Sarah Shtylman
@shodyesq
I agree we should all care about stablecoin legislation, but I’m struggling to get excited about or support a bill that (a) blanket bans yield/interest, and (b) forces state-regulated issuers into a federal regime based on market cap, which is not a tech-neutral outcome for payment instruments.
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
Leo
@leohenkels
cc: @garrett what I was talking about last night!
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
Is it perfect? no Is it significant progress? yes
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leo
@leohenkels
+1 probably a net positive Still it entrenches CB, Ripple, Circle + others. Nothing out of the ordinary tho, in the US, after early stage tech firms become stagnant or susceptible to be disrupted (yield-bearing stables), the best way to maintain a competitive advantage is through regulation that benefits your firm. Tale as old as time.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Garrett
@garrett
The regulatory clarity should also introduce more competition (albeit from entrenched players) but competition still helps the consumers/end users
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Sarah Shtylman
@shodyesq
Why do you view it as significant progress? Where is there a lack of clarity today? I’m not anti-legislation on stables, but they’re payment instruments, and non-crypto payment instruments have had relative clarity for decades. Forcing issuers of crypto payment instruments into federal-only regulatory regime at scale decreases competition and is not a tech-neutral approach to regulating payment instruments.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Garrett
@garrett
Clear rules = safer for users, green light for builders, stronger dollar abroad That's progress. I obviously would like for them to allow yield to further compete with bank deposits. I think we will see more banks and large financial institutions issue stablecoins which will increase competition and benefit consumers
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
