And... still no real world use for crypto.
If you feel stocks and equities is gambling, then you might also feel that this sector of crypto is gambling.
But there are other sectors of crypto that don't register on this price graph, maybe because price is not the only metric of their success, or because their volume is lower. Smart contracts, non custodial wallets, ENS, trustless payments, DEXes like Uniswap, are all interesting and valid use cases of crypto and blockchain tech.
My point is anyone with an internet connection can give their savings 100% exposure to any centralized fiat currency, _if they so choose._
I'm not saying you should or you have to. I'm just saying this gives people the option to do that. What's bad about that? What's wrong with that? Should only US citizens be allowed to save US dollars?
https://jumpcrypto.com/the-depegging-of-ust/
That coin was supposed to be pegged to $1 USD.
Why are you arguing against letting anyone with an internet connection save US dollars? Should only US citizens be allowed to save US dollars? Why should we prevent humans from having that option?
Why did the argument suddenly switch from "have been for years" to "theoretically there could exist a stable coin that isn't outright fraud"? Is the reason that you can't think of a single example that is actually trust worthy?
In addition to USDC, USDH, and DAI, we've also got GUSD, RAI, LUSD, and USDP in terms of trustworthy stablecoins.
All of them are audited in reputable ways, either by large accounting firms or directly on-chain by cryptography:
USDC decided to remove guarantees from its site and invest its reserves as it saw fit without any guarantees or limitations on risk in 2021 before returning to form several months later. This happened despite the reserves being subjected to attestations every month. So it might be a good idea to start a list of trust worthy stable coins with just about anything else, especially if you want to give the impression that the attestations are actually worth the paper they are printed on.
Or you can do it, but suffer extortionist fees.
Classic first-worlder, thinking corrupt, authoritarian regimes which arbitrarily seize assets and cut off access to basic financial services do not exist.
It's about giving people slightly better odds of escaping abuse. It's about helping humanity.
No, THAT seems disingenuous.
I am working on crypto because I want to help these oppressed, unlucky people who are born into terrible regimes that are very hard to escape. I literally work on open source, gratis projects that do not generate any money for me.
Save pontification for investors.
Crypto is a first-world solution to mostly non-existent problems. "The poor unwashed and huddled masses of unbanked in authoritarian regimes will surely be helped by a system that requires smartphones, always-on internet, and trips to limited offline currency exchanges (heavily monitored in authoritarian regimes) to get any value out of fictional tokens" isn't a solution you want to make others believe it is.
False. It doesn't require always-on internet.
False. It doesn't require offline currency exchanges.
Try fleeing Brazil or Russia with significant amounts of cash. Either you cannot do it through legacy banking systems, or you cannot do it in real life with cash, or you have to pay an extortionist bribe in real life.
Why is it that "we're providing basic financial services to the unwashed and huddled poor masses of the unbanked" always becomes "move large amounts of money from one jurisdiction to another without any government control look Russia Brazil" (but in reality international monetary fraud).
Would you argue Jews should leave all their money behind in Nazi Germany when fleeing?
By your logic, Nazi Germany should have the right to inspect and disallow the transfer.
Just because it is a government making an arbitrary decision, that doesn't make it morally right.
Mmm. Godwin's Law. I haven't seen one in the wild for a loooong time.
Adieu.