a centralized stablecoin for long-term investments. That's largely because centralized stablecoins are subject to fraud, manipulation, and corruption. They can easily be taken down in a blink of an eye. The average person needs something reliable they can count on for years on end. That's where decentralized stablecoins come into play. With DAI and USDJ on the market, centralized stablecoins' dominance will be greatly reduced. Still, USDT and USDC are the biggest centralized stablecoins on the market with a very high liquidity. DAI may be popular, but it's still far behind USDT in terms of liquidity and mainstream adoption. At least, the protocol works as intended by delivering a decentralized stablecoin backed by crypto assets on the Blockchain. With DAI, no central authority dictates will happen with your holdings in the long run. As Tether continues to freeze addresses on the Blockchain, people will flock to decentralized alternatives. Both DAI and USDJ could experience greater adoption in the mainstream world because of Tether's nefarious actions.

Nonetheless, we need more decentralized stablecoins as there aren't many around in the crypto/Blockchain space. As long as there are more centralized stablecoins than decentralized ones, the industry won't be able to fulfill its promise of eliminating the middleman from the system. It's all about decentralization, and censorship resistance in order to be able to stand the test of time. Centralized stablecoins will come and go, but decentralized ones will last a lifetime. Everything will depend on how people are willing to support one type of stablecoin from the other. I wouldn't worry much about USDT as long as we have decentralized alternatives on the market. Just my opinion

[JeotQ]

Do we really need decentralized stable coins? As for crypto exchanges centralized exchanges are taking the lead and even the best stablecoin is centralized stablecoin too (USDT), can you see that error? The most failed projects this year are all DeFi (decentralized Finance) projects, the word 'decentralized' is slowly fading

[jacafbiz]

People think it is easy to maintain the peg of a decentralized stable coins, it is not. As long as Cryptocurrencies are still highly volatile then it will be a tough job for developers of Stable coins to maintain is peg, unlike Fiat backed Stable coins that all you need is just a Dollar in the bank for every Stable coins you release to circulation and another issue is the adoption by the market, how many of these Decentralized stable coins are being used by traders apart from DAI

[bayu7adi]

Centralized stablecoins will come and go, but decentralized ones will last a lifetime. Everything will depend on how people are willing to support one type of stablecoin from the other. I wouldn't worry much about USDT as long as we have decentralized alternatives on the market. Just my opinion

This is the impact of the doctrine we get in school and also the ego that is within us. Since childhood, we have always been accustomed to having third parties in all our needs.
"As social beings" is a word that makes us always need a third party, or if we discuss here it is a centralized party.

It is very difficult to achieve a decentralized civilization, because indeed the existence of a third party is related to business. Money can be the best stimulus to serve the public, but money can also be quicksand that engulfs people to indulge their egos.

I support you, that we do need a strong decentralized stable coin, but I think that's too idealistic for now.

[Untomabur]

decentralized stable coins are still not popular to used, if someone makes it, of course it will be difficult to make it popular and it will take time,
because the stable coins used today are still USDT, DAI, and USDC, these three are very popular.

[Squisshy]

Now this is not exactly a stablecoin per say, but if you are interested in a coin that can hold it's price, protect against dumps yet still increase in value you should check out Bitbay (not the exchange). It's a unique coin with what I would call a revolutionary "dynamic peg". All it needs is some volume and it really shows what brilliant piece of technology it is. And no, it's not pegged to a third asset of any kind.

[Abiky]

This is the impact of the doctrine we get in school and also the ego that is within us. Since childhood, we have always been accustomed to having third parties in all our needs.
"As social beings" is a word that makes us always need a third party, or if we discuss here it is a centralized party.

It is very difficult to achieve a decentralized civilization, because indeed the existence of a third party is related to business. Money can be the best stimulus to serve the public, but money can also be quicksand that engulfs people to indulge their egos.

I support you, that we do need a strong decentralized stable coin, but I think that's too idealistic for now.

Decentralizing everything seems to be impossible, considering how long society has been accustomed to third-parties. The only way this would work is if robots take over the world. This, combined with AI and Blockchain tech, should bring us full decentralization. But it's only a dream, since we all need human interaction at some point in our lives. As far as stablecoins go, I believe none of them are truly decentralized. Even DAI is subject to manipulation by its own issuer (known as Maker). The ones behind DAI can increase/decrease collateral, and adjust certain mechanisms in order to maintain the cryptocurrency stable. That's largely possible because of the stablecoin's programmable nature. While it may seem to many DAI is decentralized, there is still a small portion of centralization based on what I've explained earlier.

At least, crypto/Blockchain tech's open source nature will keep it going for a very long time. Stablecoins were created with the sole purpose of bringing Fiat's convenience to crypto users. They behave as any bank-issued Fiat currency, making stablecoins completely different than traditional cryptocurrencies we know and love today. It's still a choice for anyone looking to take advantage of the stability of Fiat without the need to cash out crypto to a bank account. With many options available on the market today, there's a stablecoin for everyone. Decentralized stablecoins or not, the industry will be here to stay. Just my opinion

[navalkk]

I satisfied with BUSD, USDC, USDT, DAI, and I believe there are more stable coins in crypto space, presently I don't have a thing for decentralized or not decentralized projects, if a project works as intended I have no problem using them, I'm more satisfied with USDT because it's widely supported on all crypto exchanges and it has the highest volumes too, I don't need another stablecoin, all these are more than enough.

[Argoo]

Stablecoins should all be decentralized. If they are not decentralized, they better not exist at all. They are just posing unnecessary risks to their users who are mostly clueless of how they work.

If possible, these stablecoins should not even exist at all. They're fiat after all. They do not belong to the world of cryptocurrencies.

The fact is that no one asks and will not ask for our opinion when issuing stablecoins. Any kind of money has the right to circulate. Stablecoins will generally always be centralized as they are backed by centralized state currencies.
In the next few years, on the contrary, digitized stable currencies of states will be massively issued and it is quite possible that they will to some extent displace all other types of means of payment. In any case, governments are counting on it.