Stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain

[DooMAD]

Disregarding the off-topic gibberish and getting back to the actual subject, it's vital people understand why stablecoins are inherently dangerous.

Imagine someone set up a stall or table on a street corner.  They have a large box with a small window in it.  The box appears to be full of bank notes.  They have a sign that reads "Deposit your money here for an equal quantity of ShadyTokens, guaranteed to be fully backed 1:1".

But you don't have any guarantees.  The box might have just enough bank notes in it to fill what's visible in the window, but the rest of the box could be empty.  Even if the box is full, the individual running the scheme might be in massive debt and that money would have to be paid back.  The authorities could intervene and take their box of money away.  None of it is a guarantee that the tokens are backed.  Not to mention that the tokens you're buying may not be redeemable to spend at any merchants or retailers.  If you can't spend the tokens, they are worthless in practice.  You are trading actual money for an IOU.

Most people would instantly recognise the dangers if they saw something like this in physical form, out in the real world.  Yet when someone creates a flashy website and calls it a "stablecoin", suddenly everyone's common sense departs them and they all can't wait to buy worthless ShadyTokens.  It's absurd.

[franky1]

and now doomad admits its dangerous.. he needs to see the source of this idea. yep the main core maintainers sponsored by corporate world want to add assets to bitcoin. so its these core devs we need to get to not do this to bitcoin protocol.

yep the main core devs funded by blockstream, chaincode labs and brink(who are promoting that people should use crappy subnetworks like liquid and LN). which are funded by the institutional corporations of the fiat world. already have (broken) mechanisms for multi-asset control on their subnetworks (liquid/LN) but now they want to break bitcoin to make bitcoin more crappy subnetwork compatible. rather then make their subnetworks actually work by themselves
.. where its their subnetworks that should be changing (a)work without flaws/bugs. and (b) changed on the subnetworks for the subnetworks to be bitcoin compatible.

we should not break bitcoin to be crappy network compatible, nor have bitcoin bloated by crappy things that make bitcoin annoying to  use just to promote crappy subnetworks/other assets that people should use instead.

[Games.Bitcoin]

Stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain have emerged as a compelling solution for those seeking the stability of traditional currencies within the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. By pegging their value to assets like fiat currencies or commodities, stablecoins provide users with a reliable medium of exchange and store of value. Leveraging the security and transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, these stablecoins enable fast, low-cost transactions while reducing the volatility associated with other digital assets. With the potential to enhance financial inclusion and revolutionize cross-border payments, stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain are poised to play a significant role in the future of digital finance.

[franky1]

Stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain have emerged as a compelling solution for those seeking the stability of traditional currencies within the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. By pegging their value to assets like fiat currencies or commodities, stablecoins provide users with a reliable medium of exchange and store of value. Leveraging the security and transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, these stablecoins enable fast, low-cost transactions while reducing the volatility associated with other digital assets. With the potential to enhance financial inclusion and revolutionize cross-border payments, stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain are poised to play a significant role in the future of digital finance.

stable coins are not a great store of value.. FIAT is a bad store of value. inflation has taught people this. wise up
we should not be promoting bitcoin to turn into an asset class to facilitate crappy inflation currencies. especially if those crappy inflation currencies then require regulation auditors and other dumb stuff that failed said fiat world in the first place

[Who is John Galt?]

Stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain have emerged as a compelling solution for those seeking the stability of traditional currencies within the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. By pegging their value to assets like fiat currencies or commodities, stablecoins provide users with a reliable medium of exchange and store of value. Leveraging the security and transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, these stablecoins enable fast, low-cost transactions while reducing the volatility associated with other digital assets. With the potential to enhance financial inclusion and revolutionize cross-border payments, stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain are poised to play a significant role in the future of digital finance.

It just seems to me that it is precisely these feelings of people that those who claim to create stablecoins based on the bitcoin blockchain want to take advantage of. They try to associate the reliability and popularity of bitcoin with the word stability so that people have a sense of security. But stablecoins are not stable in and of themselves, several of these “stablecoins” have already lost their peg to the dollar and simply depreciated. It seems to me that trying to run projects like this on the bitcoin blockchain looks like scammers using bitcoin to make what they are doing to look more reliable when it isn't. I think they want to use someone else's image for their dirty deeds.

[Faisal2202]

How do you feel about the prospect of dollar stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain? Will you use them? How might this affect Bitcoin?

Well, i read the provided article and come to the result that they (Stably) are bluffing about each and everything because they are announcing the aforementioned $69 trillion backup which as have already mentioned is doubled the debt on US alone, and further they have around $5000 liquidity on Decentralized exchange, well i can paste all the facts covered by Decrypt's article here or you can read for yourself.

That, Stably only wants to get into hype by using the trend of BRC-20 tokens and how is that going to work because as far as i know, ordinals have some supporters and some are against it and how one can support such a stablecoin which has flaws in it (according to the history of Stably USD).

i will not use it because it is not backed by any registered entity and they are lying about their liquidity. I am damn sure they just want to ride on the rocket of BRC-20 hype so that they could get benefit from this hype too.

This will definitely affect the BTC blockchain as Ordinals NFT's deployment on the BTC blockchain has affected it, there is still congestion on the network and prices are still high enough plus more transactions will increase congestion on the network which will again increase the price. Also, i do not think Ordinals are enough to deploy a Stable USD because ordinals are only being used to upload some data into the BTC blockchain as it does not provide full features like managing, etc of it plus there might be integration problems with it.

[SamReomo]

Stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain have emerged as a compelling solution for those seeking the stability of traditional currencies within the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. By pegging their value to assets like fiat currencies or commodities, stablecoins provide users with a reliable medium of exchange and store of value. Leveraging the security and transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, these stablecoins enable fast, low-cost transactions while reducing the volatility associated with other digital assets. With the potential to enhance financial inclusion and revolutionize cross-border payments, stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain are poised to play a significant role in the future of digital finance.

stable coins are not a great store of value.. FIAT is a bad store of value. inflation has taught people this. wise up
we should not be promoting bitcoin to turn into an asset class to facilitate crappy inflation currencies. especially if those crappy inflation currencies then require regulation auditors and other dumb stuff that failed said fiat world in the first place

I agree with Franky and I also think that stable-coins aren't a great store of value. But, still they are important to exist in the crypto-space because in the world of crypto-trading the stable-coins can play very important role for the traders. Those coins are dollar stable and in the times of bear market converting our other coins to stable-coins is a wise choice.

However, they aren't going to be volatile like Bitcoin and other Altcoins, but they will still have a good role in trading because in times of bear market the stable-coins can save a trader from huge losses. In bear markets when all coins lose their value the stable-coins are the ones we can rely on.

But, those stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and they're just as a way for the haters to cause congestion in the network and nothing else. If they were really useful for the Bitcoin then Satoshi might have added those in the initial days of Bitcoin.

I think that most of those stable-coins are useless and they aren't beneficial at all. They're just launched to grab some money and are the ones that will fail because of no good use case and less adoption. I remember the time when Terra UST was de-pegged and many people have lost billions because of that so called stable-coin. So, it's always preferable to go with only those stable-coins which are still proving good benefits for the traders and have wide-acceptability.

[Who is John Galt?]

So, it's always preferable to go with only those stable-coins which are still proving good benefits for the traders and have wide-acceptability.

After all, before the problems begin, it is almost impossible to know for sure that these problems will be. When USDC lost its peg to the dollar due to problems at Silicon Valley Bank, it happened unexpectedly. But this is just one example that shows that stablecoins are not really as stable as they want to be. Yes, Stably in this regard looks even more dubious than others, but, in my opinion, it is impossible to fully trust any stablecoins.

[franky1]

stable coins are not a great store of value.. FIAT is a bad store of value. inflation has taught people this. wise up
we should not be promoting bitcoin to turn into an asset class to facilitate crappy inflation currencies. especially if those crappy inflation currencies then require regulation auditors and other dumb stuff that failed said fiat world in the first place

I agree with Franky and I also think that stable-coins aren't a great store of value. But, still they are important to exist in the crypto-space because in the world of crypto-trading the stable-coins can play very important role for the traders. Those coins are dollar stable and in the times of bear market converting our other coins to stable-coins is a wise choice.

However, they aren't going to be volatile like Bitcoin and other Altcoins, but they will still have a good role in trading because in times of bear market the stable-coins can save a trader from huge losses. In bear markets when all coins lose their value the stable-coins are the ones we can rely on.

rely on?
stable coins are not fixed to be stable. they can be fractionally reserved and fake marketed to match a price but not have the underlying bank balance to back it when its time to bank run the value out..
have you seen the problems of stable coins in the past. how many have disappeared or de-pegged.. maybe try to read a few more stable coin history stories of many more stable coins that have broke.

But, those stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and they're just as a way for the haters to cause congestion in the network and nothing else. If they were really useful for the Bitcoin then Satoshi might have added those in the initial days of Bitcoin.

totally agree. bitcoin was created to get away and offer something different than fiat currency

I think that most of those stable-coins are useless and they aren't beneficial at all. They're just launched to grab some money and are the ones that will fail because of no good use case and less adoption. I remember the time when Terra UST was de-pegged and many people have lost billions because of that so called stable-coin. So, it's always preferable to go with only those stable-coins which are still proving good benefits for the traders and have wide-acceptability.

well seems you do realise that stable coins do have a problem after all.. so maybe not "trust" them as much as your reply started with

stable coins only real purpose was a fast under 30second confirm time to allow quick arbitrage option of moving value from one exchange to another.
stable coins on a 10min confirm blockchain loses that option.
and no.. before you postulate..  "storing" value beyond that is not a feature. because of the whole fractional reserve de-pegging risks of holding stable coin for any length of time

[pooya87]

After all, before the problems begin, it is almost impossible to know for sure that these problems will be. When USDC lost its peg to the dollar due to problems at Silicon Valley Bank, it happened unexpectedly.

Nothing about a centralized altcoin collapsing has ever been "unexpected". We all know and very well expect them to fail sooner or later. History is also proof of that. It is not limited to stablecoins either, it is all the centralized altcoins that are doomed to fail.

[Nwada001]

Why, and what's even the problem with all these developers? Well, the answer is to rug-pull its victims and set the Bitcoin network ablaze with high transaction fees.
If not, why would someone with normal senses want to create a stable coin under the Bitcoin network? Is the USD not enough for all of us to use in this blockchain community?

What will be the use of the newly proposed stable coin? What difference will it make? Well, even if this kind of proposal is approved by its investor, I wouldn't advise anyone to be a long-term holder of such because saying they are stable doesn't actually mean they can't lose value anytime if they are not well recognized. And if LN will be hard to accept in most large centralized exchanges, what makes them think their USDT under the Bitcoin network will be generally accepted?

[DooMAD]

If not, why would someone with normal senses want to create a stable coin under the Bitcoin network?

Whoever makes them must believe that it's profitable for them to do so.  As I pointed out in my last post, they seem to be able to convince people to spend actual money in exchange for a bunch of empty promises.  Like someone who would sell "magic beans" because they thought a fool might believe that sounded like a thing they should buy.  After all, it worked for Tether, didn't it?  People still buy that shit, so it's inevitable some nefarious people would try to replicate that.  So it's our responsibility to point out to anyone who might be foolish enough to buy such junk that it's probably worthless and they're likely getting ripped off.

The more legitimate goal of assets is to disrupt traditional finance industries.  We could see deeds or other property rights in digital form.  Things which would hopefully drive adoption through real utility.  So hopefully the hype for IOU junk on the blockchain dies even more quickly than the hype for silly pictures on the blockchain.

It's not at all surprising to see unscrupulous people try to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain, though.  That's true of both the people selling crappy stablecoin IOUs and the opportunistic zealot making spurious and outlandish claims about Bitcoin developers right here in this topic.  But that doesn't mean we should avoid building new things.  Some would have you believe that any attempts at progress should be halted and try to maintain an ongoing fear-campaign against any and all changes.  Even ones that happened years ago.  Thankfully, no one can stop progress with hollow scare-tactics.  It's all about what you can build and who chooses to run it.

[Jet Cash]

In a world of unstable curencies, Bitcoin is the only stable coin.
Wouldn't it be fun if there was a Bitcoin stability coin on a central bank digital currency blockchain.

[Who is John Galt?]

Why, and what's even the problem with all these developers?

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." If something can be done and one can try to profit from it, chances are someone will try to do it.

In a world of unstable curencies, Bitcoin is the only stable coin.
Wouldn't it be fun if there was a Bitcoin stability coin on a central bank digital currency blockchain.

Some countries are already mining and hoarding bitcoin, some banks offer bank accounts in bitcoin, so one way or another, banks will introduce bitcoin surrogates in their own interests. And here it is important to remember that the real bitcoin is only in the bitcoin blockchain, and only on a fully controlled address are bitcoins safe (“not your keys, not your bitcoins”).

[BlackHatCoiner]

By the way, you can already have "stablecoins" on the Bitcoin blockchain. In fact, the very first stablecoin if I'm not mistaken, Tether USDT, was introduced in our chain, via the Omni layer. It just fit better in Ethereum by nature, so it moved there. Liquid is also a second-layer, where each L-BTC is pegged 1:1 to one bitcoin; that's also considered stablecoin, it's just not pegged with fiat currency.

[Who is John Galt?]

By the way, you can already have "stablecoins" on the Bitcoin blockchain. In fact, the very first stablecoin if I'm not mistaken, Tether USDT, was introduced in our chain, via the Omni layer. It just fit better in Ethereum by nature, so it moved there. Liquid is also a second-layer, where each L-BTC is pegged 1:1 to one bitcoin; that's also considered stablecoin, it's just not pegged with fiat currency.

Taking into account the fact that the other day it was calculated that with the help of Ordinals only 10 million of all different tokens were issued, and about 200 thousand are issued per day, it turns out that it is completely pointless to issue stablecoins pegged to the dollar, because the number of such tokens is simply incommensurable with opportunities in other networks. Some expensive and inefficient toy.

[pooya87]

Taking into account the fact that the other day it was calculated that with the help of Ordinals only 10 million of all different tokens were issued, and about 200 thousand are issued per day, it turns out that it is completely pointless to issue stablecoins pegged to the dollar, because the number of such tokens is simply incommensurable with opportunities in other networks. Some expensive and inefficient toy.

This is one of many reasons why tokens and token creation platforms are all useless and the projects you see are all scams. There is simply no way to prevent people from creating the same token over and over.
BTW as I said before there has been 0 tokens created on Bitcoin Blockchain since it is impossible to do so. They are storing an arbitrary data in the blockchain and falsely call that a "token".

[NotATether]

So, recently the Stably project announced the launch of its USD-based stablecoin. Of course, the announced emission of $69.420 trillion suggests that it is hardly worth taking this project seriously, and Decrypt additionally cites arguments against this project. But there will surely be other projects ahead that want to issue stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain. Perhaps these will be some of the currently popular stablecoins.

Why do we need yet another stablecoin pegged on the US dollar? It is not even necessary at this point.

We already have USDT (on the OMNI layer and on ERC20/TRC20), USDC, USD Pax (whatever that is) BUSD, DAI, and that's not even mentioning failed projects such as Terra UST.

You'd think that if you want to trade crypto against the dollar, there would be a currency that everyone agrees on using. So far it seems to be USDT, but clearly the fragmentation is there. For various reasons.

[drwhobox]

I wil feel very bad if something like that happens on Bitcoin blockchain. The stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and if someone adds those into it just like ordinals then that might be a problem  for the Bitcoin users. Most people would instantly recognize the dangers if they saw something like this in physical form, out in the real world.   The stable-coins are okay in their current state and adding them on Bitcoin blockchain will be an extra burden on Blockchain. those stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and they're just as a way for the haters to cause congestion in the network and nothing else.

Why would blockchain need a stablecoin, there is no need for any stablecoin at bitcoin blockchain. I don't know if it is really possible or not to create a stable coin in bitcoin blockchain.

There are so many stable coins pegged with USD in the market making another new one is pointless.

[Cookdata]

With the introduction of the Ordinals protocol, various adventurers appeared who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to issue tokens on the most famous and popular blockchain. As expected, there were also those who announced the release of stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain.

So, recently the Stably project announced the launch of its USD-based stablecoin. Of course, the announced emission of $69.420 trillion suggests that it is hardly worth taking this project seriously, and Decrypt additionally cites arguments against this project. But there will surely be other projects ahead that want to issue stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain. Perhaps these will be some of the currently popular stablecoins.

How do you feel about the prospect of dollar stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain? Will you use them? How might this affect Bitcoin?

Do you see how USDT is been deployed back to other chains that are safe and faster than Ethereum, they are doing that because of the demand from those chains because Ethereum is killing retail investors with gas fees, and the average person couldn't enjoy using stable coin because what you will be using as the gas fee is enough to use for other stuff, the fees are so high that the more are burned on the Ethereum chain and mint on safe and fast chains.

Now compare Ethereum with Bitcoin, do you think Bitcoin will survive this pain of gas fees? Ordinals were trending just two weeks ago and the mempools became congested with many unconfirmed transactions, what do you think will happen to the Bitcoin network in a Bull run when there will be demand for Bitcoin and stablecoins, an average guy wouldn't be able to cover that costs of transaction and the network will become useless.