USDT returning to Bitcoin Network According to Tether CEO

[slaman29]

USDT already has billions in market cap on other chains. There isn’t any incentive for those users to start using an entirely different ecosystem. I also see Tether having a hard time convincing Bitcoiners to use this.

Yeah, I don't know what they think has changed. Tried it before, didn't work out, I can't remember the exact reason they abandoned it but I do remember them for years already saying it had the lowest volume on Bitcoin for the longest time once fees became 'expensive'.

Diversification of chains to send on is also good, but I just do not see a lot of people using it.

For sure nothing has changed in a year, just don't get it at all. Fees? Ironically USDT on Bitcoin would be cheaper than ETH or TRON for past year (which is a big reason they moved).

[NotATether]

Tron in recent years is no longer a good blockchain for transactions, if users care about transaction fees.

Tron is the perfect example where over complcaiting things and having a different currency for fees, designed to be just another gimmick with no actual impact other than headaches and expensive transfers for casual users will drive users away to other chains that are way mroe simplitic, who ever designed the "energy" stuff, probably trying to copy the gas on eth scrwed the network forever.

I fucking hate Tron nowadays. Sending a USDT TRC20 transaction nowadays costs like $4 - for small transactions that's more than Paypal.

Even ETH has less fees. Can you believe that? 3 years ago, it costed like $10 or $20 or even $50 in ETH to send tokens, because of the smart contract. And TRX was the reverse.

[ABCbits]

There is a huge demand for data storage and data anchoring in Bitcoin, that is the way that things can be built on top of it and that is how it stays relevant for the future.

I don't think the demand is that big. Looking at past ordinal and BRC-20 hype, many people only wanted quick profit. But related to main topic of this thread, most of the USDT activity doesn't happen on-chain anyway, because Tether decide to use utexo rather than continue to use Omni protocol.

Tron in recent years is no longer a good blockchain for transactions, if users care about transaction fees.

Tron is the perfect example where over complcaiting things and having a different currency for fees, designed to be just another gimmick with no actual impact other than headaches and expensive transfers for casual users will drive users away to other chains that are way mroe simplitic, who ever designed the "energy" stuff, probably trying to copy the gas on eth scrwed the network forever.

I fucking hate Tron nowadays. Sending a USDT TRC20 transaction nowadays costs like $4 - for small transactions that's more than Paypal.

Even ETH has less fees. Can you believe that? 3 years ago, it costed like $10 or $20 or even $50 in ETH to send tokens, because of the smart contract. And TRX was the reverse.

And Tron is the only network with high fee to use USDT. https://gasfeesnow.com/ shows other network cost about $0.001 to $0.023.

[stompix]

There is a huge demand for data storage and data anchoring in Bitcoin

No, there is not!
Because if there were, you would not be able to get a confirmation in the next block with 4 cents for a tx at 0.30 sat/vb just like a few blocks ago!
If the miners would reject tx with less than 1 sat/vb the blocks would be half full most of the time.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-median_transaction_fee.html#1y

I fucking hate Tron nowadays. Sending a USDT TRC20 transaction nowadays costs like $4 - for small transactions that's more than Paypal.
Even ETH has less fees. Can you believe that? 3 years ago, it costed like $10 or $20 or even $50 in ETH to send tokens, because of the smart contract. And TRX was the reverse.

Tron devs: How do we keep users to our chain?  Let's make a complicated energy model fee that traps user funds on our chain and is heavily impacted by Tron price!
Also, Tron devs: Why is eveyone leaving?

[Dogedegen]

That is a bit more understandable, but categorized by who as spam? In this case it seems very mistaken that anyone at all would categorize these transactions as spam as they are pure payment transactions.

For now, I have not seen any serious, objective definition for spam.  Which does mean these 'spam' transactions should not be stopped, because at that point we would subjectively stop particular transactions and it would be no different from a centralized ledger.

That is my issue with calling anything spam so quickly and without details, and as you see in this example it quickly creates cases where people call good things and even payments as spam.. We should refrain from doing that so subjectively, actually people should refrain to call anything spam unless they really have to like the dust attack on the network a couple years ago. If I don't like some transactions like ordinals, or USDT that does not make them spam. They still could be, but my dislike of them does not make them spam like some users believe..

I fucking hate Tron nowadays. Sending a USDT TRC20 transaction nowadays costs like $4 - for small transactions that's more than Paypal.

Even ETH has less fees. Can you believe that? 3 years ago, it costed like $10 or $20 or even $50 in ETH to send tokens, because of the smart contract. And TRX was the reverse.

And still TRON is highly used for USDT, and by many desks and providers it is the preferred network for USDT. I don't know why, but we can't ignore the on chain data of the volume of payment. It didn't use to be this expensive to move USDT there, but even with all of that it was always a shitcoin. Why the market decides to prefer to use a specific shitcoin for a single use is very hard to answer.

There is a huge demand for data storage and data anchoring in Bitcoin, that is the way that things can be built on top of it and that is how it stays relevant for the future.

I don't think the demand is that big. Looking at past ordinal and BRC-20 hype, many people only wanted quick profit. But related to main topic of this thread, most of the USDT activity doesn't happen on-chain anyway, because Tether decide to use utexo rather than continue to use Omni protocol.

There is, you are thinking mainly in public and consumer oriented things that were a lot of hype. All of Lightning is part of that demand, it is just a lean solution that does not require a lot of on chain activity after an user has adopted it. A lot of hashes, timestamps, many things are stored in the Bitcoin blockchain and in some cases you will not even know that it is some business that is using that for their own chains. Bitcoin is restricted for good reasons, but the demand is there that is why some things are built on shitcoins since they couldn't make it work here and have no other choice.

[JiiBs]

How does it work under the hood?

Utexo combines two Bitcoin-native protocols: the Lightning Network for instant, off-chain payment execution, and RGB for issuing and transferring USDT with confidential, Bitcoin-anchored settlement. Execution happens off-chain for speed and scale; cryptographic commitments are anchored to Bitcoin’s base layer for correctness and finality.

It's still good news for Bitcoin ecosystem, since you can use USDT without totally leaving Bitcoin or Bitcoin network.

Just trying to understand this a little better so, I’ll ask these;

If it isn’t directly on the Bitcoin network and would be utilizing an off-chain approach to it, how would that be of advantage to Bitcoin if not just for publicity?

Are there ways this can affect the Bitcoin network itself either positively or negatively?

USDT is having to project privacy as some of the reason behind this backpedaling, while cheap feels and the reliability of Bitcoin network is on the side. We know for certain that, USDT is centrally issued, which doesn’t tell so much on privacy.
How does that really works in this case as it concerns privacy?

[X-ray]

Just trying to understand this a little better so, I’ll ask these;

If it isn’t directly on the Bitcoin network and would be utilizing an off-chain approach to it, how would that be of advantage to Bitcoin if not just for publicity?

Are there ways this can affect the Bitcoin network itself either positively or negatively?

USDT is having to project privacy as some of the reason behind this backpedaling, while cheap feels and the reliability of Bitcoin network is on the side. We know for certain that, USDT is centrally issued, which doesn’t tell so much on privacy.
How does that really works in this case as it concerns privacy?

Off chain approach as far as I know is the most viable way to handle consignment data, uploading it to the blockchain would cost a ton.

With this approach, they also enabled privacy feature, two bird with one stone.

It's not just publicity, just like how lightning network is also off chain and still helpful.

[pooya87]

If it isn’t directly on the Bitcoin network and would be utilizing an off-chain approach to it, how would that be of advantage to Bitcoin if not just for publicity?

Off-chain or on-chain this is only beneficial to this centralized altcoin not to bitcoin.
It may also be beneficial to some of the users who wished to use this censorable centralized stablecoin on the bitcoin blockchain.

Are there ways this can affect the Bitcoin network itself either positively or negatively?

Nothing major. It will add yet another category of transactions that only take place to inject an arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain.

USDT is having to project privacy as some of the reason behind this backpedaling, while cheap feels and the reliability of Bitcoin network is on the side. We know for certain that, USDT is centrally issued, which doesn’t tell so much on privacy.
How does that really works in this case as it concerns privacy?

I'm not buying the privacy claims to be honest.