Wait... I need to explain this? I don't even believe in it.
I'm not really interested in arguing theoretical constructs. You yourself admitted that just last weekend a stablecoin dropped to 88 cents on the dollar (while my bank dollars were still worth one dollar each).
Before I prove anything, why don't you start by proving (heck just demonstrate) a long term stable stablecoin. Just saying it's stable doesn't make it so.
I have dollar deposit protections now. Love or hate the fed, at least you're dealing with a known quantity, and a boatload of laws that are actually (historically demonstrable) enforceable.
There are no regulations or protections in the crypto space, only a bunch of hollow promises.
Until the crypto community can actually demonstrate long term stability (and stable audited reserves) of any so called "stable" coin, I'm not interested in discussing financial theocraticals, let alone moving my dollars out of my FDIC insured bank accounts.
In other words, both USDC and uninsured SVB deposits had the same market response over the weekend. But every USDC holder had unfettered access, whereas only large SVB depositors were able to access the informal market of private sellers.
I want you to remember this interaction because by the end of the decade, there will be over $1 trillion of USD stablecoins in circulation (in today's dollars), and at least one of the five largest banks in America will run a major stablecoin product of some kind, such as their own stablecoin, redemptions for an existing coin, or consumer on/off-ramps to the crypto financial system.
The key point is that those were uninsured deposits.
Anyone under FDIC protection was fine.
At best a stablecoin is like an uninsured bank deposit, in an unregulated bank. No thanks, I'll stick to FDIC coverage.
This is an excellent Freudian slip