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

[tbct_mt2]

In my opinion, stablecoins are useful now,

There is always utility offered by even the worst products. Take ETH for example. It is the worst cryptocurrency ever made (mutable blockchain, centralized, flawed protocol, unlimited supply, PoS, etc.) and yet if has offered a utility that has helped it stay alive.

Things are not so black and white. We have PayPal, Credit Cards, the banking system as a whole, etc. that are terrible as well and yet they are useful and many people use them (a lot more than they use stablecoins).

Ethereum even when it was a Proof of Work blockchain had less security than Bitcoin blockchain. This following site can be used to check it with support from Wayback machine.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

As of writing, the Wayback machine site is overload, so I can not refer to an archive page of it when Ethereum was still PoW, but I will edit this post later.

With stable coins, they are useful with their utilities and use cases for cryptocurrency users but they have weakness that can be exploited by hackers or centralization and censorship that are bad for users.
Stable coin can be frozen in your wallets.
Stable coins can be frozen by issuers.

[X-ray]

I personally believe the stablecoins will die eventually as CBDCs grow in popularity and simply replace them because I don't see any reason for anyone to choose a stablecoin issued by a shady company over a centralized coin issued by a central bank which is more reliable than that shady company.

That much is true, I agree that CBDC is significantly better than half assed stablecoin issued by shady company and the issued CBDC will actually have direct liability of the central bank.

CBDC is less risk and it's equivalent to M0 but CBDC is going to run in a permissioned ledger controlled by central bank which isn't going to attach itself to public permissionless blockchain like ethereum.

So, I doubt it can completely outshine stablecoin.

[EarnOnVictor]

I don't like stablecoins and consider them not crypto, because stablecoins can't even be properly audited. Well, at least usdt.

Oh boy!!! This your statement shocked me a lot. I didn't even bother to proceed with the thread having read this, as it might amount to more fallacies and time wasting.

If you must know, the USDT can be properly audited, and as a matter of fact, regulators have taken it as their serious business...lol And notable global auditors like KPMG had been reported to have audited it..

Besides, as true as no one can compare Bitcoin with stablecoins, the gap is too wide, but still, stablecoins are cryptocurrency undeniably, but with the weakness of some central control. But this doesn't strip them of the cryptographic key storage using legitimate decentralised blockchains.

[Somegory]

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.

Rule that speed of transaction out, because they are either running on BNB or ETH chain, so that speed doesn't belong to them since no stablecoin is running on its own Blockchain.

The main reason why people prefer stable coin is because they have hold them as Fiat and use them to take advantage of the volatile assets in crypto space.

Secondly, stablecoins are better for payment solutions than bitcoin, why? Because they are stable, there is no need to panics about dumps incoming or something, they stays the same just like fiat.

[Die_empty]

I personally believe the stablecoins will die eventually as CBDCs grow in popularity and simply replace them because I don't see any reason for anyone to choose a stablecoin issued by a shady company over a centralized coin issued by a central bank which is more reliable than that shady company.

I don't think stablecoins will become obsolete as more countries develop CBDCs. People and organizations will still prefer to use dollar-backed cryptocurrencies. USDT and USDC are widely used because of the dollarized setup of the global economy. Some citizens of some countries prefer to use or keep the dollar because it is relatively stable and widely used. This might keep happening until the push for dedollarisation gains momentum.

Some countries might not have the infrastructure and expertise to manage the complexities of  CBDCs. Meanwhile, stablecoins offer quality services. Some people might not want to use CBDCs because they want to bypass local restrictions.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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.

I don't think Stablecoins would ever be separated from bitcoin totally, since the volatility is lesser in it, people prefer to convert bitcoin to stable coins to prevent reduction in value during transactions that has a fixed value within a short time duration. People also convert from stable coins to bitcoin when the goal is long-term to preserve its value from inflation, so they are somewhat complementary.

they created a token called XAUt that received Shariah certification. They want to enter the Islamic market with this token. Obviously, if they enter, they'll make more money and gain more power. Therefore, Tether will continue to strengthen its position in the cryptocurrency market.

Tether is smart, they are always expanding their horizon, they enter different continents and attempt to establish dominance in the crypto markets, they've also Partnered with UN agency to combat illicit money flow. We all know it is a game of interest and to create dominance in the African crypto market. We cannot deny that most people rely on stable coins these days and I wish they knew how risky it is to have such dependence on such Centralized projects which can freeze your address and deprive you access to your money anytime they want.

[pooya87]

I personally believe the stablecoins will die eventually as CBDCs grow in popularity and simply replace them because I don't see any reason for anyone to choose a stablecoin issued by a shady company over a centralized coin issued by a central bank which is more reliable than that shady company.

I don't think stablecoins will become obsolete as more countries develop CBDCs. People and organizations will still prefer to use dollar-backed cryptocurrencies. USDT and USDC are widely used because of the dollarized setup of the global economy. Some citizens of some countries prefer to use or keep the dollar because it is relatively stable and widely used. This might keep happening until the push for dedollarisation gains momentum.

Some countries might not have the infrastructure and expertise to manage the complexities of  CBDCs. Meanwhile, stablecoins offer quality services. Some people might not want to use CBDCs because they want to bypass local restrictions.

That's a good point but what if US government issued a stablecoin (CBDC)? They already have Petrodollar scam running, cryptodollar could be an option too And that would fix the problem with the dollar-backed coin as well and people who want to use dollar could switch to that instead of shady USDT and USDC. They would all be centralized and censorable so they compete in the same category.

[MusaMohamed]

That's a good point but what if US government issued a stablecoin (CBDC)? They already have Petrodollar scam running, cryptodollar could be an option too And that would fix the problem with the dollar-backed coin as well and people who want to use dollar could switch to that instead of shady USDT and USDC. They would all be centralized and censorable so they compete in the same category.

CBDCs are like global trendy currencies in the future and many nations are considering their own CBDCs. If they want, with time and some times of trying, there will be no longer constitutional and act barriers, because when governments want and reach consensus in their constitutions, they will pass new Acts they need.

There are many countries that considering about CBDCs
https://cbdctracker.org/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/

With the USA, there are something proposed to cook and there will be more until they have a national CBDC that won't change inflation and its decrease of purchasing power but only tighten more monetary and financial observations on the Americans.
https://cbdctracker.org/currency/united_states_of_america-digital_dollar
https://cbdctracker.org/currency/united_states_of_america-project_hamilton
https://cbdctracker.org/currency/united_states_of_america-wholesale_digital_dollar

[d5000]

I personally believe the stablecoins will die eventually as CBDCs grow in popularity and simply replace them because I don't see any reason for anyone to choose a stablecoin issued by a shady company over a centralized coin issued by a central bank which is more reliable than that shady company.

I think in the niches stablecoins are currently used, mainly as a vehicle to "park" funds obtained by crypto trading and transferring them to other exchanges, and for DeFi, CBDCs would normally not be suitable. Most CBDCs I've heard of would not be blockchain based, and thus it would be difficult for exchanges to integrate them all. Yes, if the US issued a CBDC and it was also accessible to foreigners, then this could see wide adoption also in the crypto sector, even if most "cryptobros" are "anti-CBDC" now.

But the US for now has decided to not advance. And to be honest, ideological questions aside, the US is the country with least necessity for a CBDC. The EU for example wants to introduce its CBDC to fight the dominance of US-based credit card companies, and many other countries have similar reasons. While if the US introduced a CBDC, they would fight their own companies (Visa and Mastercard mainly).

It's possible, even somewhat likely, that the US in 10-15 years will reconsider its stance on CBDCs if the financial landscape changes significantly due to the EU digital euro and other CBDCs. But until then I think stablecoins will stay relevant, albeit as I wrote in another post their usage could decline if the altcoin market declines further. If DeFi also declines (which is likely if they don't find use cases for the real world) then stablecoins could indeed have a hard time eventually, but that will probably not be due to CBDCs.

[Hamza2424]

These stablecoin guys are going to continue expanding their influence. Look at Tether, they created a token called XAUt that received Shariah certification. They want to enter the Islamic market with this token. Obviously, if they enter, they'll make more money and gain more power. Therefore, Tether will continue to strengthen its position in the cryptocurrency market.

Hmm, that's good to know, as recently an Islamic scholar in our country said crypto and every stable currency is haram, we respect him but we respectfully disagreed with him, not just me or my community but at least every crypto user because they said he knows nothing about crypto, but Muslims tend to think about these things, which is really good, and if Tether is giving them something that works for them then that's nice of Tether. Also, they have at least 707,000 troy ounces of physical gold to back this token, which is also considered physical gold. So they are definitely expanding but it is not a stablecoin in my opinion.

These platforms, when they saw one gap that no one else was filling, then they jumped in to provide that thing, filling that gap, which is how expansion really works.

[legiteum]

It's possible, even somewhat likely, that the US in 10-15 years will reconsider its stance on CBDCs if the financial landscape changes significantly due to the EU digital euro and other CBDCs. [...]

I really don't see it happening. Why? Because there's no need. CBDCs make as much sense as having a national operating system or a national texting app. There are many great products that do exactly what a CBDC would do, and they are available right now.

Governments should only do things that cannot (or should not) be done by the private sector. What would be the advantage of a CBDC versus one of the many excellent stablecoin products out there?

If DeFi also declines (which is likely if they don't find use cases for the real world) then stablecoins could indeed have a hard time eventually, but that will probably not be due to CBDCs.

I agree that DeFi will decline, although we may not really notice because they will keep calling a bunch of things "DeFi" even though they will be ordinary financial products. A bank might offer a security for sale that represents some instrument, and because the database they internally store the positions in is a "decentralized architecture" (good luck defining that exactly for legal purposes), they currently get to bypass a bunch of regulations.

Why will that decline? Because regulators are starting to close the "decentralized" loophole, and regulators are, rightly, seeing that the data storage mechanism is totally irrelevant.

Of course, this all uncovers a hard truth about Bitcoin and the blockchain architecture generally: it stopped being necessary about 15 years ago. Bitcoin could sit in an Oracle database guarded by Citibank and it would be perfectly legal just like it is now. Decentralization was critical to get Bitcoin off the ground, but its popularity basically obsoleted its own architecture.

As for stablecoins, they are currently used as low-regulation bank accounts. Once the regulations equalize those with traditional accounts (and banks offer APIs to their accounts that allow them to mimic stablecoins), then I too can seem them becoming less relevant.

The exception would be a stablecoin that does things that no other form of transfer can currently do, which is scale to every single payment in the planet so cheaply that anonymous transactions can be offered for free, and allow transactions as small as a penny be totally viable--and also settle the transaction in a few milliseconds instead of seconds or minutes.

That kind of system will be in demand forever.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I don't like stablecoins and consider them not crypto, because stablecoins can't even be properly audited. Well, at least usdt.

Looking at the crypto market in general and if we're being honest, most of the so called crypto projects don't deserve to be placed along side Bitcoin but there has to be some compromise to be made to accommodate them within to have an industry. We had (or still have ) some decentralized stable coins but they don't have enough liquidity to dominate the market but they can be called real crypto since some of them are tokenized and aren't as centralized like the popular ones. The thing is people will always choose what they feel comfortable with and right now it's USDT that's winning and being widely accepted and promoted by the exchange who are also CEX and that explains everything. Stable coins don't even matter that much as that's not the coin we're accumulating and we don't even hodl it instead we should buy the real deal which is Bitcoin and then move them off the exchange to have full custody.