If they are giving protection against volatility, They are helping to increase liquidity then I do not think terming them "evil" is correct.
I do not think our dependence on them is going to reduce because market will not like to reduce the liquidity.
Topic: Are Stablecoins A Necessary Evil? - page 6. (Read 809 times)
I honestly feel that stablecoins like Tether etc are indeed a necessary evil. They do pose problems for the cryptocurrency market(Tether controversy etc), but they will still be in demand as long as the market is extremely volatile.
Once the volatility lowers in the long term, the demand for these coins will most likely fall which is why they are a necessary evil at present.
Necessary evil because of controversy but necessary for us to be safe on our trades. It is a safe-haven for our trades. Since they are stable, if we are on loss we can simply put our btc on tether in order for us to be safe on the continuous downfall. Once the volatility lowers in the long term, the demand for these coins will most likely fall which is why they are a necessary evil at present.
"Fiat-backed stablecoins are therefore rarely actual cryptocurrencies, which causes them to inherit their main characteristics and shortcomings from the centralised banking system. Ultimately, they function in the same manner as fiat, backed by what amounts to an IOU."
Danial Daychopan wrote a short article linked below that has got me thinking. Are stablecoins bad for the cryptocurrency ecosystem because they are essentially fiat in digital form, or are they beneficial as they provide stability in an extremely volatile market? Curious to hear your thoughts, give it a read and let me know your angle on it.
https://medium.com/@DDhopn/stablecoins-3b93b4f1ddc5
Danial Daychopan wrote a short article linked below that has got me thinking. Are stablecoins bad for the cryptocurrency ecosystem because they are essentially fiat in digital form, or are they beneficial as they provide stability in an extremely volatile market? Curious to hear your thoughts, give it a read and let me know your angle on it.
https://medium.com/@DDhopn/stablecoins-3b93b4f1ddc5
In the beginning there was only Tether. And it was enough for everyone. As you already know, the bull from 2017 was also very effective. But the obvious mistakes they made came here. Today, the number of stablecoins on the market is increasing day by day and I am not sure how much they are necessary anymore.
I honestly feel that stablecoins like Tether etc are indeed a necessary evil. They do pose problems for the cryptocurrency market(Tether controversy etc), but they will still be in demand as long as the market is extremely volatile.
Once the volatility lowers in the long term, the demand for these coins will most likely fall which is why they are a necessary evil at present.
Once the volatility lowers in the long term, the demand for these coins will most likely fall which is why they are a necessary evil at present.
"Fiat-backed stablecoins are therefore rarely actual cryptocurrencies, which causes them to inherit their main characteristics and shortcomings from the centralised banking system. Ultimately, they function in the same manner as fiat, backed by what amounts to an IOU."
Danial Daychopan wrote a short article linked below that has got me thinking. Are stablecoins bad for the cryptocurrency ecosystem because they are essentially fiat in digital form, or are they beneficial as they provide stability in an extremely volatile market? Curious to hear your thoughts, give it a read and let me know your angle on it.
https://medium.com/@DDhopn/stablecoins-3b93b4f1ddc5
Danial Daychopan wrote a short article linked below that has got me thinking. Are stablecoins bad for the cryptocurrency ecosystem because they are essentially fiat in digital form, or are they beneficial as they provide stability in an extremely volatile market? Curious to hear your thoughts, give it a read and let me know your angle on it.
https://medium.com/@DDhopn/stablecoins-3b93b4f1ddc5
Jump to: