Stick with bitcoin and stay away from centralized crypto, especially stablecoins

[Smartprofit]

Personally, I don't see much difference between centralized American stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (European, Indian, Chinese, or Russian). In any case, they are programmable, centralized digital money. An element of control. 🙋

Stablecoins are often called cryptocurrencies. However, they are completely different from classic cryptocurrencies. For example, according to current legislation, stablecoins must be backed by a reserve of US Treasury bonds and US dollars. So how can stablecoins be considered true cryptocurrencies after all? They are not cryptocurrencies... They are classic fiat currencies, only in digital form! 💁

Regarding the situation in Venezuela, the blocking of USDT on the TRON blockchain, in my opinion, is a warning to all crypto enthusiasts. Your money could also be blocked because you are located in the wrong territory or are a citizen of the wrong country.  I agree with the statement that Bitcoin should be used for everyday transactions, not centralized stablecoins.

Incidentally, the recent rise in the price of the most anonymous and private cryptocurrency, Monero (XMR), in my opinion, is a sign that people have begun to recognize the value of traditional decentralized cryptocurrencies. In fact, the combination of Bitcoin and Monero is even better than Bitcoin alone. Today, every true crypto enthusiast should care about their anonymity, privacy, and independence.💫

[xbetz.io]

This is exactly why centralized “crypto” still carries hidden risk.

Stablecoins feel neutral until you realize the issuer is always part of the equation. Freezes, blacklists, selective enforcement, all possible by design. Bitcoin isn’t perfect but the difference is structural: no issuer, no permission layer, no discretionary freezes. The rules are enforced by the network, not a company responding to political pressure.
People often underestimate how important that distinction becomes after something goes wrong.

[Felicity_Tide]

It's not freedom money if there is a governor that can take it from you.

It's not freedom because it was never meant to represent one. Like I believe, a lot of the things that are digital today where literally rebranded from what has been in existence, and majority of the cryptocurrency are in no way different because they are centralized.The truth is, as long as anything is tied to centralization, there is always a chance of it being used as a weapon in sorting out political differences, and that's what this thread has proven. And not just political differences, but can also makes the lives those who heavily rely and trust in it, to be unbearable. It's a bit difficult these days to find a well established organization that doesn't fear the US.

And what's more dishearten is that despite all these unending drama that centralization causes, a lot of people still hasn't learnt because they feel it doesn't affect them.

[macson]

There are so many ways countries can evade Western sanctions, and this is one of the worst. They realize that USDT is controlled by a single entity that complies with US regulations, making it extremely easy to monitor, restrict, or freeze at any time, and they continue to use it to evade sanctions. It's simply freaking clever.

I realized why this country has been so underdeveloped for so long and why their president can be so easily kidnapped by the Orange presiden. Even about this matter they were so stupid.

[barbara44]

I agree, stablecoins are not safe enough to hold them long term. If you really want to be out of bitcoin all together, then I would say take it out in cash, to fiat, and that way you can put them in bank for savings and gain some interest in return of that. While that is not a good investment, for people who believe that bitcoin will go down, it is better than holding bitcoin that is crashing. And when you think bitcoin bottomed out, you can deposit back and buy bitcoin again. Far safer than holding stablecoins at least.

[death69]

Sometimes people choose the cage because the wilderness is too harsh. I am not defending stablecoins. They are exactly what you say they are. But we will have to ask ourselves, why would a nation under sanctions trust Tether in the first place. Desperation, yes. But also the difference between the promise of Bitcoin and Bitcoin usability of the people who need stability right now, and not 10 years later when Bitcoin adoption solves volatility.

Tether freezing those wallets was doing what it was designed to do. Stablecoins exist to be compliant, to interfaced with the traditional financial system, to be controllable. That is their function.  When we act outraged that they do what they are built to do, we are not being serious. Why do we continue to pretend that they are something they are not?

Financial sovereignty is difficult. It requires knowledge, discipline, acceptance of the risk. Most people are not prepared for that, maybe never will be. Stablecoins provide a broken, corrupt bridge but it works for certain needs. 

I agree Bitcoin is primary. But taking a blind eye to everything else, and dismissing it as secondary, misses the point of why people reach out to such tools in the first place. We cannot build a movement of purity alone. We need to approach people, whether formerly imprisoned or someone in a fairly good job who simply wants to live a respectable life in society, and show why sovereignty matters, and then leave it to them. Some will. Many will not. The option must be available, uncensorable and open. That is what Bitcoin guarantees. Everything else is a negotiation.

[Ivystar5]

One of the rarest things I have heard in along time, country getting money freezes because another country doesn't like how the other country trade their oil which is mined in their country, very rare but however, bitcoin is not going to allow this so called morality leader to freeze your funds if you do the right thing and follow how it's supposed to work. Bitcoin is freedom but from a closer look it's looking like we will be like this stablecoins the way the governments are approaching too close to bitcoin.

[d5000]

It's not as simple as it seems, because you should keep in mind that at least a third of the hash power is located in mining farms located in the USA, and that although BTC transactions cannot be frozen, as is the case with most so-called stablecoins, they can be rejected by the mining pool, or the coin addresses from which they are sent can be blacklisted.

It's still censorship resistant. I would be concerned if 95% of the hashrate was concentrated in the US. This would still make transactions possible for "sanctioned" actors, but they would then become significantly more expensive.

By the way, a country trying to avoid US sanctions used a stablecoin from a company located in the US - really genius

I also think this was a big mistake lol.

Now I was wondering: what if they had chose a (semi-)decentralized stablecoin like Dai instead? Dai has no mechanism to blacklist addresses, as there is nobody who could set up such a blacklist.

However, Dai's peg to the USD isn't as "hard" as of centralized stablecoins where you can almost be sure (if the company behind them works as expected) that they will keep the peg at 1:1. This means that I could imagine an attack of a hostile government on the Dai peg if too many sanctioned governments and entities use it. I wonder if they're strong enough to withstand such an attack ...

Of course, with a more stable Bitcoin that wouldn't be possible that easily, as the volume required for an attack would be much higher (or does Trump want to reserve his "strategic reserve" for that future purpose perhaps?).

[KingsDen]

What?
Why not bitcoin?
What were they afraid of?
Volatility?
If yes, the worse BTC can go within a short time is 12%. And 12% of $180m is about $21.6M. Losing about $21M to volatility and still have the money is better losing all.
You will begin to ask yourself if as a government, do they even have advisers?

[coinlary]

Well, people will actually term it as "it has a reason" or "I'm not affected" until they eventually get affected in the future.
The only thing now to consider is that some people just want to hold a fixed fiat-pegged value which they can just use at any time without having to worry about fluctuations when they need to use it.

This is what everyone should know by now. Does it mean the Venezuelan governments cannot hire a Crypto Enthusiast who is professional enough to advise them on the disadvantages of leaving asset in a centralized platform.

You see the problem with third party platforms, they will always be a snitch.

I don't know what you meant by "centralized platform," but no centralized platform was discussed. "Centralized coin" is the correct wording.

Although the thread source didn't make mention of whether the funds were on a centralized platform, other sources did and claimed the addresses were on-chain. This means they were frozen by the issuer from their various non-custodial wallets. Pathetic .

[Outhue]

If I am a developer I would do what satoshi did and that's all.

A decentralised Blockchain where the creator will be unknown or even pronounced dead, we need a stable coin that works in the same idea as Bitcoin just to avoid the " taking the bow " curse that every other projects developers can't seem to escape, no matter how powerful a Blockchain project can be today, they must bow by the pressure of the centralised power.

Developers still have a lot to do, using stable coin is inevitable in this crypto space today, stable coin is the best way of keeping profits as a trader or even an investor, it is easier to get prepared for market opportunities keeping stable coins at one side rather than trying to change your Fiat to Bitcoin.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

If I am a developer I would do what satoshi did and that's all.

A decentralised Blockchain where the creator will be unknown or even pronounced dead, we need a stable coin that works in the same idea as Bitcoin just to avoid the " taking the bow " curse that every other projects developers can't seem to escape, no matter how powerful a Blockchain project can be today, they must bow by the pressure of the centralised power.

Developers still have a lot to do, using stable coin is inevitable in this crypto space today, stable coin is the best way of keeping profits as a trader or even an investor, it is easier to get prepared for market opportunities keeping stable coins at one side rather than trying to change your Fiat to Bitcoin.

Stablecoins are more convenient practically than fiat currencies but if you value your money fund safety as first priority, you will have to compare fiat currencies and stablecoins.

If you don't want to store your money in bitcoins, want something else that is stable, there are as said only two options: fiat currencies and stablecoins. With me, my preference is fiat currencies, not stablecoins because stablecoins are only other equivalent currencies of fiat currencies while they have risk of depegs.

Fiat currencies can be frozen, seized in your bank accounts, stablecoins can be frozen even in your non custodial wallets, they have same risk.

However, the risk of depeg is only with stablecoins, it does not exist with fiat currencies.

[sleepfirefly]

tether has not even issued a statement about why they froze those wallets, they just did and all we have now are speculations that it’s tied to venezuela i feel bad for venezuelans if this is the case they really are a lot safer holding bitcoin and using it for transactions

[DeeppRockk]

tether has not even issued a statement about why they froze those wallets, they just did and all we have now are speculations that itÂ’s tied to venezuela i feel bad for venezuelans if this is the case they really are a lot safer holding bitcoin and using it for transactions

i remember seeing similar things play out before, like when certain exchanges suddenly froze withdrawals years back.
people always say "it'll never happen to me" until it does.

that's why i keep hammering the point about self custody - it's not just about hodling, it's about control. btw, the lack of transparency here is exactly what worries me about these centralized stablecoins.
bitcoin might have its flaws, but at least you know exactly how it works. with tether, you're just hoping they don't pull a fast one someday.

anyway, the venezuela angle is particularly rough. those folks need reliable money more than anyone.

[Pmalek]

You are right about this, but the marketcap keeps growing. A time will later come that the marketcap will be huge

We all hope that this is going to happen sooner rather than later.

more institutions will invest in bitcoin while the institutions will defend the price in a way bitcoin will be seen more as a store of value just like gold.

The thing is, those same institutions will also look to take profit because making money is the reason they are invested in bitcoin. So there will always be ups and downs with the price. Bitcoin would need a massive influx of strong-hand, long-term investors who won't be bothered with short-term gains and politics.

I agree, stablecoins are not safe enough to hold them long term. If you really want to be out of bitcoin all together, then I would say take it out in cash, to fiat, and that way you can put them in bank for savings and gain some interest in return of that.

That's really not an option for a country as heavily sanctioned as Venezuela. Their national currency, the bolivar, is heavily inflated and US sanctions has cut the country off from the traditional financial system. Trying to save in bolivar is suicide and there are surely many limitations to holding the US dollar.

What?
Why not bitcoin?
What were they afraid of?
Volatility?
If yes, the worse BTC can go within a short time is 12%. And 12% of $180m is about $21.6M. Losing about $21M to volatility and still have the money is better losing all.
You will begin to ask yourself if as a government, do they even have advisers?

Don't forget the additional 10% that the US dollar has lost in 2025 against other major currencies.

[Achalugo BTC]

It's not freedom because it was never meant to represent one. Like I believe, a lot of the things that are digital today where literally rebranded from what has been in existence, and majority of the cryptocurrency are in no way different because they are centralized.The truth is, as long as anything is tied to centralization, there is always a chance of it being used as a weapon in sorting out political differences, and that's what this thread has proven. And not just political differences, but can also makes the lives those who heavily rely and trust in it, to be unbearable. It's a bit difficult these days to find a well established organization that doesn't fear the US.

And what's more dishearten is that despite all these unending drama that centralization causes, a lot of people still hasn't learnt because they feel it doesn't affect them.

Just as you said, even though people know how discomforting centralised cryptos is, they still take the risks, which will make lead them into making mistakes due to poor decision, which they might end up regretting.
That is why before people takes action on their decision,  they should make all the necessary considerations, to know if they are good to go or not, for their own good.

[fikrett]

tether has not even issued a statement about why they froze those wallets, they just did and all we have now are speculations that it’s tied to venezuela i feel bad for venezuelans if this is the case they really are a lot safer holding bitcoin and using it for transactions

They can do whatever they want because they control the field where they play.

I too feel bad for people being affected by it.. They did nothing wrong yet they suffer the most.

[Dunamisx]

I don't know why is it difficult for many to invest on altcoins or stablecoins than bitcoin, as this may indicates that not everyone have the understanding of what role bitcoin could play in the economy of investment and why they should have consider it first before any other coins is put into consideration, if we really want to earn and maintain our privacy.

[fikrett]

I don't know why is it difficult for many to invest on altcoins or stablecoins than bitcoin, as this may indicates that not everyone have the understanding of what role bitcoin could play in the economy of investment and why they should have consider it first before any other coins is put into consideration, if we really want to earn and maintain our privacy.

I would say it's more about the security of your coins, but, yeah..

BTC is the only coin to stay relevant through all of the space changes, and there are many reasons why it's this way and not another.

[Lucius]

~snip~

By the way, a country trying to avoid US sanctions used a stablecoin from a company located in the US - really genius

That’s what happens when they refuse to stay informed..

Somehow, it doesn't seem to me that they were uninformed in the sense that they didn't know about other options, but probably the opinion prevailed that it was the best and simplest option. Besides, they have been using that system for years, and who knows how many other addresses haven't even been discovered yet.

---
Now I was wondering: what if they had chose a (semi-)decentralized stablecoin like Dai instead? Dai has no mechanism to blacklist addresses, as there is nobody who could set up such a blacklist.

However, Dai's peg to the USD isn't as "hard" as of centralized stablecoins where you can almost be sure (if the company behind them works as expected) that they will keep the peg at 1:1. This means that I could imagine an attack of a hostile government on the Dai peg if too many sanctioned governments and entities use it. I wonder if they're strong enough to withstand such an attack ...

Of course, with a more stable Bitcoin that wouldn't be possible that easily, as the volume required for an attack would be much higher (or does Trump want to reserve his "strategic reserve" for that future purpose perhaps?).

Maybe they could have used XMR and then convert (swap) it into some stablecoin or BTC, but they chose the simplest option. DAI is always mentioned as the only safe stablecoin, but I wonder if anyone has tried to break down that system, not perhaps in the way you described, but maybe on a technical level?