Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Honestly pretty alpha move to cause a regional banking crisis just because you hate a certain industry and then go “damn these guys are lobbying so hard, this seems unfair”
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
keccers pfp
keccers
@keccers.eth
Sorry for total reply girl on you. What can I say the posts are good The bailout risk seems real to me? I don’t want to subsidize another tech bro mess like SVB? In some way, foolish arguments re: criminality are a distraction
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Stable coins are backed by very low risk high liquidity assets afaik, seems as high a bailout risk as something like being able to make withdrawals out of a money market account I don’t think the flows will be people in the US going from their checking or savings to stable coins it will be people abroad moving money into US or possibly Euro stablecoins. I don’t really see the risk
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers pfp
keccers
@keccers.eth
they can say they are backed by whatever they want. WHY should I trust that? There’s a variety of scenarios I can envision here from a depeg to a “bank” run that cause problems with no real assurances Money market accounts are regulated and FDIC insured!!!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
I believe Circle is subject to legit audits, and last time I heard anything from tether CEO he said they were doing an audit with a big four. I get the believe it when you see it side, but I can see many other assets or companies that are a much bigger risk that we kind of trust are fine, with similar assurances. T bills and bonds aren’t FDIC insured but I’m fine with it
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers pfp
keccers
@keccers.eth
Enron was audited by the Big 5 at the time of the scandal. You think Circle can’t find an accountant to pay off? It’s just not compelling to me that I should trust these institutions to appropriately manage risk and not leave taxpayers with the bag. I look at how arguably the most trustable company in the space, Coinbase, handled their data breach as confirmation of my intuition here. There‘s no reason to give these companies the benefit of the doubt. I would want something more meaningful than “trust me bro” and falsifiable audits I say this as a regular user and holder of USDC
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
I’m all in favor of more transparent and verifiable proof to persuade people of trustworthiness, but if the choice is: status quo of institutions we can’t fully trust not to leave us holding the bag vs New institutions we can’t fully trust not to leave us holding the bag but with better rails that caters more to even further decentralized systems, then I’ll at least take that, and hope that the available infrastructure will be used to make it more trustable than it is now At least there was no TARP for Terra/Luna
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
keccers pfp
keccers
@keccers.eth
To me sometimes it just reads as “new institutions with even less protections for the consumer that will force us to relearn one by one all of the reasons why the rules were created in the first place, harming innumerable people in the process” 💀 If Terra/Luna got bailed out I wouldn’t be here. Oh my gosh. The disgust I would feel would supersede my ability to remember tech is neutral, it’s the people that are evil 😂
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Justin Slaughter pfp
Justin Slaughter
@jbsdc
These concerns aren’t totally wrong. I do think some minor crypto insurance fund generally (what SIPC is for securities) is probably a good idea. It’s also not what the core complaint is about. The core complaint is that stablecoins are probably too good at taking money traditional bank deposits and thereby are a competitive risk to them.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
There was that New York Times article last week that was very concerned about the stability factor, but I think the idea is that banks are against it for the reason you mentioned but are using other sensationalist reasons to fight against it
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Justin Slaughter pfp
Justin Slaughter
@jbsdc
The basic argument that links the two is this is SO useful it’ll swell the financial system and decrease stability. The problem is that’s like arguing cars increase road fatalities so let’s ban them. Instead, just regulate them appropriately.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Ryan pfp
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Sounds like a skill issue for the banks. Just make a better product
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Justin Slaughter pfp
Justin Slaughter
@jbsdc
They can’t do tech. Everyone knows this. If the banks were smart, they’d have demanded only banks can issue stables 4 years ago. They didn’t and while the big TBTF want in, the smaller players want to hide under some coats and count on this to all go away.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions