Cryptocurrency is the intersection of tech bros who think they know more than everyone else and finance bros who think they deserve more than everyone else. In this era of tech the bigger the opportunity, the worse the people who flock to it.
I recently got pitched stablecoins as a way to lower government borrowing costs. I’m sort of on board with this.
If I am investing $1mm of my own money, I care about the yield. If I’m investing $1mm of someone else’s money, and I don’t need to pay them a return, I mostly care about never losing it. This creates price-insensitive demand for safe assets. If you require those safe assets be government bonds, you’ve created pools of price-insensitive demand for your government’s debt.
Put another way, we’re financing our deficits with crypto bros. Compared with taxation, that seems like a win-win.
As with so many bits of crypto, I have to ask: who's taking the other side of this trade? Who wants their money held with no yield when they could have yield?
What confusing writing.
Every sentence is a paragraph.
And look like disconnected ideas.
Like bullet points without bullets.
Exhausting to read.
Looks like memes written by LLMs.
Why do cryptocurrency-focused people tend to write like this?
And acronyms everywhere.
Cryptocurrency is the intersection of tech bros who think they know more than everyone else and finance bros who think they deserve more than everyone else. In this era of tech the bigger the opportunity, the worse the people who flock to it.
> the bigger the opportunity, the worse the people who flock to it.
Isn't that the case almost everywhere ? I mean, look at the people that go into politics when there's little-to-no control of corruption.
The goal of money is to be used for trade. All of the examples on the article are failures, and the market cap is at best useless information.
The EU at least had a honest attempt of making money, instead of a ponzi scheme.
> The goal of money is to be used for trade.
Actually, to quantify debt.
The digital euro is just so bad
It is necessary if EU wants to stop relying on US payment companies.
It seems like wero [0] is making some progress on this front without relying digital euro or on crypto.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wero_(payment)
Care to elaborate why?
I used to think they'd use this to track citizens, but it seems like that's not the case at all, we'll even have offline transfers.
Why does Europe want a stablecoin when it has PDS2 and near-instant clearing?
Why? I've never heard of it.
Pretty good video explaining it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CzkVBXDhTwY
I recently got pitched stablecoins as a way to lower government borrowing costs. I’m sort of on board with this.
If I am investing $1mm of my own money, I care about the yield. If I’m investing $1mm of someone else’s money, and I don’t need to pay them a return, I mostly care about never losing it. This creates price-insensitive demand for safe assets. If you require those safe assets be government bonds, you’ve created pools of price-insensitive demand for your government’s debt.
Put another way, we’re financing our deficits with crypto bros. Compared with taxation, that seems like a win-win.
As with so many bits of crypto, I have to ask: who's taking the other side of this trade? Who wants their money held with no yield when they could have yield?
> who's taking the other side of this trade? Who wants their money held with no yield when they could have yield?
Dumb money, criminals, folks selling to the foregoing and a narrow slice of the technically curious.
How is it “instead of”?
You’re quoting a phrase that never appears. That’s confusing.