It varies, there are a bunch of different types of stabletokens. The two main approaches I’m aware of are:
Tokens that are issued and backed by a trusted third party. Tether, for example, issues one USDT token for every USD that is deposited with Tether Inc. and you can redeem USDTs for USD again any time. I’m not particularly fond of this approach, but it’s simple and popular and as long as you’re not holding USDT long-term I don’t see a big problem with it as a day-to-day currency. Just make sure the issuing company is audited and you’re prepared for the possibility that they could turn out to be lying.
Tokens that are issued by on-chain smart contracts, backed by other digital assets. DAI and Liquity are examples of these. They are more complicated but IMO the better choice because you don’t have to trust anyone - you can see the token’s backing right on the blockchain itself and know whether it’s actually worth what the stabletoken needs for support.
One of the nice things about the on-chain smart contract stabletokens is that they can be backed by less-stable tokens, such as Ether itself, so you can get the best of both worlds out of them.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness. It’s “stable” because a $1 debt stays a 1$ debt. That’s a nice spin on zero interest. It’s not what I’d call a currency. Or sane, reasonable, sensible, …
I note that tether is known for not allowing audits. Are you for real?
The other option is that the loan is collateralized in crypto. And you can’t actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly. On the liquity site I wasn’t able to see how the price is determined. I did see that there is a redemption fee of variable, unknown size. I’m not quite clear how that is supposed to be sane.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that. You can check the credit-worthiness of Tether and other such companies (Tether was just an example, there are many others) and decide whether you want to use their token based on what you learn if you wish. As I said, you only need the token to last for as long as you’re using it for, so if you’re running a storefront for example you can be paid in those tokens and immediately trade them for something you trust more.
And you can’t actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly.
The stablecoin is worth $1, yes. That’s the point of the stablecoin. The “allegedly” part is not actually allegedly, it’s part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
Are you for real?
Yes. I get the impression that you’re arguing in bad faith, though. I’m happy to discuss the details of how these things work but you’re calling this “insane” and that’s not a particularly useful mindset for learning.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that.
Yes, it does. You can redeem the “stablecoin”. That means it’s an IOU; a debt. That means you are granting a loan while holding the coin.
There are several reasons why there is interest on loans. One is risk. If you lend $1 to 11 people and one of them can’t pay back, you are left with only $10 of $11. No problem among friends, but not a viable business model. You’d have to charge 10% interest to break even.
It’s not a problem to use debt as money, cause that’s what we do. What you have in your checking account is a debt owed by the bank to you. The difference is that your checking account is insured. You will not lose money if the bank goes bust.
The “allegedly” part is not actually allegedly, it’s part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
Yes. I get the impression that you’re arguing in bad faith, though.
I know how crypto works and I’m being honest with you. I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency. Well, that didn’t work but now we know. I am quite willing to learn how these smart-contract-stablecoins work, or if they do.
Regarding the question of “bad faith”: I am sure that you have already checked if what you just learned about Tether is true. That means you understand that using it as an example of a viable currency potentially helps a company defraud people. Will you edit your post?
The fact of the matter is that I have warned you about the clear and well-known dangers of USDT. I could have been more polite but I still have done you a great favor, that may save you a lot of money. You’re welcome.
I was irritated that someone, who apparently considers themselves knowledgeable on crypto, would not know about tether. I am also irritated that this great favors is met with accusations of bad faith.
No. The part I was objecting to was: " gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness." That’s the part that’s incorrect. Some stabletokens don’t involve a company at all, it’s entirely on-chain controlled by smart contracts.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
The one I’m most familiar with is DAI, which is maintained by the MakerDAO smart contract. MakerDAO uses a collection of price oracles to determine prices, which are in turn managed by people who own governance tokens (MKR) for the MakerDAO smart contract itself. They vote on which oracles are used, and on other economic parameters used by MakerDAO to keep its peg table. If MKR holders do a good job then MKR tokens appreciate in value, “rewarding” them. If they do a poor job then MKR tokens lose value.
This is complicated, but it’s a necessary complication to ensure that MakerDAO can function in a decentralized and trustworthy fashion. There are a number of pages out there that go into more detail, this one seems pretty good at a glance.
I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency.
Well, I’m not sure what you mean here. Tokens that represent a debt can certainly be used as a currency if everyone involved considers the debt to be sound and trusts that it will be repaid.
That’s the part that’s incorrect. Some stabletokens don’t involve a company at all, it’s entirely on-chain controlled by smart contracts.
I’m not sure I get the point. Company is a broad term. I don’t see how MakerDAO is not a company. So what kind of legal entity is MakerDAO, exactly? (I know next to nothing about the relevant laws here.)
The one I’m most familiar with is DAI, which is maintained by the MakerDAO smart contract. MakerDAO uses a collection of price oracles to determine prices, which are in turn managed by people who own governance tokens (MKR) for the MakerDAO smart contract itself. They vote on which oracles are used, and on other economic parameters used by MakerDAO to keep its peg table. If MKR holders do a good job then MKR tokens appreciate in value, “rewarding” them. If they do a poor job then MKR tokens lose value.
Okay, so it works like a stock company, except that share owners take a more immediate role in running the company than usual. They vote on the valuation of the collateral. That part makes sense; in isolation, anyway. There are some things which are obviously worrying, but I’ll have to punt, for now.
Tokens that represent a debt can certainly be used as a currency if everyone involved considers the debt to be sound and trusts that it will be repaid.
Yes, we mostly use debt as a currency. If your checking account is denominated in USD or EUR, then you are still using USD or EUR as currency. Using crypto-tokens is simply a technologically vastly inferior way of tracking debts, not a new currency. The apparent fraud is the only way this makes economic sense.
I’m not sure I get the point. Company is a broad term. I don’t see how MakerDAO is not a company.
Company is actually not a broad term, it’s a legal term with a specific meaning. MakerDAO is not a company, it’s a smart contract. If you want to use terms that loosely it’s going to be difficult talking about this stuff.
Using crypto-tokens is simply a technologically vastly inferior way of tracking debts, not a new currency.
But ultimately that’s the thing that you’re arguing here, so you can’t simply state it as a premise. That’s the classic meaning of begging the question.
The apparent fraud is the only way this makes economic sense.
That came out of nowhere, this is the first time an accusation of fraud has shown up in this discussion. What fraud?
Company is actually not a broad term, it’s a legal term with a specific meaning.
In what jurisdiction and what does it mean?
MakerDAO is not a company, it’s a smart contract.
Well, what kind of legal entity is it?
But ultimately that’s the thing that you’re arguing here, so you can’t simply state it as a premise. That’s the classic meaning of begging the question.
I’m sorry. I thought this was a well known fact. I don’t know what I should assume about your background knowledge. You don’t seem to want to be perceived as having none.
I don’t believe this is anything I have argued for here. I have mentioned certain facts, mainly about the economics. It’s perhaps best to stick to the matter at hand. But if you have questions, I will answer, of course.
That came out of nowhere, this is the first time an accusation of fraud has shown up in this discussion. What fraud?
Again, I’m sorry. I thought it was clear that I was referring to Tether. I see that one could think I was meaning MakerDAO, but I really don’t understand it well enough to say.
It varies, there are a bunch of different types of stabletokens. The two main approaches I’m aware of are:
Tokens that are issued and backed by a trusted third party. Tether, for example, issues one USDT token for every USD that is deposited with Tether Inc. and you can redeem USDTs for USD again any time. I’m not particularly fond of this approach, but it’s simple and popular and as long as you’re not holding USDT long-term I don’t see a big problem with it as a day-to-day currency. Just make sure the issuing company is audited and you’re prepared for the possibility that they could turn out to be lying.
Tokens that are issued by on-chain smart contracts, backed by other digital assets. DAI and Liquity are examples of these. They are more complicated but IMO the better choice because you don’t have to trust anyone - you can see the token’s backing right on the blockchain itself and know whether it’s actually worth what the stabletoken needs for support.
One of the nice things about the on-chain smart contract stabletokens is that they can be backed by less-stable tokens, such as Ether itself, so you can get the best of both worlds out of them.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness. It’s “stable” because a $1 debt stays a 1$ debt. That’s a nice spin on zero interest. It’s not what I’d call a currency. Or sane, reasonable, sensible, …
I note that tether is known for not allowing audits. Are you for real?
The other option is that the loan is collateralized in crypto. And you can’t actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly. On the liquity site I wasn’t able to see how the price is determined. I did see that there is a redemption fee of variable, unknown size. I’m not quite clear how that is supposed to be sane.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that. You can check the credit-worthiness of Tether and other such companies (Tether was just an example, there are many others) and decide whether you want to use their token based on what you learn if you wish. As I said, you only need the token to last for as long as you’re using it for, so if you’re running a storefront for example you can be paid in those tokens and immediately trade them for something you trust more.
The stablecoin is worth $1, yes. That’s the point of the stablecoin. The “allegedly” part is not actually allegedly, it’s part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
Yes. I get the impression that you’re arguing in bad faith, though. I’m happy to discuss the details of how these things work but you’re calling this “insane” and that’s not a particularly useful mindset for learning.
Yes, it does. You can redeem the “stablecoin”. That means it’s an IOU; a debt. That means you are granting a loan while holding the coin.
There are several reasons why there is interest on loans. One is risk. If you lend $1 to 11 people and one of them can’t pay back, you are left with only $10 of $11. No problem among friends, but not a viable business model. You’d have to charge 10% interest to break even.
It’s not a problem to use debt as money, cause that’s what we do. What you have in your checking account is a debt owed by the bank to you. The difference is that your checking account is insured. You will not lose money if the bank goes bust.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
I know how crypto works and I’m being honest with you. I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency. Well, that didn’t work but now we know. I am quite willing to learn how these smart-contract-stablecoins work, or if they do.
Regarding the question of “bad faith”: I am sure that you have already checked if what you just learned about Tether is true. That means you understand that using it as an example of a viable currency potentially helps a company defraud people. Will you edit your post?
The fact of the matter is that I have warned you about the clear and well-known dangers of USDT. I could have been more polite but I still have done you a great favor, that may save you a lot of money. You’re welcome.
I was irritated that someone, who apparently considers themselves knowledgeable on crypto, would not know about tether. I am also irritated that this great favors is met with accusations of bad faith.
No. The part I was objecting to was: " gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness." That’s the part that’s incorrect. Some stabletokens don’t involve a company at all, it’s entirely on-chain controlled by smart contracts.
The one I’m most familiar with is DAI, which is maintained by the MakerDAO smart contract. MakerDAO uses a collection of price oracles to determine prices, which are in turn managed by people who own governance tokens (MKR) for the MakerDAO smart contract itself. They vote on which oracles are used, and on other economic parameters used by MakerDAO to keep its peg table. If MKR holders do a good job then MKR tokens appreciate in value, “rewarding” them. If they do a poor job then MKR tokens lose value.
This is complicated, but it’s a necessary complication to ensure that MakerDAO can function in a decentralized and trustworthy fashion. There are a number of pages out there that go into more detail, this one seems pretty good at a glance.
Well, I’m not sure what you mean here. Tokens that represent a debt can certainly be used as a currency if everyone involved considers the debt to be sound and trusts that it will be repaid.
I’m not sure I get the point. Company is a broad term. I don’t see how MakerDAO is not a company. So what kind of legal entity is MakerDAO, exactly? (I know next to nothing about the relevant laws here.)
Okay, so it works like a stock company, except that share owners take a more immediate role in running the company than usual. They vote on the valuation of the collateral. That part makes sense; in isolation, anyway. There are some things which are obviously worrying, but I’ll have to punt, for now.
Yes, we mostly use debt as a currency. If your checking account is denominated in USD or EUR, then you are still using USD or EUR as currency. Using crypto-tokens is simply a technologically vastly inferior way of tracking debts, not a new currency. The apparent fraud is the only way this makes economic sense.
Company is actually not a broad term, it’s a legal term with a specific meaning. MakerDAO is not a company, it’s a smart contract. If you want to use terms that loosely it’s going to be difficult talking about this stuff.
But ultimately that’s the thing that you’re arguing here, so you can’t simply state it as a premise. That’s the classic meaning of begging the question.
That came out of nowhere, this is the first time an accusation of fraud has shown up in this discussion. What fraud?
In what jurisdiction and what does it mean?
Well, what kind of legal entity is it?
I’m sorry. I thought this was a well known fact. I don’t know what I should assume about your background knowledge. You don’t seem to want to be perceived as having none.
I don’t believe this is anything I have argued for here. I have mentioned certain facts, mainly about the economics. It’s perhaps best to stick to the matter at hand. But if you have questions, I will answer, of course.
Again, I’m sorry. I thought it was clear that I was referring to Tether. I see that one could think I was meaning MakerDAO, but I really don’t understand it well enough to say.