> Together the dozens of stablecoins in existence, which include Dai, Tether and usd coin, have a market capitalisation of close to $150bn.
I'm assuming these stable coins aren't actually backed by $150bn in actual USD, which is the underlying problem here and harkens back to the issue with the era of unstable "wildcat" banking in the US before 1863:
> Before America instituted a national currency in 1863, banks issued their own banknotes, backed by assets and redeemable for gold or silver. Critics of stablecoins often point to this period of free banking, and the example of unstable “wildcat” banks in particular, as a cautionary tale.
I do not know what I am talking about, but I would love to see some type of crypto actually start solving some type of problem, versus just being a speculative asset.
With the USPS trying to get back into banking, which they used to do in the past, I personally think this would be a great stablecoin opportunity for the underbanked. Be a perfect way to send money orders from end user to end user, USPS could have cash in their coffers.
>>Nor is it clear that wildcat banks are the summation of all historical experience of privately issued money. George Selgin of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, has likened the use of wildcat banking by critics of private-money issuance to the use of Germany’s interwar hyperinflation by critics of central-bank money issuance: both are extreme and negative examples, rather than representative. Scotland’s free-banking system between 1716 and 1844, for instance, is often cited as a period of stability. Three large banks and several smaller lenders all issued currency and redeemed each other’s notes at their full value.
>>Furthermore, at least some of the problems with American free banking may have reflected poor regulation rather than a total absence of it. Banks were often not allowed to have networks of branches and interstate banking was near-impossible, which limited the expansion of successful and trusted institutions. Many were also made to hold volatile state bonds as collateral. Slumps in the value of these could—and did—spark local banking crises.
In addition to the fact that it was the lack of freedom in banking that caused most wild banks in the so-called free banking era of the US, Selgin provides statistics showing that wildcat banks were actually very rare, with the pervasiveness of the phenomenon greatly exaggerated by the popular narrative that individuals in the regulatory sector, who are advocating for more centralization, promulgate, and use to justify their agenda.
[+] [-] samspenc|4 years ago|reply
I'm assuming these stable coins aren't actually backed by $150bn in actual USD, which is the underlying problem here and harkens back to the issue with the era of unstable "wildcat" banking in the US before 1863:
> Before America instituted a national currency in 1863, banks issued their own banknotes, backed by assets and redeemable for gold or silver. Critics of stablecoins often point to this period of free banking, and the example of unstable “wildcat” banks in particular, as a cautionary tale.
[+] [-] kryptk|4 years ago|reply
BUSD as of Oct 29th had a market cap of $13.1B USD which was fully backed by fiat USD held in bank accounts which are audited monthly [1]
USDT has a market cap of $74B and has never been fully audited and last released an attestation report in March 2021.
[1] https://paxos.com/attestations/
[+] [-] sharkmerry|4 years ago|reply
Maybe I am missing something, how is this different than banks employing fractional reserve banking?
[+] [-] zikduruqe|4 years ago|reply
With the USPS trying to get back into banking, which they used to do in the past, I personally think this would be a great stablecoin opportunity for the underbanked. Be a perfect way to send money orders from end user to end user, USPS could have cash in their coffers.
https://www.executivegov.com/2021/10/usps-launches-pilot-ban...
[+] [-] kranke155|4 years ago|reply
Outside of that yeah it’s hard to get excited about crypto atm even though I think it’s got a huge potential.
[+] [-] CryptoPunk|4 years ago|reply
>>Furthermore, at least some of the problems with American free banking may have reflected poor regulation rather than a total absence of it. Banks were often not allowed to have networks of branches and interstate banking was near-impossible, which limited the expansion of successful and trusted institutions. Many were also made to hold volatile state bonds as collateral. Slumps in the value of these could—and did—spark local banking crises.
In addition to the fact that it was the lack of freedom in banking that caused most wild banks in the so-called free banking era of the US, Selgin provides statistics showing that wildcat banks were actually very rare, with the pervasiveness of the phenomenon greatly exaggerated by the popular narrative that individuals in the regulatory sector, who are advocating for more centralization, promulgate, and use to justify their agenda.
[+] [-] mdrzn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diveanon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brighton36|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]