News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild West of finance. Parent comment

Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ... by runeks on Saturday June 05, 2021 @03:45AM (#27403088)
Why does it matter? They owe you the money in the first place. If they’re ill-intentioned they can just refuse to redeem your coins, or require that you send them to a new contract with different rules.

There’s no reason credit instruments should be on a blockchain in the first place, given you’re depending on a central party for redemption.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ... by comboy on Saturday June 05, 2021 @06:44AM (#27403838)
> There’s no reason credit instruments should be on a blockchain in the first place, given you’re depending on a central party for redemption.

Can you elaborate? Say you issue RUNEKs, how do we move them around freely in a digital world with the assumption that you are not required for transfers?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ... by runeks on Saturday June 12, 2021 @10:13AM (#27484646)
Why don’t you want me to be required for transfers?

You already depend on me for redeeming your coins for USD, so depending on me for transfers doesn’t present any additional risk.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ... by doomroot on Saturday June 05, 2021 @09:58AM (#27405082)
Runek seems more likely to be asking, why pay the very high price of putting a trusted instrument on a trustless blockchain. Which I believe is a fair question.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ... by comboy on Saturday June 05, 2021 @07:39PM (#27409344)
I'm asking how else can you get the same functionality.
[ Parent | on HN ]