Stablecoins are required to have 100% backing.
Your so-called "actually deposit" is required to have <checks notes> 0% backing.
Instead of complaining about stablecoins being better, you could just use them, lol.
Your so-called "actually deposit" is required to have <checks notes> 0% backing.
Instead of complaining about stablecoins being better, you could just use them, lol.
June 19, 2025 at 9:08 PM
Stablecoins are required to have 100% backing.
Your so-called "actually deposit" is required to have <checks notes> 0% backing.
Instead of complaining about stablecoins being better, you could just use them, lol.
Your so-called "actually deposit" is required to have <checks notes> 0% backing.
Instead of complaining about stablecoins being better, you could just use them, lol.
Non bank institutions can issue stablecoins. Circle (issuer of USDC) is not a bank.
June 19, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Non bank institutions can issue stablecoins. Circle (issuer of USDC) is not a bank.
Stablecoins are better than regular deposits because they have stronger backing. They are more resistant to a bank run.
Old school fiat deposits NEED FDIC insurance because they're not 100% backed.
Old school fiat deposits NEED FDIC insurance because they're not 100% backed.
June 19, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Stablecoins are better than regular deposits because they have stronger backing. They are more resistant to a bank run.
Old school fiat deposits NEED FDIC insurance because they're not 100% backed.
Old school fiat deposits NEED FDIC insurance because they're not 100% backed.
The other side of this is that banks are NOT required to keep a 1::1 reserve for your checking and savings accounts. It's called fractional reserve banking. The required reserve is 0% as of 2020.
Since 1::1 backing is required for stablecoins, stablecoins necessarily take precedence.
Since 1::1 backing is required for stablecoins, stablecoins necessarily take precedence.
June 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
The other side of this is that banks are NOT required to keep a 1::1 reserve for your checking and savings accounts. It's called fractional reserve banking. The required reserve is 0% as of 2020.
Since 1::1 backing is required for stablecoins, stablecoins necessarily take precedence.
Since 1::1 backing is required for stablecoins, stablecoins necessarily take precedence.
I'm a crypto shill BECAUSE I care, brightshadow.
June 19, 2025 at 8:19 PM
I'm a crypto shill BECAUSE I care, brightshadow.
Yeah, it's a check on the power of the US empire, which I consider a good thing. There's a lot of innocent people who suffer because of vast US sanctions.
June 19, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Yeah, it's a check on the power of the US empire, which I consider a good thing. There's a lot of innocent people who suffer because of vast US sanctions.
I use it daily for neither
June 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
I use it daily for neither
Because it is digitized and can be sent wallet to wallet without any intermediaries. It's more efficient than existing forms of digital payments, which means merchants have higher profits. Digital micropayments are possible - you can send someone a penny or even less with no fees.
June 17, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Because it is digitized and can be sent wallet to wallet without any intermediaries. It's more efficient than existing forms of digital payments, which means merchants have higher profits. Digital micropayments are possible - you can send someone a penny or even less with no fees.
It's rational to put your money in the system with the best backing. Sounds like stablecoins have better backing than traditional checking accounts. So, if you want the superior backing, convert your checking accounts to stablecoins.
June 5, 2025 at 7:03 PM
It's rational to put your money in the system with the best backing. Sounds like stablecoins have better backing than traditional checking accounts. So, if you want the superior backing, convert your checking accounts to stablecoins.
Issuers are required to hold 1::1 reserves for stablecoins.
Banks are NOT required to hold 1::1 reserves for your deposits. Let that sink in.
If the stablecoin reserves are used to reimburse depositors, then the issuer is in violation of the 1::1 rule. Thus this requirent.
Banks are NOT required to hold 1::1 reserves for your deposits. Let that sink in.
If the stablecoin reserves are used to reimburse depositors, then the issuer is in violation of the 1::1 rule. Thus this requirent.
June 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Issuers are required to hold 1::1 reserves for stablecoins.
Banks are NOT required to hold 1::1 reserves for your deposits. Let that sink in.
If the stablecoin reserves are used to reimburse depositors, then the issuer is in violation of the 1::1 rule. Thus this requirent.
Banks are NOT required to hold 1::1 reserves for your deposits. Let that sink in.
If the stablecoin reserves are used to reimburse depositors, then the issuer is in violation of the 1::1 rule. Thus this requirent.
I learned from this discussion, BTW. Appreciate it.
May 21, 2025 at 11:05 PM
I learned from this discussion, BTW. Appreciate it.
Have a good rest of your day
May 21, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Have a good rest of your day
This sounds accurate. Thank you.
May 21, 2025 at 11:01 PM
This sounds accurate. Thank you.
Huh?
Your claims about carbon emissions simply don't apply here. None of the networks commonly used for stable coins use proof of work anymore.
Your claims about ambiguous backing are at odds with claims that the backing is unfair to other depositors.
Your claims about carbon emissions simply don't apply here. None of the networks commonly used for stable coins use proof of work anymore.
Your claims about ambiguous backing are at odds with claims that the backing is unfair to other depositors.
May 21, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Huh?
Your claims about carbon emissions simply don't apply here. None of the networks commonly used for stable coins use proof of work anymore.
Your claims about ambiguous backing are at odds with claims that the backing is unfair to other depositors.
Your claims about carbon emissions simply don't apply here. None of the networks commonly used for stable coins use proof of work anymore.
Your claims about ambiguous backing are at odds with claims that the backing is unfair to other depositors.
Stablecoins don't use proof of work. Most popular ones are based on ethereum.
The backing is clarified by the bill, lol.
The backing is clarified by the bill, lol.
May 21, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Stablecoins don't use proof of work. Most popular ones are based on ethereum.
The backing is clarified by the bill, lol.
The backing is clarified by the bill, lol.
The stablecoin issuers need not be banks. So far, none are. But the bill does provide for banks to issue them.
When I send and receive $USDC, there is no bank involved. It goes wallet to wallet. That's the point of crypto.
Volume of words is immaterial IMO.
When I send and receive $USDC, there is no bank involved. It goes wallet to wallet. That's the point of crypto.
Volume of words is immaterial IMO.
May 21, 2025 at 10:29 PM
The stablecoin issuers need not be banks. So far, none are. But the bill does provide for banks to issue them.
When I send and receive $USDC, there is no bank involved. It goes wallet to wallet. That's the point of crypto.
Volume of words is immaterial IMO.
When I send and receive $USDC, there is no bank involved. It goes wallet to wallet. That's the point of crypto.
Volume of words is immaterial IMO.
I see the point of it as making it safe for people and institutions to transact in stablecoins, benefiting from the technical advantages that they offer. Banks don't need to be involved at all...
May 21, 2025 at 9:56 PM
I see the point of it as making it safe for people and institutions to transact in stablecoins, benefiting from the technical advantages that they offer. Banks don't need to be involved at all...
But so far, there are no stablecoin issuers that I know of which offer both stablecoins AND "normal" deposits. E.g. $USDC and $USDT are issued by companies that do not offer "normal" deposits - they aren't banks and do not offer FDIC insured accounts.
May 21, 2025 at 9:43 PM
But so far, there are no stablecoin issuers that I know of which offer both stablecoins AND "normal" deposits. E.g. $USDC and $USDT are issued by companies that do not offer "normal" deposits - they aren't banks and do not offer FDIC insured accounts.
But if that bank were FDIC insured, the normal depositors FDIC claims would not be affected as the stablecoins are NOT covered by the FDIC.
May 21, 2025 at 9:40 PM
But if that bank were FDIC insured, the normal depositors FDIC claims would not be affected as the stablecoins are NOT covered by the FDIC.
Yes. Thanks for finding the exact text.
I think this means that if a stablecoin issuer goes under, that institution (not the FDIC) owes stablecoin holders first. If that institution were a bank that also held "normal" depositors, then they are paid by the bank second....
I think this means that if a stablecoin issuer goes under, that institution (not the FDIC) owes stablecoin holders first. If that institution were a bank that also held "normal" depositors, then they are paid by the bank second....
May 21, 2025 at 9:39 PM
Yes. Thanks for finding the exact text.
I think this means that if a stablecoin issuer goes under, that institution (not the FDIC) owes stablecoin holders first. If that institution were a bank that also held "normal" depositors, then they are paid by the bank second....
I think this means that if a stablecoin issuer goes under, that institution (not the FDIC) owes stablecoin holders first. If that institution were a bank that also held "normal" depositors, then they are paid by the bank second....
Are you saying the FDIC will run out of funds to pay for insured deposits?
That seems like a problem that has nothing to do with stablecoins.
That seems like a problem that has nothing to do with stablecoins.
May 21, 2025 at 9:33 PM
Are you saying the FDIC will run out of funds to pay for insured deposits?
That seems like a problem that has nothing to do with stablecoins.
That seems like a problem that has nothing to do with stablecoins.