Bamk - A Stablecoin in Bitcoin on-chain through Runes protocol

[Wind_FURY]

Bamk.fi protocol is the issuer of the Nakamoto Dollar, NUSD, a synthetic dollar on Bitcoin L1.

- In phase 1, NUSD is backed 1:1 with USDe, and holding NUSD accrues BAMK every block
- In phase 2, NUSD will be fully-backed by a delta-neutral Bitcoin position earning a native yield, the 'Bitcoin bond'

NUSD is circulating on BRC20-5byte and the Runes protocol, with plans to issue on all viable protocols on Bitcoin L1.

https://bamkfi.gitbook.io/bamkfi-docs

I found this project, and decided to post it here for everyone to discuss - How it works, discuss the technical details, strengths, weaknesses, trade-offs, importance, news, and everything else that's needed to be known.

Stablecoins on-chain could be good for Bitcoiners who don't want to go through centralized exchanges/other blockchains to convert their Bitcoins to fiat or stablecoins during times when the market is bearish.

Plus stablecoins have become some sort of "primitive" that's needed in crypto. It's probably now something fundamental.

[examplens]

We don't need stable garbage to further burden the network.

btw. Lighting Labs already successfully tested enabling stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5497591.msg64117539#msg64117539

[ABCbits]

Does anyone still remember USDT on Bitcoin on-chain which use OmniLayer protocol? And aside from what @examplens said, stable coin also exist on Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid).

[NotATether]

Does anyone still remember USDT on Bitcoin on-chain which use OmniLayer protocol? And aside from what @examplens said, stable coin also exist on Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid).

It's almost like everyone is just making stablecoins nowadays more than anything else. Why all the big interest in them anyway? Nobody would be creating stablecoins if they didn't make a lot of profit.

[Wind_FURY]

We don't need stable garbage to further burden the network.

btw. Lighting Labs already successfully tested enabling stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5497591.msg64117539#msg64117539

Are you speaking for the whole community?

Technically Bitcoin is permissionless, and what made the protocols/projects like the Lightning Network, Ordinals, and Runes very interesting is because they didn't need anyone's permission to start building. Plus if your concern is that there are those projects that might be "exploiting" Bitcoin and therefore might "break" Bitcoin, then if it breaks, as a decentralized system, it has no reason to exist because it's not anti-fragile. What would be the use of it being decentralized if it's fragile.

Does anyone still remember USDT on Bitcoin on-chain which use OmniLayer protocol? And aside from what @examplens said, stable coin also exist on Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid).

It's almost like everyone is just making stablecoins nowadays more than anything else. Why all the big interest in them anyway? Nobody would be creating stablecoins if they didn't make a lot of profit.

Because it has become a core fundamental for users to escape the volatility of cryptocurrencies, or give them the option to convert to something more stable during bearish market conditions.

Stablecoins might be something that would give Runes actual utility instead of mere shitcoinery.

[ABCbits]

Does anyone still remember USDT on Bitcoin on-chain which use OmniLayer protocol? And aside from what @examplens said, stable coin also exist on Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid).

It's almost like everyone is just making stablecoins nowadays more than anything else. Why all the big interest in them anyway? Nobody would be creating stablecoins if they didn't make a lot of profit.

Because it has become a core fundamental for users to escape the volatility of cryptocurrencies, or give them the option to convert to something more stable during bearish market conditions.

But surely you know there are so many USD-based stable coin out there.

Stablecoins might be something that would give Runes actual utility instead of mere shitcoinery.

Even when they could just use either OmniLayer and Counterparty (both are protocol on Bitcoin L1) exist since many years ago?

[Wind_FURY]

Does anyone still remember USDT on Bitcoin on-chain which use OmniLayer protocol? And aside from what @examplens said, stable coin also exist on Bitcoin sidechain (such as Liquid).

It's almost like everyone is just making stablecoins nowadays more than anything else. Why all the big interest in them anyway? Nobody would be creating stablecoins if they didn't make a lot of profit.

Because it has become a core fundamental for users to escape the volatility of cryptocurrencies, or give them the option to convert to something more stable during bearish market conditions.

But surely you know there are so many USD-based stable coin out there.

But if done through Runes, it doesn't make the user convert his/her Bitcoin to another coin to use another protocol, or go to a centralized exchange to deposit his/her Bitcoins there.

Stablecoins might be something that would give Runes actual utility instead of mere shitcoinery.

Even when they could just use either OmniLayer and Counterparty (both are protocol on Bitcoin L1) exist since many years ago?

Currently users could also buy a stablecoin through the Runes protocol if they find it useful for them.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Crypto Fireside]

A bitcoin L1 stable or whatever they call it, synthetic...
Buying both BAMK and NUSD here. Thanks OP.

[Wind_FURY]

A bitcoin L1 stable or whatever they call it, synthetic...
Buying both BAMK and NUSD here. Thanks OP.

I'm not actually sure if you're trolling or not, or if you're actually a newbie or not, but the point of this topic is to talk about Bamk as a project that's trying to build a stablecoin protocol through Runes because I think it's a better use case for Runes than the mere shitcoinery that's currently done on-chain. I'm not here to tell you what shitcoin to buy with your Bitcoins.

[Crypto Fireside]

I was being tongue in cheek but I looked at it and I like the project enough said from me, carry on.

[examplens]

Are you speaking for the whole community?

I'm pretty sure the Bitcoin (not meme or altcoin) community shares the view of not wanting spam on the Bitcoin blockchain.

But if done through Runes, it doesn't make the user convert his/her Bitcoin to another coin to use another protocol, or go to a centralized exchange to deposit his/her Bitcoins there.

this will be another centralized stable coin, then what is the advantage compared to a centralized exchange?
I guess the low fee of the transaction will be an advantage.

[Wind_FURY]

Are you speaking for the whole community?

I'm pretty sure the Bitcoin (not meme or altcoin) community shares the view of not wanting spam on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Simply ignore it. The best it can do to you as a user is to be annoying in the fee market. Plus if there's something in the protocol that could be "exploited", then a good developer SHOULD "exploit" it, and experiment what it could do with it. Bitcoin is anti-fragile, and if someone discovers something which will make it NOT anti-fragile, then there's no reason for it to exist.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It will probably continue to exist, but it will be a scam.

[ABCbits]

But surely you know there are so many USD-based stable coin out there.

But if done through Runes, it doesn't make the user convert his/her Bitcoin to another coin to use another protocol, or go to a centralized exchange to deposit his/her Bitcoins there.

Stablecoin on Bitcoin sidechain or LN also doesn't make user convert their Bitcoin to altcoin. https://bamkfi.gitbook.io/bamkfi-docs/how-tos/buynusd says you can buy NUSD on both centralized and decentralized coin.

[Wind_FURY]

But surely you know there are so many USD-based stable coin out there.

But if done through Runes, it doesn't make the user convert his/her Bitcoin to another coin to use another protocol, or go to a centralized exchange to deposit his/her Bitcoins there.

Stablecoin on Bitcoin sidechain or LN also doesn't make user convert their Bitcoin to altcoin. https://bamkfi.gitbook.io/bamkfi-docs/how-tos/buynusd says you can buy NUSD on both centralized and decentralized coin.

👍

OK, then those stablecoins in the Bitcoin sidechain, I assume it's BlockStream's Liquid federated sidechain, and LN will give added use cases for those protocols. WHICH is one of the actual points of the topic. It will also give a serious use case for the Runes protocol, not mere shitcoinery on-chain.

[larry_vw_1955]

Stablecoins on-chain could be good for Bitcoiners who don't want to go through centralized exchanges/other blockchains to convert their Bitcoins to fiat or stablecoins during times when the market is bearish.

Plus stablecoins have become some sort of "primitive" that's needed in crypto. It's probably now something fundamental.

well, i dont know. something like this could fail and people could lose money. but if they want to gamble and try and stake some bitcoin so they can earn some rewards, that's called gambling. anyhow, i think history has shown that algorithmic stablecoins tend to implode. like in their little phase 2, what happens if bitcoin takes a big dip?

i don't know if something like this could be legitimate at least not in the usa due to things like this: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/lummis-gillibrand-introduce-bipartisan-landmark-legislation-to-create-regulatory-framework-for-stablecoins/

The Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act:

Protects consumers by requiring stablecoin issuers to maintain one-to-one reserves and prohibiting unbacked, algorithmic stablecoins.
Prevents illicit or unauthorized use of stablecoins by issuers and users.
Creates federal and state regulatory regimes for stablecoin issuers that preserves the dual banking system.

if it becomes a law then i don't think this nakamoto dollar thing would be in compliance with that but maybe i'm wrong. as well putting satoshi's last name on this thing is kind of cheesy. 

[Wind_FURY]

Stablecoins on-chain could be good for Bitcoiners who don't want to go through centralized exchanges/other blockchains to convert their Bitcoins to fiat or stablecoins during times when the market is bearish.

Plus stablecoins have become some sort of "primitive" that's needed in crypto. It's probably now something fundamental.

well, i dont know. something like this could fail and people could lose money.

I can't disagree because there's absolutely a non-zero chance that yes, BAMK could fail. But the actual point on why I started the topic is that, besides stablecoins being something "primitive" in crypto and therefore Bitcoin Land, is that BAMK has unlocked the possibility that Runes as a protocol could also be utilized for something more useful, instead of those stupid memecoins with those long, stupid ticker names.

[Pmalek]

Because it has become a core fundamental for users to escape the volatility of cryptocurrencies, or give them the option to convert to something more stable during bearish market conditions.

Don't forget taxes. By converting bitcoin and cryptocurrencies into fiat, you are creating taxable events in many jurisdictions. That's not always the case if you swap one cryptocurrency for the other, like in the case of stablecoins that give you a type of cheat-code to holding a dollar-like asset without actually doing that. 

[Wind_FURY]

Because it has become a core fundamental for users to escape the volatility of cryptocurrencies, or give them the option to convert to something more stable during bearish market conditions.

Don't forget taxes. By converting bitcoin and cryptocurrencies into fiat, you are creating taxable events in many jurisdictions. That's not always the case if you swap one cryptocurrency for the other, like in the case of stablecoins that give you a type of cheat-code to holding a dollar-like asset without actually doing that.  

Plus using it, although centralized and there's a trade-off, doesn't require the user to hold "fiat" with a trusted third party like an exchange. The stablecoins will be in your own wallet under your own custody. There's some risk, but there's less risk than storing them in an exchange. If it's a stablecoin launched and stored using the Bitcoin blockchain through Runes protocol, then that's absolutely better.

[Pmalek]

If it's a stablecoin launched and stored using the Bitcoin blockchain through Runes protocol, then that's absolutely better.

I would personally prefer to have all that off-chain and let those who want to play with Runes, Ordinals, and any other future projects there. But that's not going to happen.

I can see an advantage in a stablecoin native to the Bitcoin blockchain if it offers something more than what we already have on alternative chains. If it's just the same old, same old under a slightly different name and logo, why bother. A Bitcoin-native stablecoin that is censorship-resistant and can't be frozen in your address would be a positive change. We only have DAI with such a feature, but unless what I read a couple of days ago is wrong, DAI will rebrand and become a centralized stablecoin that can be locked by its issuer.

[stompix]

fully-backed by a delta-neutral Bitcoin position earning a native yield, the 'Bitcoin bond'

that's a lot of fancy words for saying this is backed by the promises that we will indeed honor our commitment.
Even without that, I love those "solutions" that don't actually solve a thing but problems created by their own imaginations, and in the end they point to the same approach, creating another man in the middle protocol, overcomplicating stuff ending with no users as nobody sane in their mind would go through this much hassle and risks for things that have become trivial.