Commentary on Euro Stable Watch's last week's edition

Commentary on Euro Stable Watch's last week's edition https://open.substack.com/pub/eurostablewatch/p/could-a-consortium-of-european-banks

CTO at @basedapp | Advisor swan.meme | Prev. cofounder Membrane Finance (acquired by Paxos) | roinevirta.com

3. ESW takes on the governance model and consortium model formation sound mostly correct; however:
3a. Whether “strategic guidance” from parent entities is feasible is another question; this could easily evolve into a barrier against taking risk and an internal “regulator”. I reckon the start-up should be maximally independent; if they understand the resources available at parent organisations, it will come to leverage those naturally.
3b. I’m not sure why market expansion needs to be gatekept until Phase 3; stablecoin values are in interoperability and programmability; promoting those usecases for external developers/stakeholders is important. That’s what made Tether back in the day; it started getting used by exchanges even though they had no direct financial stake in Tether itself. You also want to have one foot in the market always – just to understand what’s going on.

2. The take on stablecoin value proposition is largely lazy; there are at least six different value-drivers – speed, stability, programmability, interoperability, availability, and uncensorability – that drive replacing or building solutions/usecases that are not possible using current rails.
"The traditional stablecoin value proposition—settlement speed and currency stability—offers little appeal to European consumers who already enjoy both."

1. Does ESW advocate for regulating earlier? This is exactly the opposite what European start-ups need.
"As we noted in our analysis of MiCA’s reactive nature, Europe tends to regulate only after American firms have already shaped the market."