Coinbase/Gemini USD are US regulated. So... no.

Given this all-caps disclaimer, I wouldn't exactly be reassured that USDC would be worth anything in the event Coinbase went out of business:

"USDC IS NOT LEGAL TENDER. USDC IS A DIGITAL CURRENCY AND COINBASE HAS NO RIGHT TO USE ANY USDC YOU HOLD ON COINBASE. COINBASE IS NOT A DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION, AND YOUR USDC WALLET IS NOT A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT. YOUR USDC WALLET IS NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC) OR THE SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION (SIPC)."

(https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/getting-started/genera...)

If you read the FAQ, Coinbase doesn't even issue USDC, Circle does, so Coinbase going out of business won't affect the balances in Circle's bank account or the redeem-ability of USDC. They also actually publish regular audits unlike Tether

https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/getting-started/genera...

>Given this all-caps disclaimer, I wouldn't exactly be reassured that USDC would be worth anything in the event Coinbase went out of business:

But every line in the disclaimer are probably applicable to bond/USD ETFs as well, but people aren't exactly fleeing from those.

Bond holders have a certain legal right to claims on assets of a company that becomes insolvent - I'm not sure what legal rights USDC holders would have.

But either way, I think most people would not tend to view something like USDC as a bond (in which the bond holder is a creditor to the bond-issuing organization, with the associated risk-adjusted return on capital), but more like cash.

Should the assets of the company provide full backing of the bonds?

Chuck-E-Cheese tokens are US regulated so... my point being of course that just because something is under US jurisdiction doesn't make it "good as gold" so to speak. The structure of the underlying implement is what matters.

Because regulation worked SO WELL in numerous cases anyone could name (Enron, Worldcom, Authur Anderson, Lehman Brothers...)

Picking out a small handful of obvious failures is not a useful exercise for or against regulation. Regulation has had numerous incredibly life-chantingly beneficial effects on our lives. Thanks to the EPA, the rivers no longer literally catch fire. I'd trade one Enron for lakes of water instead of lakes of fire any day.

Regulation can be good, regulation can be bad, how you do it matters far more.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing - just that I don't trust it to cover my ass.

I trust it to keep the rivers from catching fire, and planes from falling out of the sky, and the front seat from falling through the bottom of my car.

Yeah - everything is fucked so why do anything? Lets just sit here and criticize everything. And that is the life we choose to live.

That's pointlessly reductionist. Just because we can't do perfect means we should look at a steaming pile of dogshit like it's filet mignon.

The short term solution to "everything's fucked" is to stop making it even more fucked.

> The short term solution to "everything's fucked" is to stop making it even more fucked.

That's not a solution, that's a vague sentiment.

Glad that you are able to figure out the shortcomings in your comments. Be constructive vs. generalizing a few negative examples and taking a defeatist attitude to things.

Are you arguing with yourself?

Bitcoin is the preferred payment method of extortionists and criminals world-wide. Accepted everywhere cash is. So yes, it has had a legitimately illegitimate use case.

No it's not. That's a common misconception, but the studies show that USD is used about 100x more than cryptocurrencies for crime. This is because:

1. Criminals don't want their activities to be tracked on a public ledger. Cash is anonymous. Bitcoin is not.

2. Criminals already have money laundering systems in-place, and relationships with corrupt bankers.

3. Cash is accepted at more places. So it's more useful to have.

We're talking trillions of dollars in USD crime here. It's not even close.

> studies show that USD is used about 100x more than cryptocurrencies for crime

That's a massively higher share for cryptocurrencies than in legitimate transactions, isn't it?

I was curious about that too. The US Treasury thinks that $300bn is laundered every year. Then ciphertrace thinks $2.5bn is laundered through crypto currencies.

While BTC is tracked between wallets and that's easily measured, it's unclear how to measure wallets being transferred between people.

> but the studies show that USD is used about 100x more than cryptocurrencies for crime.

That's awkward, given that:

* "All the bitcoins in the world [are] worth roughly $160.4 billion" - Investopedia

* USD M2 (2018): $16.1T - https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2

So really, BTC is used at least as much, relatively speaking, for crime, as USD.

But does it show that bitcoin is the preferred method for crime?

> Cash is anonymous. Bitcoin is not.

There's a non zero chance that your criminal extortion scheme won't end up with bill serial numbers tracked by federal authorities. Hence that's probably why 97% of ransomware uses BTC.

> Hence that's probably why 97% of ransomware uses BTC.

What payment processor would ransomware use? Credit card processors would close their account. Nobody can close your Bitcoin account. That can be used for crime, but also is a legitimate protection against the abuses of governments and banks.

That’s why Bitcoin has this legitimate use. No one will service ransomware businesses.

And as I said that's a consequence of Bitcoin's decentralization and censorship resistance. I think the positive aspects of those features overshadow the negative.

That's quite the endorsement, there.

Before Bitcoin, they were using stuff like Walmart giftcards.

Since criminals don't want their activities to be tracked on a public ledger, how did these studies (plural) get performed with any accuracy?

Not all criminals are masterminds like Satoshi... or should I say... Paul "Solotshi" Calder Le Roux. [1]

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...

I was specifically talking about online criminals (online drugs, hackers, etc).