Topic: Ordinals: Rare and exotic sats (Read 1231 times)

I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems:

1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by USDT and USDC in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated stablecoin issuers would not want to build a stablecoin with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see USDT/USDC on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict stablecoin regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small stablecoin issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail).

2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic stablecoin.

As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself.

Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.

OK, BAMK probably isn't specifically a good example as a protocol for stablecoins in Bitcoin, but you do get my perspective that the Runes protocol + the Lightning combination to build a fast, scalable stablecoin might work, no?

Plus I believe an on-chain Lending/Borrowing protocol for Bitcoin through Runes should be built because many RICH Bitcoiners want to OWN Bitcoin, not sell. Who is building this?

While I agree that (since USDT moved to other blockchains) a Bitcoin-based stablecoin for Lightning would be probably quite useful, and of course the Runes standard could be used for that, Bamk didn't leave a good impression on me.

It's a completely centralized project, like any stablecoin (it has no "algorithmic" safety net like Dai for example), but without any legal responsibility (no company, only a group of "degens" lol), and the only thing incentivizing good behaviour of the collateral custodians is the BAMK "interest rate" (see FAQs). This means, if the BAMK token crashes, probably it will take NUSD with it. It's already 95% lower than its ATH, even if that ATH seems to have been only a short spike in June 2024.

It's probably not about what already exists, nor is it about what existed first. It's about what many people in the community to adopt as their "standard" for their shitcoining needs. I believe if a protocol/system is adopted by enough people from the community, developers would build apps to make them more efficient to use. Therefore Runes in Lightning is very VERY possible.

Bamk Of Satoshi stablecoin in Lightning would absolutely be very useful for many users from different crypto communities.

I think Runes and RGB/Taproot Assets supporters are quite different user groups. Runes users are more speculation-oriented and probably much less tech savy (I think Ordinals users actually don't know absolutely nothing about the tech because the BRC-20 standard is so inefficient, Runes users might have a slightly better understanding), while Taproot Assets and above all RGB are quite challenging to understand and I think these standards thus are supported by people with some technical knowledge.

If RGB/TA apps appear with good user interfaces, and somebody hypes a well-made memecoin on that standard, they could become popular too, but I currently see no hype of any kind around them. I personally hope they could replace Runes eventually as the premier token standard on Bitcoin, but currently the difference in popularity is abysmal, according to the posts I see about these standards both in the forum and on other platforms like X. I however don't know any statistics site about RGB or Taro so maybe I'm wrong and there is some "hidden" TA/RGB user group

Currently however the Bitcoin blockchain isn't congested enough for me to really expect a short-term migration of Runes users to LN. This might change once we get the next 2023-style bottleneck. Approximately I expect a Runes migration to LN (or other Layer-2 solutions) when we also see a Bitcoin user migration.

But FWIW, Taproot Assets and RGB protocol already exist before before Runes exist. So i have doubt most of Runes owner/user would move to LN, no matter the protocol.

But it looks like that that doesn't actually matter, because we've seen liquidity unlocked in other blockchains and most of the liquidity goes to shitcoining. Why? That probably is because people like to gamble, and "trading" shitcoins is a form of gambling.

The Runes market are currently getting more bids, https://magiceden.io/runes

  👀

We might be in that point of the cycle when Bitcoin speculators will start looking for other sources of profit to get more units in Bitcoin.

I'm a bit more optimistic with Runes than with Ordinals that their users will embrace second layers, because Runes doesn't rely on the "rare sats" concept, e.g. it doesn't really matter if the tokens are inscribed on the Bitcoin main chain (BRC-20s instead are inscribed on a specific satoshi).

Several Runes-oriented websites and service providers (e.g. BitRunes) already mention its Lightning compatibility, although I haven't tried out their solutions so I can't contribute own experiences. But basically, Runes are coloured coins with an OP_RETURN data output, so there should be no major technical challenges. The only "problem" of course is that Lightning channel operators would have to support the standard.

On LN or on a sidechain (where Runes transfers should be even easier) Runes would not do any harm to Bitcoin, so I would tolerate them there.

Somewhere it was said that at the same time, 8 people in the world would have the same idea. But few people undertake to implement it.

With my own limited understanding, I am not really attached either way.  Perhaps shitcoins would usually be some kind of coin or project that is printing its own coin and not attached or linked to bitcoin.

So Runes are kind of like their own attachment to bitcoin, and describing some parameters on bitcoin (or satoshis) to attempt to ascribe additional value to bitcoin but not creating any additional token, just creating additional parameters for describing value that others may or may not appreciate or recognize. 

I can see why some folks might want to put them in the shitcoin category, even though the definition might not exactly be correct since they are not creating new satoshis.

I am sympathetic to the ideas of labelling any new and unknown project as a shitcoin on first impression, so then the burden is for the new thing to convince others that it is not a shitcoin.. but then it might seem silly to prematurely categorize such a new thing as a shitcoin merely because it is new and unknown, and even if the new thing might be working within aspects of already existing bitcoin parameters.

Maybe another idea is that if there are feelings about if this new project is good for bitcoin or bad for bitcoin, that would help to guide whether or not to refer to such new project as a shitcoin, since there has already been quite a bit of hostility in regards to ordinals and inscriptions and then runes seem to be related similarly with ordinals yet with more details yet with various seemingly made up parameters... but it is all bitcoin, no?  So it is all good?  When I see some of the hype about some of these matters, it does give me a bit of a shitcoining feeling.

Looking at few months ago, it'd probably just rise TX fee rate.


1. Might? Did Binance themselves said that?
2. Neat feature, but i doubt that alone can attract new user.
3. Does Coinbase also state they'll support Runes, Ordinals or other similar protocol? If no, it just means they only plan to support Taproot address.


With limited block size, i doubt it.

No. There's a reason why they are called shitcoins in the first place.

Merely from a "viewpoint of risk taking and trading", will shitcoining in Bitcoin on-chain secure us plebs some profit in units of Bitcoin?

A shitcoining person that I met has told me some developments about shitcoining in Bitcoin.

- Binance might be discussing to list Runes tokens
- Magic Eden now has Runes direct swaps
- Coinbase started to support Taproot

Runes will probably be one of the opportunities that could unlock billions in liquidity from Bitcoiners, no?