Hacker News Reader

Everything you're describing makes sense in terms of legal requirements, but none of it seems to require any form of cryptocurrency or stablecoins.

View on HN

This was also where I initially landed after finding out that the custom stablecoin could not leave my Bridge instance.

I think the role that crypto plays in enabling this is as a neutral, credible storage layer on which this token can be held, that is not my Postgres database as (eg.) Bridge - these tokens still are actual ERC-20s/etc that are present on-chain, as are the wallets that hold them -- but yeah, I'm:

- not sure how instrumental that actually is here

- not sure if that's just incidentally the easiest structure for Bridge, whose primary business revolves around facilitating payments via stablecoin (now, as a part of Stripe)

Blockchain guarantees there is no double spend while not having one controlling entity. Legal requirements are there to do exactly the same thing - not let managers mess with other people money.

But there are 2 separate controlling entities in this scenario. The hypothetical company that wants to issue the stablecoin and Bridge. They have complete and full control over the money anyway, blockchain or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com