I think we’ll start to see a bunch of fintech companies use stablecoins for things, but as more of an implementation detail and not really a speculative market like it was before.
Well stablecoins by design cannot really fluctuate a lot in value (unless they collapse), so speculation on them is pretty much out.
It's still pretty unclear to me why you'd actually want a blockchain for managing it though, rather than a traditional database hosted by the central bank that is responsible for the currency that the stablecoin is following. You'd get vastly more throughput at much lower costs, and it's not like you really need decentralization for such a system anyway. The stablecoin is backed by something the central bank already has authority over.
I don't know about NFT, but blockains allows to me to send money to my Family in usdt/usdc for cents on the dollars, and for example in countries like Venezuela besides using it for receiving and sending money some people use it to save money because you cannot trust in the government and banks
That’s because organized crime provides the demand and liquidity needed for cryptocurrency. Without cartels and the like trying to bypass money laundering and capital control laws you would not easily transfer bitcoin to and from Venezuela.
I agree that this is an odd comparison— blockchain and especially NFTs really are a scam and a pyramid scheme, whereas modern generative AI has dozens of real applications where it's already been massively disruptive.
Maybe compare with something the development of motion pictures, with dozens of small studios trying different approaches to storytelling, different formats, etc, with live performances being the legacy thing getting disrupted. And then the market rapidly maturing and being consolidated down to a few winners that lasted for decades.
The valid use cases for blockchain are relatively few
The use cases where it gets applied are far more than the valid ones
As for NFTs ... there never was (and never will be) a valid use case - it does not matter if you "own" a digital asset (like an image): a screenshot of it is good enough for 99.99999...% of people, so why pay for the "real" thing?
samcat116|5 months ago
WJW|5 months ago
It's still pretty unclear to me why you'd actually want a blockchain for managing it though, rather than a traditional database hosted by the central bank that is responsible for the currency that the stablecoin is following. You'd get vastly more throughput at much lower costs, and it's not like you really need decentralization for such a system anyway. The stablecoin is backed by something the central bank already has authority over.
kelvinjps10|5 months ago
roland35|5 months ago
Sadly for those in unstable countries there are lots more risks in life, including financial. I'm not sure crypto is the best long term solution here
drivebyhooting|5 months ago
filoleg|5 months ago
mikepurvis|5 months ago
Maybe compare with something the development of motion pictures, with dozens of small studios trying different approaches to storytelling, different formats, etc, with live performances being the legacy thing getting disrupted. And then the market rapidly maturing and being consolidated down to a few winners that lasted for decades.
warrenm|5 months ago
The use cases where it gets applied are far more than the valid ones
As for NFTs ... there never was (and never will be) a valid use case - it does not matter if you "own" a digital asset (like an image): a screenshot of it is good enough for 99.99999...% of people, so why pay for the "real" thing?
lazystar|5 months ago
Yeah, and im seeing the same pattern with AI i think