Topic: We need more decentralized stablecoins (Read 1238 times)

Couldn't agree more with you, mate. Blacklisting addresses is nothing more than bringing censorship to the Blockchain. This is something crypto was meant to avoid in the first place. Why do we need stablecoins when we already have banks? Stablecoins are nothing more than a tool for traders to maximize capital and reduce wait times as much as possible. For the rest of the people, they're a nightmare. Imagine storing all of your life savings into a stablecoin, only to lose it all in an instant after being blacklisted. It's insane, if you ask me.

Decentralization is what makes crypto a stronger competitor against banks. We need as much decentralized stablecoins as possible in order to bring the convenience of Fiat while still maintaining people's freedom. As far as I'm aware, there's only one decentralized stablecoin (which is DAI). There used to be another one called NuBits, but it lost its peg a long time ago. The problem about decentralized stablecoins is that they're backed by algorithms or crypto collateral, making them lose their peg over time if all else fails. Each stablecoin has its own advantages/disadvantages, so it's up to you to decide which one to use for your own benefit. Just my thoughts

Blacklisting of users addresses is a bad move by the issuers of stablecoin because it goes against what they stand for as the decentralized solution to owning and keeping fiat.
Although they aren't decentralized but the moment they start freezing wallet addresses of users, then they start to act like the banks.
I will also like to see more decentralized stablecoins, that is what the Blockchain really needs and serious crypto users should adopt

Absolutely precisely, you have given a description of all centralized and supposedly decentralized stablecoins artificially replacing Fiat. Hence the conclusion - Decentralized Finance (De.Fi.) this is a blind imitation of the existing monetary imitating Fiat system, in my opinion, this will lead to even greater discrediting of cryptocurrencies, since today only the lazy do not print so-called stable coins. What is the point of Stablecoins pegged to the dollar or to any Fiat currency if they can be printed as much as you want? On the contrary, it is necessary that the Fiat issue should depend on the total real volume of the decentralized world economy, and not on the whim of the local authorities, but these are my illiterate fantasies.

I dont think we need any more stablecoins on the grounds that they all fill a similar need.
I never like centralized cryptocurrency either, stable coin, however for me any sort of centralized cryptocurrency is certainly not a genuine cryptocurrency. However, I don't think we need more decentralized stablecoin. Indeed, even as I would see it, we as of now have an excessive number of stablecoins. Very few contrasts among one stablecoins and the others.

for sure stablecoins should be decentralized, the security should be provided by independent tech base. because of this i pay my attention mostly on promisiing stablecoin dex projects

That's certainly true, mate. Decentralized or centralized stablecoins wouldn't make much difference if they're backed by government-issued currencies. Crypto is all about being an alternative to the current monetary system by providing people a new kind of money that's backed by algorithms instead of a central authority. Believe me, stablecoins are nothing more than a glorified version of Fiat. They're essentially experimental versions of CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies). While decentralized stablecoins are backed by crypto assets and algorithms (instead of real world currencies), they're essentially governed by the issuer (like it's the case with DAI). We might as well forget about decentralizing stablecoins, as they rely on centralized currencies. Stablecoins are certainly useful for traders, but extremely risky for long-term investors.

Nonetheless, time will tell us the fate of the stablecoin industry as governments devise new regulations that would either stifle or stimulate its growth. With most governments' skepticism towards crypto/Blockchain tech, one would guess they won't be friendly towards stablecoins. The situation is worse when stablecoins mimic Fiat in every way. Governments wouldn't want stablecoins to replace Fiat in its entirety, leading them to crack down on stablecoin issuers themselves. At least, traditional cryptocurrencies will be able to stand the test of time as they're independent (sort of) from the current monetary system. Just my opinion

The fact is that no one asks and will not ask for our opinion when issuing stablecoins. Any kind of money has the right to circulate. Stablecoins will generally always be centralized as they are backed by centralized state currencies.
In the next few years, on the contrary, digitized stable currencies of states will be massively issued and it is quite possible that they will to some extent displace all other types of means of payment. In any case, governments are counting on it.

I satisfied with BUSD, USDC, USDT, DAI, and I believe there are more stable coins in crypto space, presently I don't have a thing for decentralized or not decentralized projects, if a project works as intended I have no problem using them, I'm more satisfied with USDT because it's widely supported on all crypto exchanges and it has the highest volumes too, I don't need another stablecoin, all these are more than enough.

Decentralizing everything seems to be impossible, considering how long society has been accustomed to third-parties. The only way this would work is if robots take over the world. This, combined with AI and Blockchain tech, should bring us full decentralization. But it's only a dream, since we all need human interaction at some point in our lives. As far as stablecoins go, I believe none of them are truly decentralized. Even DAI is subject to manipulation by its own issuer (known as Maker). The ones behind DAI can increase/decrease collateral, and adjust certain mechanisms in order to maintain the cryptocurrency stable. That's largely possible because of the stablecoin's programmable nature. While it may seem to many DAI is decentralized, there is still a small portion of centralization based on what I've explained earlier.

At least, crypto/Blockchain tech's open source nature will keep it going for a very long time. Stablecoins were created with the sole purpose of bringing Fiat's convenience to crypto users. They behave as any bank-issued Fiat currency, making stablecoins completely different than traditional cryptocurrencies we know and love today. It's still a choice for anyone looking to take advantage of the stability of Fiat without the need to cash out crypto to a bank account. With many options available on the market today, there's a stablecoin for everyone. Decentralized stablecoins or not, the industry will be here to stay. Just my opinion

Now this is not exactly a stablecoin per say, but if you are interested in a coin that can hold it's price, protect against dumps yet still increase in value you should check out Bitbay (not the exchange). It's a unique coin with what I would call a revolutionary "dynamic peg". All it needs is some volume and it really shows what brilliant piece of technology it is. And no, it's not pegged to a third asset of any kind.

decentralized stable coins are still not popular to used, if someone makes it, of course it will be difficult to make it popular and it will take time,
because the stable coins used today are still USDT, DAI, and USDC, these three are very popular.

This is the impact of the doctrine we get in school and also the ego that is within us. Since childhood, we have always been accustomed to having third parties in all our needs.
"As social beings" is a word that makes us always need a third party, or if we discuss here it is a centralized party.

It is very difficult to achieve a decentralized civilization, because indeed the existence of a third party is related to business. Money can be the best stimulus to serve the public, but money can also be quicksand that engulfs people to indulge their egos.

I support you, that we do need a strong decentralized stable coin, but I think that's too idealistic for now.

People think it is easy to maintain the peg of a decentralized stable coins, it is not. As long as Cryptocurrencies are still highly volatile then it will be a tough job for developers of Stable coins to maintain is peg, unlike Fiat backed Stable coins that all you need is just a Dollar in the bank for every Stable coins you release to circulation and another issue is the adoption by the market, how many of these Decentralized stable coins are being used by traders apart from DAI

Do we really need decentralized stable coins? As for crypto exchanges centralized exchanges are taking the lead and even the best stablecoin is centralized stablecoin too (USDT), can you see that error? The most failed projects this year are all DeFi (decentralized Finance) projects, the word 'decentralized' is slowly fading

From a trader's standpoint, a stablecoin's organized structure/model is not of much importance. Regardless if a stablecoin is centralized or decentralized, they all can be easily traded on the market for quick returns. The main issue would be relying on a centralized stablecoin for long-term investments. That's largely because centralized stablecoins are subject to fraud, manipulation, and corruption. They can easily be taken down in a blink of an eye. The average person needs something reliable they can count on for years on end. That's where decentralized stablecoins come into play. With DAI and USDJ on the market, centralized stablecoins' dominance will be greatly reduced. Still, USDT and USDC are the biggest centralized stablecoins on the market with a very high liquidity. DAI may be popular, but it's still far behind USDT in terms of liquidity and mainstream adoption. At least, the protocol works as intended by delivering a decentralized stablecoin backed by crypto assets on the Blockchain. With DAI, no central authority dictates will happen with your holdings in the long run. As Tether continues to freeze addresses on the Blockchain, people will flock to decentralized alternatives. Both DAI and USDJ could experience greater adoption in the mainstream world because of Tether's nefarious actions.

Nonetheless, we need more decentralized stablecoins as there aren't many around in the crypto/Blockchain space. As long as there are more centralized stablecoins than decentralized ones, the industry won't be able to fulfill its promise of eliminating the middleman from the system. It's all about decentralization, and censorship resistance in order to be able to stand the test of time. Centralized stablecoins will come and go, but decentralized ones will last a lifetime. Everything will depend on how people are willing to support one type of stablecoin from the other. I wouldn't worry much about USDT as long as we have decentralized alternatives on the market. Just my opinion

I don't have any doubt that people often need to have a backbone in any market. It is USD in global financial market. It is gold in precious metal market. It is bitcoin in crypto market. It is ETH in ERC20 token market. It is Tether USD (USDT) in stable coin market.

What can be concluded from it? Tether USD will be a first biggest stable coin for many years. I know what people are trying to accuse Tether USD on their real backed asset for their minting USDT but I believe it will be the main stablecoin on the market. I don't need more centralized stablecoins and decentralized stablecoins you heard about are centralized stablecoins.

Right now we have dozens of stablecoins and I agree that the number needs to be reduced. Competition is always good, but if everyone of the exchanges create their own version of the stablecoin, it will create unnecessary complications for the user. Why can't multiple exchanges use the same stablecoin, managed by a third party issuer? It will make the stablecoin more safer as well.

In my opinion there is no need to increase the number of decentralized stablecoins, that is enough with the current decentralization of stablecoins.
Increasing the number of decentralized stablecoins will only create unnecessary competition. Because adding coins that have the same function,
only creates new problems. But for now I am more comfortable using the centralized stablecoins, because they work properly. Moreover, centralized stablecoins are already listing on many popular exchanges, thus making it easier for users to move funds from one exchanges to another with centralized stablecoins.

I think it is quite a stable number of coins
that exists for now, if with the same concept and purpose they no longer need additions because the core of a stable coin is to make the coin price stable, it cannot be dumped or pumped, stable according to the value of fiat money. in fact in my opinion, stable coins are like fiat money that has infiltrated crypto.

Currently tether stablecoin is famous. Centralized stablecoin is much easier to use than decentralized. But if u dont like usdt you can use dai or usdc also. So it's your choice dude.