Topic: Stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain (Read 454 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.

and now doomad admits its dangerous.. he needs to see the source of this idea. yep the main core maintainers sponsored by corporate world want to add assets to bitcoin. so its these core devs we need to get to not do this to bitcoin protocol.

yep the main core devs funded by blockstream, chaincode labs and brink(who are promoting that people should use crappy subnetworks like liquid and LN). which are funded by the institutional corporations of the fiat world. already have (broken) mechanisms for multi-asset control on their subnetworks (liquid/LN) but now they want to break bitcoin to make bitcoin more crappy subnetwork compatible. rather then make their subnetworks actually work by themselves
.. where its their subnetworks that should be changing (a)work without flaws/bugs. and (b) changed on the subnetworks for the subnetworks to be bitcoin compatible.

we should not break bitcoin to be crappy network compatible, nor have bitcoin bloated by crappy things that make bitcoin annoying to  use just to promote crappy subnetworks/other assets that people should use instead.

Disregarding the off-topic gibberish and getting back to the actual subject, it's vital people understand why stablecoins are inherently dangerous.

Imagine someone set up a stall or table on a street corner.  They have a large box with a small window in it.  The box appears to be full of bank notes.  They have a sign that reads "Deposit your money here for an equal quantity of ShadyTokens, guaranteed to be fully backed 1:1".

But you don't have any guarantees.  The box might have just enough bank notes in it to fill what's visible in the window, but the rest of the box could be empty.  Even if the box is full, the individual running the scheme might be in massive debt and that money would have to be paid back.  The authorities could intervene and take their box of money away.  None of it is a guarantee that the tokens are backed.  Not to mention that the tokens you're buying may not be redeemable to spend at any merchants or retailers.  If you can't spend the tokens, they are worthless in practice.  You are trading actual money for an IOU.

Most people would instantly recognise the dangers if they saw something like this in physical form, out in the real world.  Yet when someone creates a flashy website and calls it a "stablecoin", suddenly everyone's common sense departs them and they all can't wait to buy worthless ShadyTokens.  It's absurd.

u idolise the fact that core control the protocol and anyone other then core changing the protocol are deemed opposition so again its the core devs that are highlighted.

stop pretending that core devs done nothing and do nothing and are responsible for nothing..  but then cry that you dont want other people changing things.. but then crying/celebrating that if other people did do something core would reject it because core have the power to treat opposing nodes as opposition

your nonsense circle of denying how things work but then 21 sentences later in another post admit how things work. is just you trying to cause a controversy debate for your entertainment of trying to cause an argument over some social drama just to be conflicting and annoy people . whilst doing all you can to shift blame away from core devs for their actions

get your story straight.
realise core did make changes in their lengthy multiyear campaign of "the big consensus cleanup". they admit they did things. and they admit they do not like proposals or changes to the protocol not suggested or ratified by the core maintainers. so again understand while you want to pretend it would be some random devs its actually core that are responsible and yes they can code rules to make data explicitly fit a certain format. where every byte is properly accounted for.. yes they can do that. they can strengthen consensus again(undo their consensus softening crap) and yes they caused the consensus softening crap. so stop pretending its random devs or needs random devs to undo it. while then crying/celebrating that random devs will get opposed if they tried.

so get to the facts. CORE control the protocol rule decisions of what gets ruled, formatted or what gets softened and unformatted.. so core should take responsibility for THEIR actions of the recent ability to put in upto 4mb of bloat appended to the ends of a tx(outside the signed message of tx data).

so yes they can actually strengthen consensus again they just choose not to because they have been sponsored to let crap in
you want them to do things that have been asked by them by the corporate sponsors whilst saying no one should tell core devs what to do(from the non corporate community of actual bitcoiners) but core CAN make changes. its not impossible. its just requires core to take responsibility and actually open up to wanting to change their morals

If some devs create code to block stuff, other devs will create code to build a way around it.  Just a futile game of cat and mouse.  

You'd know this if you weren't so busy playing make-believe to pretend how things work in your vivid imagination, instead of finding out how they actually work in reality.  

Base your opinions in something tangible for once, please.  You can't just wish your imagination into existence.  Your fantasies aren't real.  Please stop being a delusional headcase.

//EDIT:

Public Notice: This topic contains several posts by user franky1, who holds a well-documented vendetta against a certain group of developers.  He has a pronounced tendency to derail every topic he can find to spout hostile drivel about them.  None of his bizarre claims hold up under scrutiny.  Avoid engaging directly with franky1 as they appear to be mentally unhinged and will only respond with more delusional nonsense, driving the thread further off topic.  Consider adding them to your ignore list.

It is just a gimmick to squeeze money from unsuspecting investors.  Bitcoin is already a currency why is there a need to have stablecoins on top of Bitcoins?  I will definitely not use them, we already have several stablecoins on the market and I think there is no need to add more.

Aside from that, it really does not make any sense no matter how  I look at it from any angle.

devs can
bitcoin is not some self generating AI that codes its own rules. devs code the rules.. so they can infact code rules that after a opcode is noted the data after the opcode should meet certain criteria. thus transactions being relayed outside the consensus format dont get relays or accepted into blocks

stop pretending that devs do nothing and have no responsibility.. grow up and realise that code is wrote by devs so its the devs that can do things

if you want to cry "censorship"
well how come you love "reject tx if fee below X".. but you cant see the same theory applies in "reject tx if witness over X"

I feel that it completely misses the point of a blockchain in the first place. In a free market, where supply and demand change according to people's needs, there can be value stable only if there exists a group of people with the ability to alter the money supply, to fix the equilibrium point. That's the complete opposite of decentralization.

This is so wrong. Bitcoin comes with smart contracts since 2009, there have been non-monetary transactions made since the very early days, the developers have no such power whatsoever, and there is nothing they can do even if they couldn't unless Bitcoin stopped being resilient to censorship.

Why can't users understand that, short of adding centralised validation like Ripple (which no one in their right mind would want), devs can't control what arbitrary data people append to their transactions?  Ever since the genesis block, there have been ways to add non-transactional data.  So, according to you, satoshi didn't have their shit right either.

Stable coins on the bitcoin network? I don't think I am prepared to pay more bitcoins to have my bitcoin transaction confirmed, due to another network congestion which causes the transaction fees to skyrocket..

Why is it that developers can't just get their shit right?, bitcoin network was not built to facilitate any kind of smart contract or have tokens running on it, we just recovered from what the launch of ordinal did to the bitcoin blockchain, and now another is planing a stable coin on bitcoin blockchain, this is not a welcome development for me, and they should just allow tokens run on chains built to facilitate tokens.

stable coin on taproot is still as crap as stable coin in general. it still relies on real humans managing bank accounts thus the "federation" taproot that generates the emulated value to then pass off to willing victims(participants) and requires proving to some auditor/regulator that the bank account balance matches any value stored in token form

what makes it worse is if they then try to for instance peg that Xsats = y$$... that peg is not something locked into bitcoin blockchain economic policy of cryptographic proof its just emulated in the GUI (user display) as a math of multiplication of units or division of units at user interface conversion
also when dollar to sat of the native bitcoin market change, the pegs would go haywire too

thus makes it worse idea

Can people just leave Bitcoin blockchain for Bitcoin? Bitcoiners didn't ask for their network to be hijacked for "alternative" purposes. If any Bitcoin tokens will become too popular, I hope Core devs will release an update to remove any token creation loopholes from the protocol. I don't want to wait for Bitcoin to self-regulate with invisible hand of the market, it can take years before it happens, as token mania can be profitable for long periods of time.

A stable coin on the Bitcoin blockchain is still a garbage idea, do you expect me to give a round of applause to those that makes projects running on the Bitcoin blockchain? Well I never wanted this to happen, Bitcoin Ordinals are a piece of trashes that should have never existed but the crazy greedy bastards in crypto space won't let it be, they are looking for ways to keep milking the heck out of stupid people that always crave for something new, are you guys happy now? Your end result is waiting for you all in the next bull market, I believe that when many will understand that Ordinals and other shits running on Bitcoin is a very big mistake.  

I once heard of this stablecoin on taproot though.  I never thought right now that its possible on Bitcoin blockchain. If it is then certainly its going to be another reason to clog the network.

Butmwe already have a ton of stablecoin already from different chain and its always pegged on USD. What would be best right now I think will be a stablecoin pegged in Yuan. If banks are now taking Yuan seriously, traders should also do.

too many people want to abuse the bitcoin network for two reasons

to ride the "bitcoin" buzzword bandwagon of fame..
to ruin bitcoin hoping people stick with the junk that that ruined it. by pretending their junk is a better usecase for bitcoiners than bitcoin


smart contracts are not the same as NFT

you actually can create references(like a sha hash) of something and actually transfer it within a bitcoin transaction.. but the idiots of ordinals are not doing it the basic way that is within the "proof of transfer" signed message policy

so although it is possible even now to make referenced hashes be passed between outputs. thus allowing for "tokenisation" its not something that should be promoted. what should be promoted is lean efficient usage of every byte per tx to allow maximal usage of the masses of bitcoiners. rather then displace bitcoin usage to make room for junk and other non bitcoin currency stuff

becasue its this other "stuff" that will get regulators tongues tingling to wanna get a taste of regulating bitcoin due to this other junk stuff

Ordinals is more of an attack against bitcoin than a protocol itself. It is exploiting the Bitcoin protocol to inject arbitrary data into the blockchain.

You can NOT issue tokens on bitcoin blockchain, it simply doesn't have that feature. What they call a "token" in Ordinals Attack is a fakery to scam people. As I said it is NOT part of the Bitcoin protocol.

In other words people are already taking advantage of this hype to scam more people every day.

You seem to not be aware that the biggest centralized stablecoin called Tether (USDT) was created in a similar fashion using Omni layer many years ago! It was a bad idea then and it is still a bad one today. Not to mention that neither Tether nor the garbage being created these days are tokens.

Bad idea for bitcoin blockchain, we have seen how the his ordinal incriptions has done to the mempool itself an it also created chaos amongst devs, bitcoin users and miners.

Besides, there is no used case for it, stablecoins has it's own blockchain if I'm not mistaken.

So let them used their own and not used bitcoin and put in on top.

I tend to distrust the premise of stablecoins in general.  They invariably require trust that a central third party possesses the assets required to back the IOUs they're selling you.  It has scam potential written all over it.

Wouldn't touch it, personally.

But if people do insist on introducing such crap to Bitcoin, I'd encourage them to wait for things like Taproot Assets to handle the data in the most efficient way possible.  Inscriptions and Ordinals are weak and wasteful implementations.

I'm agree with franky1, there is a big difference between Ordinals and Smart Contacts, and making smart contracts isn't possible in the Bitcoin Blockchain.

Ordinals are a bunch of data, that can be decoded or interpreted as the users want, but you can't run a process or a function on it.

Smart contracts (NFT) are programs that run as a transaction in blockchains like ETH, BSC, TRX... and it has a bunch of instructions to follow.

This is why I don't think we will see stablecoins running under the bitcoin blockchain. The current technology doesn't allow us to do it. But maybe in the future will be possible if the developers add some features to it.

firstly ordinals is not even a real token or NFT. its a pretend "theory" of junk data that pretends to have a proof of transfer even though the deadweight data sits outside of what gets signed into a tx. yep data sits outside of a signed TX thus is not assigned to any output nor inside the signed data content.. thus its not owned by what the theory suggests..
(yep you can prune the deadweight data of ordinals and not break the transaction. so its not actually part of a transaction.. its just appended deadweight after the transaction)

secondly if bitcoin ever did become a network hosting multi currency it breaks the economic policy of bitcoin that meant to only offer upto 2099999999967690000 sharable units of a currency called sats..
(yep the hard rule always was starting from genesis 50000000000sats every block for 210k blocks then halves amount per 210k blocks. totally the amount of units mentioned.. )

thirdly regulators would then want more controls.. due to regulations about ICO scammers and also regulations of stable coins.

it is funny that some people suggest that bitcoin is not fit for bitcoin transactions('no weeks wage amounts for 3rd world countries allowed', 'no coffee/pizza amounts for 1st world countries allowed', and such) and thus they advertise other networks pretending to be next gen bitcoin network.. which they want people to be pushed over to/offramped/offboarded too.. but the same groups then advertise that bitcoin should then fill up with junk data(ordinals) or ICO scams or regulated currencies(stablecoins) that will hurt bitcoin.

I feel very bad if something like that happens on Bitcoin blockchain. The stable-coins have no place on Bitcoin blockchain and if someone adds those into it just like ordinals then that might be a problematic issue for the Bitcoin users. The stable-coins are okay in their current state and adding them on Bitcoin blockchain will be an extra burden on Blockchain.

I will never use such useless stable-coins that can cause network congestion in Bitcoin blockchain. They have no use on the blockchain but there are those people who create such projects to disrupt the working state of the Bitcoin. They won't be successful in their operations because the developers are already trying to find a way to stop the Ordinals protocol.

Those useless stable-coins will affect the sate of Bitcoin without any doubt, they will cause huge congestions to the market and because of that the fee could go very high once again after that BRC-20 tokens. Although, I'm not against such project but due to limited block size of Bitcoin blockchain it isn't worth to add those things in the blockchain.

Am hearing this for the very first time, what we know already was the introduction of bitcoin tokens which is often callee as ordinals inscriptions on the bitcoin blockspace, yet we don't know what the developers have concluded on regarding this, but what we can also see is that there's a little calmness now unlike the heat and pressure that got accumulated at the cause of high transaction fee.


If bitcoin tokens can succeded in finding it way through the bitcoin network then the stable coins may not be exceptional provided that they will have to share the same network with bitcoin because if you consider the stable coins today, they have their own separate network on the blockchain under BSC, Tron network. Or the developers may create another new stable coin that will make use of the bitcoin network aside from the existing ones.

With the introduction of the Ordinals protocol, various adventurers appeared who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to issue tokens on the most famous and popular blockchain. As expected, there were also those who announced the release of stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain.

So, recently the Stably project announced the launch of its USD-based stablecoin. Of course, the announced emission of $69.420 trillion suggests that it is hardly worth taking this project seriously, and Decrypt additionally cites arguments against this project. But there will surely be other projects ahead that want to issue stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain. Perhaps these will be some of the currently popular stablecoins.

How do you feel about the prospect of dollar stablecoins on the bitcoin blockchain? Will you use them? How might this affect Bitcoin?