Do you think that stablecoins are better beside Bitcoin?

[OgNasty]

Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?

I don't really buy it. Speaking of practical things, would people be willing to open a new channel just to use stablecoins? Why not use Bitcoin directly at that point. I mean sure, it allows you to use your crypto without spending Bitcoin, but the difference with alts isn't that huge imo. As someone who used various alts to pay for stuff, the difference between speed, fees, and so on are hard to feel. Even the network security are difficult to compare.

The lightning network does seem like a really poor way to do this.  Granted, if you use the lightning network (I don't know anyone in real life who ever has or even knows what it is) maybe you like the idea of holding a USD equivalent in your wallet.  Personally, I think this is a solution waiting for a problem and probably is more problematic than just using USD in traditional networks.  I don't really see any advantage to it being on lightning and for me it would be the difference between accepting usd or not accepting tokens on lightning.  In other words, I don't consider it money as I wouldn't accept it.

[TedMosby]

Whatever the claim, I don't think that addition will be significantly useful for the majority. It would be very segmented to people who live where the LN ecosystem is already big and works well for daily transactions.

Because people who are already into crypto are already familiar with stablecoins, and they already have their preferred stablecoins and chains, unless they live in an area where their needs rely on LN transactions.

[...]
Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?
[...]

Again, it depends on the ecosystem. I believe the Lightning Network is suitable for making BTC a medium for daily microtransactions. I don't know how many merchants accept LN or how big the transaction volume is. If those two things are big enough, then I think it's necessary.

However, there's definitely a trade off. Since BTC is volatile, people may end up using stablecoins more often than BTC itself.

[X-ray]

Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?
This won't make any difference with centralisation and decentralisation I believe..

Self-custodial stablecoin they claimed. You believe that idea?

Stablecoin is the same everywhere be it on Ethereum or LN. The risk is always on the counterparty risk, the company behind stablecoin manage the reserve and if things go wrong the stablecoin will have 0 value.

Since it's on LN, I believe the same, it won't make any difference with centralisation and decentralisation.

The self custodial stablecoin is just a buzzword, I mean yes you can own the stablecoin on your own self custodial wallet but again the reserve is managed by the company.

[Livingleged]

Self owning aspect is a subject worth looking at, while stablecoins on Lightning is very interesting development. By design, stablecoins need to have a central company to keep value steady, USDT has Tether, USDC has Circle. The underlying coin, however, is still centrally controlled, and can be frozen at wallet issuer level, whatever the wallet does on the Lightning level. That is basic fact that does not need to change with makeup of wallet. Big issue is whether or not it is positive or negative development for Bitcoin core purpose to include stablecoins on Lightning. Purists will think it to confuse the issues. For practical people, it means more usefulness and use of the Lightning. Self owning claim is not one that passes true test, however.

All I can see here is just like a system repackaged without changing anything from its core principles of operation. Stable coin have always use a particular network on the exchanges on a centralized based, I feel it doesn’t make any difference even if provided with a wallet to keep your stable coin it doesn’t automatically give you that self custody it will still be entirely controlled by the companies involved.
I don’t buy the whole idea it doesn’t make any sense to me.

[OsaiEmma]

I want you all to be aware that Satoshi's wallet address came to life today, with 2 million in stable coin sent into the wallet address via lightning Network.



Gott ya!

This isn't the real satoshis Nakamoto Bitcoin wallet, this is a Bitcoin Lightning wallet project called wallet of Satoshi.

They added stable coin on Bitcoin lightning Network.
My question is do you believe that this will be useful?

Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?
This won't make any difference with centralisation and decentralisation I believe..

Self-custodial stablecoin they claimed. You believe that idea?

A lot of us have this prejudice against stable coins, especially tether but it has been around for 12 years now (since 2014) that's 5 years after Bitcoin, and it has been doing well. There were 2 earlier stable coins that depegged, but USDT found a way to make it work; surviving this long simply means they're doing something right, right?

Talking about stable coins being centralized, there is a decentralized stable coin called DAI.

[Lida93]

But I never recommend stablecoins for holding purposes or any other long-term usage, it is merely for convenience, fast withdrawals on a centralised platform such as exchanges and casinos.

I don't seem to see any difference in holding stablecoins in a self custodial wallet and having it on exchange because even in a self custody wallet it still can get frozen, so literally it's of no using in anyway. Just having it for quick transactions is the best utility for stablecoins and not for long term holding as we can do with coin like bitcoin which is absolutely decentralized and self custody means self-custodial and not what issuers can either blacklist or seize coins through the contract status.

[AakZaki]

They added stable coin on Bitcoin lightning Network.
My question is do you believe that this will be useful?

Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?
This won't make any difference with centralisation and decentralisation I believe..

In my opinion, this concept has no real urgency compared to the actual needs.

Adding stablecoins to the Lightning Network sounds appealing on paper, but it fundamentally doesn't solve the main problem. Stablecoins themselves already have networks in various other networks that are designed for it with much more mature liquidity, ecosystems and tooling.

Lightning Network is:

• Created for Bitcoin as a medium of exchange
• Focus on speed & low cost
• Not for complex tokenization layers

[Z_MBFM]

But I never recommend stablecoins for holding purposes or any other long-term usage, it is merely for convenience, fast withdrawals on a centralised platform such as exchanges and casinos.

I don't seem to see any difference in holding stablecoins in a self custodial wallet and having it on exchange because even in a self custody wallet it still can get frozen, so literally it's of no using in anyway. Just having it for quick transactions is the best utility for stablecoins and not for long term holding as we can do with coin like bitcoin which is absolutely decentralized and self custody means self-custodial and not what issuers can either blacklist or seize coins through the contract status.

Yes Stablecoins are controlled by an organization and are audited by banks and large institutions, so the authorities have the power to control them. Holding stablecoins is not risk-free. Stablecoins are just a medium of exchange where a coin can be converted to hold a profit. However, Bitcoin is a decentralized coin that is not controlled by anyone, so if the amount of Bitcoin purchased is held in a non-custodial wallet, it will remain under your control for life. Stablecoins are just a tool of exchange

[Z-tight]

The new feature is still in its beta stage, and i would like to highlight what the wallet's team had to say about this addition:

The team described stablecoins on Lightning as a response to user demand for dollar-denominated payments in the Bitcoin environment.

I am not so sure if there was actually demand for this or they simply decided to add this and see if it would increase traffic in their platform, but either way i think they should have made this addition of stablecoins on altcoin blockchains.

Self-custodial stablecoin they claimed. You believe that idea?

No stablecoin is truly self-custodial, because it can always be confiscated, even in your own wallet!

[Hamza2424]

Self owning aspect is a subject worth looking at, while stablecoins on Lightning is very interesting development. By design, stablecoins need to have a central company to keep value steady, USDT has Tether, USDC has Circle. The underlying coin, however, is still centrally controlled, and can be frozen at wallet issuer level, whatever the wallet does on the Lightning level. That is basic fact that does not need to change with makeup of wallet. Big issue is whether or not it is positive or negative development for Bitcoin core purpose to include stablecoins on Lightning. Purists will think it to confuse the issues. For practical people, it means more usefulness and use of the Lightning. Self owning claim is not one that passes true test, however.

Yep, we can't get every single feature in one thing. We always have to trade off one feature for another. In this case, the usefulness is increased, while the control is still in the hands of Tether. If I remember correctly, there was another protocol that introduced the same thing on the Bitcoin blockchain.

The whole idea of using dollars on the Bitcoin blockchain is nice, but we need non-dollar based stablecoins like DAI, which unfortunately is also going to become more centralized in the future. We can still use it, but in the future we will have fewer options.

[retreat]

Do you believe that stablecoins are better on LN than other altcoins chain?

I don't see the need to put it on the LN when it doesn't make any difference. As for self-custody? I don't think it applies to stablecoins because they're tied to centralized companies, which means users still rely on those entities to maintain the peg. So this shouldn't be that important, but for some reason, they're making it seem like something innovative, when in fact, it's only for their own benefit.

[Alphakilo]

Self owning aspect is a subject worth looking at, while stablecoins on Lightning is very interesting development. By design, stablecoins need to have a central company to keep value steady, USDT has Tether, USDC has Circle. The underlying coin, however, is still centrally controlled, and can be frozen at wallet issuer level, whatever the wallet does on the Lightning level. That is basic fact that does not need to change with makeup of wallet. Big issue is whether or not it is positive or negative development for Bitcoin core purpose to include stablecoins on Lightning. Purists will think it to confuse the issues. For practical people, it means more usefulness and use of the Lightning. Self owning claim is not one that passes true test, however.

Yep, we can't get every single feature in one thing. We always have to trade off one feature for another. In this case, the usefulness is increased, while the control is still in the hands of Tether. If I remember correctly, there was another protocol that introduced the same thing on the Bitcoin blockchain.

The whole idea of using dollars on the Bitcoin blockchain is nice, but we need non-dollar based stablecoins like DAI, which unfortunately is also going to become more centralized in the future. We can still use it, but in the future we will have fewer options.

I think what people want is just stability and the USDT or USDC offers that or at least so I believe and besides the stability is the need for speed to conclude a transaction which makes this idea kinda efficient in a way.
It still doesn't remove the risk of USDT that is controlled by the government backing and that would always be a difference that makes Bitcoin standout.
Stablecoins could be a good way to onboard new users but it can't be compared to the financial soverignty and privacy that Bitcoin offers.

[EFS]

Stablecoins may be widely used and useful in practice, but from a philosophical point of view they're unnecessary. They're nothing more than a digital version of government-issued money. They won't protect you from inflation, they won't protect you from the government, they can be issued without limit and they always carry the risk of becoming worthless.

Comparing Bitcoin to stablecoins is probably one of the biggest insults you can make to Bitcoin on this forum. To claim they're better than Bitcoin is nothing more than clickbait move.

[JeffBrad12]

Is it the Tether issued stablecoin on RGB protocol? I don't find the usefulness of stablecoin on the LN because nobody is accepting it as a deposit, not even exchanges.
Feels like an alpha stage where even Tether is still building community trust, I don't really find it interesting though. If I want stablecoin, I can use Bitcoin's L2.

[Smack That Ace]

I don't seem to see any difference in holding stablecoins in a self custodial wallet and having it on exchange because even in a self custody wallet it still can get frozen, so literally it's of no using in anyway. Just having it for quick transactions is the best utility for stablecoins and not for long term holding as we can do with coin like bitcoin which is absolutely decentralized and self custody means self-custodial and not what issuers can either blacklist or seize coins through the contract status.

There are still significant differences between holding stablecoin in a self custody wallet and holding them on an exchange.

When you hold stablecoin on an exchange, you face more risks. For example, your account could be frozen or withdrawal could be restricted if the exchange becomes insolvent or suffers a security breach. Meanwhile, when you hold stablecoin in a self custody wallet, your fund can still be frozen by the stablecoin issuer, but that rarely happen unless your wallet address is linked to money laundering or other illegal activities.

However, holding stablecoin for the long term does not make much sense because they do not generate return.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

There are still significant differences between holding stablecoin in a self custody wallet and holding them on an exchange.

When you hold stablecoin on an exchange, you face more risks. For example, your account could be frozen or withdrawal could be restricted if the exchange becomes insolvent or suffers a security breach. Meanwhile, when you hold stablecoin in a self custody wallet, your fund can still be frozen by the stablecoin issuer, but that rarely happen unless your wallet address is linked to money laundering or other illegal activities.

However, holding stablecoin for the long term does not make much sense because they do not generate return.

Custodial wallets (like centralized exchange accounts and given wallets) and non custodial wallets are very different. The first one does not give users private keys, that means no fund control, whereas the second one gives users private keys and full control. Surely non custodial wallets are safer for users than custodial wallets but there is still risk.

In some situations, funds will be frozen even in non custodial wallets through smart contracts for example by stable coin companies. However at least such fund freeze barely happens, risk is risk but at least with non custodial wallets and stablecoins, there are less risks than stable coins and custodial wallets.

Stable coins and black lists.

[2stout]

Absolutely not, stablecoins are not better than Bitcoin.  They have a real depeg risk and there have been many stablecoins that have failed while Bitcoin is still here and has only gotten stronger over time.  A list of failed stablecoins- https://www.chainsec.io/failed-stablecoins

[Smack That Ace]

Absolutely not, stablecoins are not better than Bitcoin.  They have a real depeg risk and there have been many stablecoins that have failed while Bitcoin is still here and has only gotten stronger over time.  A list of failed stablecoins- https://www.chainsec.io/failed-stablecoins

Most stablecoin like UST lost their peg and failed due to a lack of transparency and regulatory framework. This means that once frameworks like the GENIUS Act and Mica are fully established and stablecoin issuers are required to comply with them, those risks can be significantly reduced and may even disappear. That's not a big problem.

However, stablecoin cannot be better than Bitcoin because they are still centralized assets. They are not much different from fiat, as our money can still be monitored or frozen at any time. Their value also gradually decreases over time because they are pegged to fiat.

[Rustam Meraj]

Most stablecoin like UST lost their peg and failed due to a lack of transparency and regulatory framework. This means that once frameworks like the GENIUS Act and Mica are fully established and stablecoin issuers are required to comply with them, those risks can be significantly reduced and may even disappear. That's not a big problem.

However, stablecoin cannot be better than Bitcoin because they are still centralized assets. They are not much different from fiat, as our money can still be monitored or frozen at any time. Their value also gradually decreases over time because they are pegged to fiat.

Exactly, GENIUS Act is already a law, MiCA is being enforced and stablecoins are certainly getting more clear and safer than UST days were. That is real progress.
However, basic issue does not change. Indeed, regulations actually make stablecoins MORE centralized. Now issuers require licenses, approved reserves and government watch which means your funds can be frozen, blacklisted and restricted at any time. This is not first time that USDC has frozen wallets.
Bitcoin is not matter of requiring any individual permission. Nothing to license or no issuer or government. That is basic difference which can never be crossed by any regulation.

[Doan9269]

There's nothing that can be compared to Bitcoin, stablecoin with serve its purpose and the same way we have bitcoin serving its own desirable benefits to mankind, comparing them together will give a huge margin because they are not invented with the same intention, but we're making every possible best to apply the use of Bitcoin in such a way that satisfy all our personal needs in financial economy, this give us more priority over any other assets we may want to invest, while stable coin is being made up available to securely afford to buy/exchange for Bitcoin at anytime.