Stablecoins or CBDCs?

[Reid]

It will be easier for each user on different countries with CBDC. There's no necessity for converting USD backed stable coins all the time just to adjust the trades or calculate the profits. I do to that before and its time consuming. 
Early parts will be co-existing with it but once users got used to the new thing they will start to forget about stablecoins. That's the crucial part but I think stablecoins won't just go away for there may be exchange/trading platforms that won't agree with it yet.
Like BTC to USDT to CBDC for withdrawals and vice versa for deposits.

[evichi]

Goverment of any nation want to exercise their authority when it comes to handling finances. The advent of cryptocurrencies has been a concern for some Countries, as such Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) is one of the ways the Government can participate in digital economy and perhaps benefit from it. Basically, having your funds in CBDC is not the same as having your funds in USDT, DAI and other crypto stable coins. Privacy and anonymity still plays role in cryptocurrency. While CBDC and crypto stable coins will co-exist for a length of time, crypto stable coins offer more anonymity and privacy when compared to CBDC. Government operating CBDC want to be in charge of people funds hence a third party. That is contrary to the true essence of crypto (the essence of establishing Bitcoin) 'Be Your Own Bank'. While some stable coins are somewhat centralised, they still offer more privacy when compared to CBDC.

[uneng]

CBDC of US will be probably the same as stablecoin, with the difference one is centralized by a government and the other is centralized by a company (which is still regulated by the government anyway), so they are pretty similar. Maybe CBDCs will be more precise at the 1:1 ratio conversion than stablecoins, but I'm not sure yet.

Between the two options I prefer to pick the less bureaucratic one. I expect CBDCs to be harder to deal with due to regulations and limitations imposed by each local government, so it's likely I will keep with stablecoins, but if CBDCs are going to be user friendly currencies I see no problem in adopting them as well.

[Ozero]

Stable token will be co exist with CBDC but the different result when the government wanna try to ban all of the stable token and making the CBDC will be mandatory to be used in all of crypto exchange sites. This will be making CBDC to be used by the whole of crypto market and it may become the end for the stable token. The question is whether the government from any countries will be taking an action against the stable token. This will become a disaster for the stable token creator once the countries will be starting to against them.
So as an ordinary people and i can't say a lot about that caused by the future of the stable tokens totally depend with the government statement.

I agree that over time, governments may ban the circulation and use of private and other non-government stablecoins. States can do just that. After all, private stablecoins mainly use government fiat to provide them, and at the same time, private stablecoins are direct competition for state-owned CBDCs. Governments will certainly not use private stablecoins if they can create their own, which they can fully control. The public will most likely use their state's CBDC. This will largely depend on how all types of stablecoins will work with the cryptocurrency market.

[sulis sudibyo]

What do you think the future of stablecoins will look like after CBDCs are launched? Will they die in the end or will they co-exist with CBDCs? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

CBDC and tether to me look the same, so if CBDC is adopted by crypto exchanges then stablecoins like tether are no longer needed. only stablecoins like DAI that are truly decentralized will survive. can coexist, but I'm not sure the two will be the main choice. but it all depends on the centralized exchange, if all CEX agrees not to adopt it then CBDC will not enter the crypto space. and stablecoins like tether will remain the top choice.

[Dr.Osh]

I think that Stablecoins are still around. although I feel that it will be tough competition for Stablecoins to compete with CBDCs. the reason is, some people will still use Stablecoins because they think that it is a real crypto. however, I also think that it will remain in the habit of longtime crypto users to stick with Stablecoins. however, if CBDCs had more flexibility, I think new people or even old users will also use this coin as a habit. especially if CBDCs have government guarantees, and other advantages, I think new people will tend to use CBDCs for their Stablecoins needs in the crypto world.
however, if CBDCs only came as stabilcoins, I think stablecoins like theter would still be at the top.

[bluebit25]

The core issue with the nature of the two currencies lies in control, but the question is which one is better for the crypto market, which makes them more mainstream in world finance and growth true to their nature? I do see that the future adoption of CBDCs by governments will come with a lot more regulatory implications. The magnitude of the effect, however, we should wait and see.

[tvplus006]

There is no need to consider the creation of CBDC as a replacement for stablecoins, since it is one of the varieties of money, along with its cash and non-cash form. Accordingly, the creation of a CBDC takes money to the next level of development, based on the blockchain, which accordingly helps the government to establish total financial control over its citizens.

[kidbounty]

If stablecoins are already proven to be successful, why re-invent the wheel with the launch of a new government-backed digital currency? Can't just governments back stablecoins themselves and avoid all of the hassle of creating new digital Fiat currencies from scratch?

essentially they want to create a stablecoin that they can actually control. USDT, UST, USDC and other stablecoins are not government owned. although the government can control it by making regulations but still it cannot be fully controlled. that's why they wanted to develop stablecoins from scratch. their goal is only one they don't just want a piece of cake, but they want to get it all. that's why they made this.

which became a problem when it became a reality, whether the crypto community accepts it or not. if they accept it then mainstream stablecoins like tether will be abandoned.

[Gayong88]

In my opinion, as a second generation cryptocurrency, stablecoins are probably more tested and proven than CBDCs. Stablecoins have great potential if they are able to bring in more institutions and increase their liquidity volume. The popularity of stablecoins is growing among individuals and businesses and If take closer look In recent years many new stablecoins have been launched and each has set benchmarks in terms of liquidity, transparency, technological advancement and global reach. If i not mistaken, some governments even welcome them with open arms because it seems much easier than launching a digital version of their fiat currency.

[Psynthax]

This will become another shitshow for sure. The companies vs regulators. So people will be hardly speculate about which will become the winner but this time market dominated by the stable tokens that issued by the companies rather than regulators. If CBDC will be working locally like what china CBDC does and im sure that if crypto stable token that worked globally will always be dominating the market.
I can't wait to see that what will be happening with the crypto market once CBDC will be rolling out. This is a very interesting drama to be watched for sure whether the gov will try to rush stable token that exist in the market or not. 

[barbara44]

I know I will be hated for this but 100% definitely CBDC. If I am going to trust my money in basically fiat form, then I would rather do that with government and not some company. Many people here trust USDT but I do not trust them, who is tether? Who is bitfinex? Why would I trust them? They are literally nobody that we trusted tens of billions of dollars, it is around 100 billion or so nowadays isn't it? Makes no sense to me at all.

I believe that if you do this with governments then it should be better, one way or another they will pay you, maybe it won't be as easy, or maybe it will hurt the economy but they will find a way to pay you. Companies could be just closed and say they are hacked or bankrupted or whatever and be gone.

[Abiky]

CBDC of US will be probably the same as stablecoin, with the difference one is centralized by a government and the other is centralized by a company (which is still regulated by the government anyway), so they are pretty similar. Maybe CBDCs will be more precise at the 1:1 ratio conversion than stablecoins, but I'm not sure yet.

Between the two options I prefer to pick the less bureaucratic one. I expect CBDCs to be harder to deal with due to regulations and limitations imposed by each local government, so it's likely I will keep with stablecoins, but if CBDCs are going to be user friendly currencies I see no problem in adopting them as well.

Both stablecoins and CBDCs are basically the same thing. They're essentially a "digitized" version of Fiat. The only difference is that one is backed by the government and the other is backed by a company. I'm pretty sure centralized stablecoins will cease to exist in the future due to increasing government pressure. We'll be left with CBDCs acting as a replacement against existing stablecoins.

What we're experiencing now is just a "prototype" of what's coming in the future. After all, stablecoins are experimental grounds for CBDCs. What matters is that crypto stays decentralized in order to give people an "escape route" from the corrupt monetary system controlled by central banks and governments alike. While Fiat won't be going anywhere soon, decentralized cryptocurrencies will become a major contender against it. Who knows what the future will look like with both CBDCs and traditional cryptocurrencies in play? Just my thoughts

[jokers10]

Both stablecoins and CBDCs are basically the same thing. They're essentially a "digitized" version of Fiat. The only difference is that one is backed by the government and the other is backed by a company. I'm pretty sure centralized stablecoins will cease to exist in the future due to increasing government pressure. We'll be left with CBDCs acting as a replacement against existing stablecoins.
...

And I'd say that it is a huge difference: CBDC is fiat by itself and stablecoin is a commodity which is promised to be exchanged for fiat. Different levels of reliability: if I don't trust fiat I don't trust surrogate of fiat even more. Less a month ago Cashio Dollar become zero and it supposed to be stable... If dollar one day become zero all stablecoins connected to it will do the same, but bankruptcy of Cashio Dollar didn't lead to bankruptcy of USD.

[aprilnot]

if you look at stablecoins and cbdc, they are not much different, the only difference is that cbdc is managed by the government. but I'm fed up with regulations, so I prefer stablecoins over cbdc. if cbdc goes into the crypto industry, it's not just me who disagrees maybe everyone in the crypto community will be against it. crypto is decentralized, and centralized systems especially government-run ones have no place here.

[zasad@]

cbdc is a central bank token that cannot be a scam, although we call a scam any token that has an uncontrolled and unforeseen emission.
But I am also very interested in when the world regulators will begin to impose restrictions on stablecoins.
https://www.coingecko.com/en/categories/stablecoins
Apparently 188 billion is not the limit.

[Yogee]

.... . If stablecoins are already proven to be successful, why re-invent the wheel with the launch of a new government-backed digital currency?

A Government using stable coins is like using another country's currency as your legal tender. It sends the message that they have a very weak financial system and I doubt any Government leader would like that to happen.

Can't just governments back stablecoins themselves and avoid all of the hassle of creating new digital Fiat currencies from scratch?

The risk probably outweighs the "hassle-free" benefit. It would not take them that long to catch up with the technology. It could only take them a year or two from researching to testing before launching their own CBDC.

[Jaered]

I think I would go for the stablecoins. It's decentralized though there is an element of centralization. CBDCs are just too centralized for my taste and its not right

[7788bitcoin]

I do not fully trust all the stable currencies in the cryptocurrency space but i will not use any Central Bank Digital Currencies because they control everything about the currency and have the opportunity to monitor them and even freeze my currency if they want to, we have not seen that kind of control from the stable currencies we have in circulation even though they are able to do those same activities. I am just curious to see how things develop in the future and then make my complete decision about these things.

[Abiky]

And I'd say that it is a huge difference: CBDC is fiat by itself and stablecoin is a commodity which is promised to be exchanged for fiat. Different levels of reliability: if I don't trust fiat I don't trust surrogate of fiat even more. Less a month ago Cashio Dollar become zero and it supposed to be stable... If dollar one day become zero all stablecoins connected to it will do the same, but bankruptcy of Cashio Dollar didn't lead to bankruptcy of USD.

CBDCs will have more credibility than stablecoins, simply because they're backed by the full faith and credit of the government. I doubt centralized stablecoins will survive as people will prefer CBDCs instead. Only decentralized stablecoins will stand against CBDCs as they don't have any central operator (issuer) behind them. They will prove to be an excellent alternative for those looking to escape government surveillance. I'd focus more on traditional cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum since they're not directly tied to Fiat. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts