Comment by geeB | Hacker News Reader

Comment by geeB | Hacker News Reader

> Mark Cuban has called for stablecoin regulation in the wake of the TITAN collapse, telling Bloomberg in an email: “There should be regulation to define what a stable coin is and what collateralization is acceptable.”

is kind of ironic given this:

> One place that these organizations are VERY DIFFERENT is that they are not based in the USA and they are not corporations. They are foundations. They are Decentralized in their governance. NO ONE owns majority control (although the founders certainly have significant influence). This is not only because of the ethos of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOS), but also because of the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of our regulators forcing some of the most impactful and innovative entrepreneurs of this generation to foreign countries to run their businesses.

From the original blog post at https://blogmaverick.com/2021/06/13/the-brilliance-of-yield-...

In fairness, I'll grant him that it's possible that regulating stable coins in that way is not the same kind of regulations that drive entrepreneurs to foreign countries.

> most impactful and innovative entrepreneurs

As per HN rules I request an example of positive, non-shitcoin-speculation impact that cryptocurrencies have had in the last twelve years.

Remittance. Moving suitcases of money back and forth is hard if it is not an equal flow back and forth. Do you own every location?

Can you provide an example of suitcase-level transactions being carried out by individuals, that couldn't be done at the same cost and less complexity at a Moneygram office?

MoneyGram is quite expensive as well..

Moneygram and Western Union have been 'banking the unbanked' for decades. They actually deliver what crypto promises.

With MG and WU, they are deeply embedded in the countries they operate in; they develop relationships with the banks so customers can get their money without hassle, even if they don't have accounts there. If you send money in Country A, it's available in Country B within 10 minutes, which is approx. the amount of time it would take a human to look up that transaction and verify the customer's ID. Your recipient walks out with cash.

Meanwhile, transferring crypto peer-to-peer isn't even free, and transactions are nowhere near instantaneous. And even if your recipient understands crypto, they still have an extra step of converting these bytes into actual legal tender.

Remittance is something cryptocurrencies have tried many times to do, and generally failed completely at.

To do remittances, you have to have money flowing in both directions, or you will run out of local currency. Cryptocurrencies do not have that. There are not an equal number of people in foreign countries that want to buy cryptocurrencies as there are that want to send money and convert it to local currencies.

The solution for this is, ultimately, arbitrage using the traditional financial channels. And at that point, you are paying the costs for those channels, plus the costs of the extra middlemen you have added on top of them.

Remittances and interest generating saving accounts with rates superior to the ones banks offer

Insured?

Interest generating, until they collapse and the money all disappears.

It's a risk I'm willing to take. Besides you can earn interest with USDC or other stablecoins.

I do think that some kind of fiduciary duty framework can be applied to directors/deployers/admins so that users/investors/consumers can at least choose between services

we can all jump through an increasing number of hoops and use off shore unregulated financial products who have simply learned not to bother with US citizens, but most of us stick with the ones with fiduciary duties

Reply on news.ycombinator.com