The concept of “stablecoins“ does not deserve to be placed next to the BTC

[Creeper0]

Your and my preferences may not change much in the use of stablecoins. In fact, stablecoins are not going to separate from crypto very soon, but will become more intertwined. We initially rely on stablecoins to trade on most exchanges and then trade in other cryptos. Whether these coins are audited or not, the coins have already gained acceptance by the world and stablecoins are needed for international trade and exchange trading. We may have doubts and various questions about the audit of stablecoins, but that does not mean that the entire stablecoin concept cannot be rejected or placed on the list of dislikes, certain coins are certainly responsible for this. Some of the stablecoins have still made it to the top coins in terms of acceptance.

[Chinesebaby]

I don't like stablecoins and consider them not crypto, because stablecoins can't even be properly audited. Well, at least usdt.
But!
In my opinion, stablecoins are useful now, because they are becoming preferred by many due to the speed of transactions and the cheapness of shipping. Almost every online casino on the forum includes stablecoins as a deposit and withdrawal method. This is an adoption leading to the spread of true crypto, because if someone uses stablecoins, they will also be interested in Bitcoin.
But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto. Because everyone should understand the importance of decentralization and limited emissions, which are inherent in bitcoin. And I consider stablecoins to be an idea that has been profitably "sold" to the masses, but I repeat, I would like this "semi-crypto product" to be maximally separated from the crypto world later.

USDT was created as an alternative to the United States dollar, but in the crypto and has the same monetary value to it. And it's no doubt that after Bitcoin, USDT have also proven to be one of the top use crypto for transactions across the crypto industry, which is why it is one of the priority major crypto currency that it's usually integrated on all platforms that claim to offer crypto. So despite the fact that USDT is a centralized coin, it can't be excluded from being called crypto, because crypto is actually divided into two parts, decentralized and centralized, and for the fact that Bitcoin offers more security, Tether USDT is one crypto that have been able to facilitate international transportation, as it's major payment method. So the role which it plays in the crypto space can never be overemphasized.

[Bitcoin Smith]

Stablecoins have many use cases other than casino deposits and I believe trading is still the place where stablecoins are mainly used, and it brings convenience without need to convert crypto to fiat every time they want to hold their capital which is something stable like fiat. And then there is remittance, which brings a whole new use case in recent times.

But the core concept of stablecoins is not aligned with Bitcoin or decentralization so Bitcoin enthusiasts who embrace and preach decentralization will not use stablecoins.

[Spaceman1000$]

I don't like stablecoins and consider them not crypto, because stablecoins can't even be properly audited. Well, at least usdt.
But!
In my opinion, stablecoins are useful now, because they are becoming preferred by many due to the speed of transactions and the cheapness of shipping. Almost every online casino on the forum includes stablecoins as a deposit and withdrawal method. This is an adoption leading to the spread of true crypto, because if someone uses stablecoins, they will also be interested in Bitcoin.
But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto. Because everyone should understand the importance of decentralization and limited emissions, which are inherent in bitcoin. And I consider stablecoins to be an idea that has been profitably "sold" to the masses, but I repeat, I would like this "semi-crypto product" to be maximally separated from the crypto world later.

Stable coin in most cases are a miniature of crypto coins like Bitcoin, but they are mostly controlled by the government or institutions, unlike Bitcoin that is decentralized. The reason why there is some similarity is because there has been a narrative that is driven by institutions, more like if they cannot get Bitcoin they should see stable coins as something they can work with to give Bitcoin synonymity. However in terms of separation, people that are mostly involved in crypto activity obviously know the activities of a stable coin and what crypto go can do.

[legiteum]

I agree.

Bitcoin and other floating cryptos are meme investment instruments and their purpose is to make the holder richer by them selling it for more than they paid for it based on its increasing popularity.

Stablecoins are utilities that solve technical problems.

It's like comparing a rake and a roulette wheel.

Bitcoin does not compete with stablecoins, it competes with stocks, bonds, sports betting, prediction markets, etc.

Stablecoins compete with Swift, bank transfers, credit cards, etc.

Two different things in two different markets.

[AgriTrack]

Stable coins can't be separated from decentralized cryptocurrencies, because as some others already said it, when you trade volatile assets, you basically do it using stable coins, because it doesn't make sense for a trader to sell one volatile asset and get another volatile asset in return when they are actually trying to secure their profits, because when you sell your bitcoins and get USDT, you rest assured that your portfolio won't lose any value anymore even if the market moves, because that's what stable coins are for, they don't lose value, which is why they are faired and used with volatile assets so that people can use them to buy and sell volatile assets.

So, whether we like it or not, stable coins will always be there as long as this market exists, and we all use them as well because we don't have any other option. If in the future, it can be possible for someone to actually create a totally decentralized stable coin, then that will be great, but until then, we are compelled to use these centralized stable coins if we want to buy and sell cryptocurrencies and want to be able to take profit or preserve the value of our assets at a certain market condition.

[Maslate]

That's why stablecoins are made because they are trying to follow the image of bitcoin, although that's impossible because bitcoin is decentralized while majority of the stablecoins are centralized in nature.

Now, if you demand for stablecoins to be separated from bitcoin, then that's beating their own purpose why they exist in the crypto market. Where bitcoin is dominant, that's where stablecoins are also trying to establish their means. Tether(USDT) and USD Coin(USDC) are two major stablecoins but they don't compete directly with bitcoin, since both have still different economic roles, bitcoin as a long term decentralized asset while stablecoins are made for day to day payment transactions.

[JeffBrad12]

There is a token which is backed by another token, issued by binance.

They already showed its possible to create one, what's holding them from authorizing it?

The blockchain is capable, but Tether Limited don't want to, although reason is unknown it might be because CZ calling it a black box because lack of audit on twitter AMA back then in 2023 and that Binance has repeatedly trying to use alternative stablecoins BUSD and FDUSD to reduce Tether's dominance. Though, it might not necessarily be the real reason.

[d5000]

But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto.

Stablecoins have few use cases outside of the crypto market. They are mostly used for different trading and exchange-to-exchange transfers. For almost all other use cases, simple e-money (Paypal etc.) is cheaper and even faster.

That's why I consider it difficult that they will become "separated" from the crypto market. There are some very limited use cases like inflation protection in countries with strict exchange restrictions (e.g. Argentina) but as soon as these measures are relaxed the stablecoin usage usually declines again.

I guess that the fate of stablecoins will be mainly depend on two questions:

1) if the altcoin market stays relevant. There is currently a decline of the altcoin market, and it could drag stablecoins down with them as they are mostly used for trading-related activities. But maybe it stagnates, and then stablecoins may stay relevant. (I don't think the altcoin market will disappear, by the way, but we may head back to 80% or more of Bitcoin dominance, with some memetoken fads popping up every now and then.)

2) if they can preserve a regulation / privacy advantage over e-money. E-money almost universally needs KYC, stablecoins until now do not if you trade them P2P. But to exchange fiat to stablecoins, somebody will see your personal data or your face if you're trading in cash. This makes them more suitable for payments you don't want anybody to know about, and also for some kinds of remittances.

If they can preserve these niches mentioned in the second bullet point, then it's indeed possible that they stay relevant even if the altcoin market dies out, and that's the only chance for me that we'll see a separation of stablecoins and the crypto market. Stablecoins will then perhaps evolve into a more direct competitor to PayPal and similar services.

[davis196]

I don't like stablecoins and consider them not crypto, because stablecoins can't even be properly audited. Well, at least usdt.
But!
In my opinion, stablecoins are useful now, because they are becoming preferred by many due to the speed of transactions and the cheapness of shipping. Almost every online casino on the forum includes stablecoins as a deposit and withdrawal method. This is an adoption leading to the spread of true crypto, because if someone uses stablecoins, they will also be interested in Bitcoin.
But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto. Because everyone should understand the importance of decentralization and limited emissions, which are inherent in bitcoin. And I consider stablecoins to be an idea that has been profitably "sold" to the masses, but I repeat, I would like this "semi-crypto product" to be maximally separated from the crypto world later.

1.Nobody cares about your opinion and whether you consider stablecoins to be crypto or not. The markets decides instead of you and the crypto traders have chosen convenience in the form of stablecoins instead of having to deal with direct crypto to fiat transactions.
2.I also don't consider stablecoins to be actual crypto, but the crypto traders will keep using stablecoins no matter what you and I are thinking.
3.Aren't you contradicting yourself. You say that stablecoins are convenient now, but you would like them to be separated from crypto later on. If the stablecoins are convenient now, they would most likely remain convenient in the future.

[Taskford]

But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto.

Stablecoins have few use cases outside of the crypto market. They are mostly used for different trading and exchange-to-exchange transfers. For almost all other use cases, simple e-money (Paypal etc.) is cheaper and even faster.

That's why I consider it difficult that they will become "separated" from the crypto market. There are some very limited use cases like inflation protection in countries with strict exchange restrictions (e.g. Argentina) but as soon as these measures are relaxed the stablecoin usage usually declines again.

I guess that the fate of stablecoins will be mainly depend on two questions:

1) if the altcoin market stays relevant. There is currently a decline of the altcoin market, and it could drag stablecoins down with them as they are mostly used for trading-related activities. But maybe it stagnates, and then stablecoins may stay relevant. (I don't think the altcoin market will disappear, by the way, but we may head back to 80% or more of Bitcoin dominance, with some memetoken fads popping up every now and then.)

2) if they can preserve a regulation / privacy advantage over e-money. E-money almost universally needs KYC, stablecoins until now do not if you trade them P2P. But to exchange fiat to stablecoins, somebody will see your personal data or your face if you're trading in cash. This makes them more suitable for payments you don't want anybody to know about, and also for some kinds of remittances.

If they can preserve these niches mentioned in the second bullet point, then it's indeed possible that they stay relevant even if the altcoin market dies out, and that's the only chance for me that we'll see a separation of stablecoins and the crypto market. Stablecoins will then perhaps evolve into a more direct competitor to PayPal and similar services.

I tried to search for data about what you have said about the decline of usage of stablecoin and it seems you are right base on this article https://crystalintelligence.com/stablecoin/what-drove-the-stablecoin-supply-down

But I think that decline is temporary since many people would still use those coins, but well the usage will depends on how they would like to use it.

Also those coins survive and many people still user it, because it offer something that those e money can't provide.

1. Is it has liquidity on p2p even without doing providing KYC.

2. Anyone can access and use those coins even those country which have  dysfunctional or broken banking infrastructure.

Also they actually don't need to be separated from cryptocurrencies to remain relevant. What they need is to serve their niche on which banks also the Paypal hard to penetrate. So even if the altcoins will decline its niche will not provably vanish.

[Catenaccio]

I tried to search for data about what you have said about the decline of usage of stablecoin and it seems you are right base on this article https://crystalintelligence.com/stablecoin/what-drove-the-stablecoin-supply-down

But I think that decline is temporary since many people would still use those coins, but well the usage will depends on how they would like to use it.

Also those coins survive and many people still user it, because it offer something that those e money can't provide.

1. Is it has liquidity on p2p even without doing providing KYC.

Stable coin companies will be affected first as consequence of MiCA in the Europe. There will be companies and stablecoins that are already compliant with MiCA but many others have yet been compliant and it will take them considerable time to have MiCA compliance. Meanwhile, there will be considerable decline of stablecoin usage from European citizens but this industry is here to stay, so stablecoin companies like Tether will do what is necessary for getting MiCA licence.

https://www.fourthline.com/glossary/what-is-mica-(markets-in-crypto-assets-regulation)

2. Anyone can access and use those coins even those country which have  dysfunctional or broken banking infrastructure.

Also they actually don't need to be separated from cryptocurrencies to remain relevant. What they need is to serve their niche on which banks also the Paypal hard to penetrate. So even if the altcoins will decline its niche will not provably vanish.

They can use stable coins that provide fast transactions, cheap transaction fees but with risk of fund freeze by stable coin companies. It's big risk together with risk of stable coin depeg.

If they want something better, more secure, can not be frozen, it's Bitcoin.

[bitbollo]

in a certain way bitcoin and stablecoins have received a mutual advantage and we are still seing nowadays the effect with upcoming regulations.
these are just cryptos... just another form of shitcoins but resembling FIAT
I would not see any doubt but these are two completely concept and bitcoin doesn't deserve to have any kind of FIAT for working.
about MICA and EU, they are deploying their centralized token - digital euro.
for sure with proxies or new regulations they would be forced to adopt more of the new stablecoins.

[The Cryptovator]

But I hope that sooner or later stablecoins will be more separated from crypto. Because everyone should understand the importance of decentralization and limited emissions, which are inherent in bitcoin. And I consider stablecoins to be an idea that has been profitably "sold" to the masses, but I repeat, I would like this "semi-crypto product" to be maximally separated from the crypto world later.

Right now we evaluate and trade Bitcoin through stable coin. It's a centralised cryptocurrency since it has been using cryptography. This isn’t a semi-crypto product; rather, we may call it a centralised crypto product. If there weren’t stablecoins, then we would have had to struggle to trade Bitcoin with fiat.

Remember we live in a centralised society; at the end of the day we are using centralised currency as well. Because with Bitcoin we can’t purchase everything that we need in our lives. Somehow our Bitcoin holdings need to convert to fiat, and in that case stablecoins make an easy process. You can’t separate stablecoins from crypto, not even their CBDC that’s also kind of a stablecoin in the form of fiat on the blockchain.

[d5000]

I tried to search for data about what you have said about the decline of usage of stablecoin and it seems you are right base on this article https://crystalintelligence.com/stablecoin/what-drove-the-stablecoin-supply-down

But I think that decline is temporary since many people would still use those coins, but well the usage will depends on how they would like to use it.

Interesting article. In reality, however, I referred to the decline of the altcoin market in general. Only a handful have reached new ATHs in 2025 for example, and there are only few "exciting new coins". That's drastically different from the 2021 bull market. And the Bitcoin dominance is also increasing. So I was more talking about a long term effect here.

1. Is it has liquidity on p2p even without doing providing KYC.

2. Anyone can access and use those coins even those country which have  dysfunctional or broken banking infrastructure.

You're correct, but both use cases are very niche-y. There are very few people in comparison to the CEX volume who trade stablecoins P2P, above all to fiat. And if you can trade stablecoins to fiat via P2P exchanges, then you probably have a working bank account and/or e-money wallet.

I guess there are very few countries withot a working e-money infrastructure. In South America for example there are usually 5-10 or more Paypal-style providers per country (more than in Europe who has to resort to CBDC ). And if you want to buy dollars via e-money this is even possible in countries like Argentina now.

The question would thus be: who has 1) no bank account and 2) can buy and/or make use of stablecoins? You'll need to buy them with cash, or earn them in some way, and I guess there are people doing this but the number should be very low.

I'm generally happy that stablecoins exist in the current market, because they give an additional use case in extreme edge cases, like homeless people who have a smartphone but not a steady address, or people in regions devastated by warfare. Once Bitcoin becomes more stable it could replace these use cases though.

Thus my conclusion is that if altcoins decline further, stablecoins will also lose importance, and that will be even more pronounced if Bitcoin's volatility continues to decline.