I am not quite certain what you are arguing about if a peg to fiat for you is a problem for a stablecoin.
Oh don't worry about it; it's off-topic anyway. You're correct; these coins are 'stable' compared to the dollar and Bitcoin is 'cheap' now compared to November - but this all assumes we value BTC and everything else against the US dollar.
It's obvious the dollar itself isn't stable in terms of purchasing power; and if we're calling something stable because it follows the value of something else, even though that loses value, we might just as well call BTC 'stable' when it loses (or gains) real value.
Or, to make it more analogous to Tether; maybe easier to understand, let's assume we create a BTCT (Bitcoin-tethered stablecoin that always has the value of 1BTC).
| | Tether | | | BTCT | | |
| | Loses value when USD loses value | | | Loses value when BTC loses value | | |
| | Gains value when USD gains value | | | Gains value when BTC gains value | | |
| | Is only stable in reference to the USD | | | Is only stable in reference to BTC | | |
| | Is always worth 1USD | | | Is always worth 1BTC | | |
| | Is even called stable if 1USD lost 99% of its value | | | Is even called stable if 1BTC loses 99% of its value | | |
So it seems very comparable; this BTCT should be called a stable coin right?
I am only talking about the concept of a stablecoin as a pemissionless, borderless and cheap internet currency we can use in crypto sportsbooks or in marketplaces similar to Opensea.
If you need permissionless, borderless and cheap you should try Bitcoin (on Lightning for small amounts where a few cents in tx fee is not considered cheap).
As far as I know, Tether is not decentralized, so it's not permissionless; at least not nearly as permissionless and borderless as Bitcoin.
The definition of 'stable' is 'when measured against USD'. Just like they measure stocks and other assets against the USD; they do so with cryptocurrency and if a currency is more 'similar' to the US dollar, it's called 'more stable'. But I argue that the dollar itself isn't stable, and I don't think anyone doubts that.
Wait a minute, and what happens in time of hyperinflation like it was in Weimar Republic and other countries?
In United States dollar crashed in great depression, and nobody could say this was stable currency.
They all claimed Mark and other failed fiat currencies were ''stable''.
Yes, that's the irony: you can have a super inflationary 'base currency' (USD, Weimar Republic Marks etc.), create a crypto coin that follows its value and call it a 'stable' coin.
Everyone can see the dollar is not stable, but the coins that follow its price are stable (by definition).
I'm arguing that by the same definition, I can create a coin that follows BTC price action and call it a 'stablecoin' because it always has the value of 1BTC, no matter if it tanks or 'moons'.
In fact, in an attempt of 4D chess, I could create a coin that follows
'TerraClassicUSD' price and it would have been 1:1 to this day, never 'lost any value' (compared to the base currency
TerraClassicUSD), even though USTC has crashed compared to other currencies like the US dollar, the Euro or just purchasing power. It should be a 'stable coin' based on the definition given earlier: stable = following something else, no matter if that itself is not stable.
Basically,
peg = stable - which is pretty misleading, if we look at the USD purchasing power chart.
Case in point - a "stablecoin":
Looking at these 2 graphics side by side; if I peg something to the above currency and call it 'stable', I should also be able to peg something to the below currency and call it 'stable', right?