Topic: Stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain (Read 391 times)

Realizing the trouble that lies beneath almost every single stablecoin will make you question why do they even exists in the first place. Just accept the fact that they are basically there to make sure that we are investing all of our money into some company, it is basically telling them to take your money and give you a "share" that worths 1 dollar.

That's exactly what it is, we all pool our money together and give them tens of billions of dollars, and we hope that they don't steal it, and not like we are getting anything in return neither, we give them 1 dollar per pegged coin and we get back the same, so it is worlds worst investment there ever was, and if they fail and bankrupt? All of our money gone. Not only we do not share the profit, we also take the risk, it is definitely a terrible one.

Yes, we have already discussed in the thread that the scale of issuance of all token records with Ordinals turned out to be very small, and obviously this does not correspond to the needs of any possible stablecoin. Therefore, most likely some scammers will decide to play on the popularity of bitcoin, the trendiness of Ordinals and the imitation of stability in the word stablecoin. This is if we do not take into account that in general all stablecoins as centralized projects are very unreliable, and even if the one try to release them on the basis of the bitcoin blockchain, this will not change.

The real value in the bitcoin blockchain is only in bitcoin.

Do you see how USDT is been deployed back to other chains that are safe and faster than Ethereum, they are doing that because of the demand from those chains because Ethereum is killing retail investors with gas fees, and the average person couldn't enjoy using stable coin because what you will be using as the gas fee is enough to use for other stuff, the fees are so high that the more are burned on the Ethereum chain and mint on safe and fast chains.

Now compare Ethereum with Bitcoin, do you think Bitcoin will survive this pain of gas fees? Ordinals were trending just two weeks ago and the mempools became congested with many unconfirmed transactions, what do you think will happen to the Bitcoin network in a Bull run when there will be demand for Bitcoin and stablecoins, an average guy wouldn't be able to cover that costs of transaction and the network will become useless.

Why would blockchain need a stablecoin, there is no need for any stablecoin at bitcoin blockchain. I don't know if it is really possible or not to create a stable coin in bitcoin blockchain.

There are so many stable coins pegged with USD in the market making another new one is pointless.

Why do we need yet another stablecoin pegged on the US dollar? It is not even necessary at this point.

We already have USDT (on the OMNI layer and on ERC20/TRC20), USDC, USD Pax (whatever that is) BUSD, DAI, and that's not even mentioning failed projects such as Terra UST.

You'd think that if you want to trade crypto against the dollar, there would be a currency that everyone agrees on using. So far it seems to be USDT, but clearly the fragmentation is there. For various reasons.

This is one of many reasons why tokens and token creation platforms are all useless and the projects you see are all scams. There is simply no way to prevent people from creating the same token over and over.
BTW as I said before there has been 0 tokens created on Bitcoin Blockchain since it is impossible to do so. They are storing an arbitrary data in the blockchain and falsely call that a "token".

Taking into account the fact that the other day it was calculated that with the help of Ordinals only 10 million of all different tokens were issued, and about 200 thousand are issued per day, it turns out that it is completely pointless to issue stablecoins pegged to the dollar, because the number of such tokens is simply incommensurable with opportunities in other networks. Some expensive and inefficient toy.

By the way, you can already have "stablecoins" on the Bitcoin blockchain. In fact, the very first stablecoin if I'm not mistaken, Tether USDT, was introduced in our chain, via the Omni layer. It just fit better in Ethereum by nature, so it moved there. Liquid is also a second-layer, where each L-BTC is pegged 1:1 to one bitcoin; that's also considered stablecoin, it's just not pegged with fiat currency.

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." If something can be done and one can try to profit from it, chances are someone will try to do it.


Some countries are already mining and hoarding bitcoin, some banks offer bank accounts in bitcoin, so one way or another, banks will introduce bitcoin surrogates in their own interests. And here it is important to remember that the real bitcoin is only in the bitcoin blockchain, and only on a fully controlled address are bitcoins safe (“not your keys, not your bitcoins”).

In a world of unstable curencies, Bitcoin is the only stable coin.
Wouldn't it be fun if there was a Bitcoin stability coin on a central bank digital currency blockchain.

Whoever makes them must believe that it's profitable for them to do so.  As I pointed out in my last post, they seem to be able to convince people to spend actual money in exchange for a bunch of empty promises.  Like someone who would sell "magic beans" because they thought a fool might believe that sounded like a thing they should buy.  After all, it worked for Tether, didn't it?  People still buy that shit, so it's inevitable some nefarious people would try to replicate that.  So it's our responsibility to point out to anyone who might be foolish enough to buy such junk that it's probably worthless and they're likely getting ripped off.

The more legitimate goal of assets is to disrupt traditional finance industries.  We could see deeds or other property rights in digital form.  Things which would hopefully drive adoption through real utility.  So hopefully the hype for IOU junk on the blockchain dies even more quickly than the hype for silly pictures on the blockchain.

It's not at all surprising to see unscrupulous people try to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain, though.  That's true of both the people selling crappy stablecoin IOUs and the opportunistic zealot making spurious and outlandish claims about Bitcoin developers right here in this topic.  But that doesn't mean we should avoid building new things.  Some would have you believe that any attempts at progress should be halted and try to maintain an ongoing fear-campaign against any and all changes.  Even ones that happened years ago.  Thankfully, no one can stop progress with hollow scare-tactics.  It's all about what you can build and who chooses to run it.

Why, and what's even the problem with all these developers? Well, the answer is to rug-pull its victims and set the Bitcoin network ablaze with high transaction fees.
If not, why would someone with normal senses want to create a stable coin under the Bitcoin network? Is the USD not enough for all of us to use in this blockchain community?

What will be the use of the newly proposed stable coin? What difference will it make? Well, even if this kind of proposal is approved by its investor, I wouldn't advise anyone to be a long-term holder of such because saying they are stable doesn't actually mean they can't lose value anytime if they are not well recognized. And if LN will be hard to accept in most large centralized exchanges, what makes them think their USDT under the Bitcoin network will be generally accepted?

Nothing about a centralized altcoin collapsing has ever been "unexpected". We all know and very well expect them to fail sooner or later. History is also proof of that. It is not limited to stablecoins either, it is all the centralized altcoins that are doomed to fail.

rely on?
stable coins are not fixed to be stable. they can be fractionally reserved and fake marketed to match a price but not have the underlying bank balance to back it when its time to bank run the value out..
have you seen the problems of stable coins in the past. how many have disappeared or de-pegged.. maybe try to read a few more stable coin history stories of many more stable coins that have broke.

totally agree. bitcoin was created to get away and offer something different than fiat currency


well seems you do realise that stable coins do have a problem after all.. so maybe not "trust" them as much as your reply started with

stable coins only real purpose was a fast under 30second confirm time to allow quick arbitrage option of moving value from one exchange to another.
stable coins on a 10min confirm blockchain loses that option.
and no.. before you postulate..  "storing" value beyond that is not a feature. because of the whole fractional reserve de-pegging risks of holding stable coin for any length of time

After all, before the problems begin, it is almost impossible to know for sure that these problems will be. When USDC lost its peg to the dollar due to problems at Silicon Valley Bank, it happened unexpectedly. But this is just one example that shows that stablecoins are not really as stable as they want to be. Yes, Stably in this regard looks even more dubious than others, but, in my opinion, it is impossible to fully trust any stablecoins.

I agree with Franky and I also think that stable-coins aren't a great store of value. But, still they are important to exist in the crypto-space because in the world of crypto-trading the stable-coins can play very important role for the traders. Those coins are dollar stable and in the times of bear market converting our other coins to stable-coins is a wise choice.

However, they aren't going to be volatile like Bitcoin and other Altcoins, but they will still have a good role in trading because in times of bear market the stable-coins can save a trader from huge losses. In bear markets when all coins lose their value the stable-coins are the ones we can rely on.

But, those stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and they're just as a way for the haters to cause congestion in the network and nothing else. If they were really useful for the Bitcoin then Satoshi might have added those in the initial days of Bitcoin.

I think that most of those stable-coins are useless and they aren't beneficial at all. They're just launched to grab some money and are the ones that will fail because of no good use case and less adoption. I remember the time when Terra UST was de-pegged and many people have lost billions because of that so called stable-coin. So, it's always preferable to go with only those stable-coins which are still proving good benefits for the traders and have wide-acceptability.

Well, i read the provided article and come to the result that they (Stably) are bluffing about each and everything because they are announcing the aforementioned $69 trillion backup which as have already mentioned is doubled the debt on US alone, and further they have around $5000 liquidity on Decentralized exchange, well i can paste all the facts covered by Decrypt's article here or you can read for yourself.

That, Stably only wants to get into hype by using the trend of BRC-20 tokens and how is that going to work because as far as i know, ordinals have some supporters and some are against it and how one can support such a stablecoin which has flaws in it (according to the history of Stably USD).

i will not use it because it is not backed by any registered entity and they are lying about their liquidity. I am damn sure they just want to ride on the rocket of BRC-20 hype so that they could get benefit from this hype too.

This will definitely affect the BTC blockchain as Ordinals NFT's deployment on the BTC blockchain has affected it, there is still congestion on the network and prices are still high enough plus more transactions will increase congestion on the network which will again increase the price. Also, i do not think Ordinals are enough to deploy a Stable USD because ordinals are only being used to upload some data into the BTC blockchain as it does not provide full features like managing, etc of it plus there might be integration problems with it.

It just seems to me that it is precisely these feelings of people that those who claim to create stablecoins based on the bitcoin blockchain want to take advantage of. They try to associate the reliability and popularity of bitcoin with the word stability so that people have a sense of security. But stablecoins are not stable in and of themselves, several of these “stablecoins” have already lost their peg to the dollar and simply depreciated. It seems to me that trying to run projects like this on the bitcoin blockchain looks like scammers using bitcoin to make what they are doing to look more reliable when it isn't. I think they want to use someone else's image for their dirty deeds.

stable coins are not a great store of value.. FIAT is a bad store of value. inflation has taught people this. wise up
we should not be promoting bitcoin to turn into an asset class to facilitate crappy inflation currencies. especially if those crappy inflation currencies then require regulation auditors and other dumb stuff that failed said fiat world in the first place

Stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain have emerged as a compelling solution for those seeking the stability of traditional currencies within the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. By pegging their value to assets like fiat currencies or commodities, stablecoins provide users with a reliable medium of exchange and store of value. Leveraging the security and transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, these stablecoins enable fast, low-cost transactions while reducing the volatility associated with other digital assets. With the potential to enhance financial inclusion and revolutionize cross-border payments, stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain are poised to play a significant role in the future of digital finance.