Debatable whether the feds would go after the competing stablecoins, but depending on the logic for the prosecutions/seizures, there are outcomes where they're economically inviable.
e.g. If Tether gets shut down because of fraudulent misuse of reserves, then the government might be OK with some aboveboard execution. If on the other hand they get shut down for money laundering via tether, well, stablecoins exist to enable that, and if they can't enable that they likely don't have a use case large enough to support the engineering/operational teams required to run them.
> no such demand has been shown to exist.
The success of companies like Square or Venmo show there is huge demand for an easy way to send money around.
You will say that they are inside the traditional banking system, and that is true. But when using them it feels like they are not.
Re:Tether: The Story So Far
by cycrutchfield on Monday October 28, 2019 @10:38PM
(#21383850)
Ok, but if we have Square and Venmo, why do we need Bitcoin and Tether?
Re:Tether: The Story So Far
by austhrow743 on Monday October 28, 2019 @11:41PM
(#21384100)
Yes if you exclude the primary uses of something, you will struggle to see a use for it. That's obvious.
Crypto supporters have been saying this for a decade, but outside of money laundering, drug sales, and hodle profiteering, no such demand has been shown to exist.
Of course the huge demand has been spotted by many others and now there are loads of these "stablecoins". Some are more regulated and might take quickly over if feds decide to stop tether.
If the "feds" go after tether, they will also go after the alternative stablecoins.