A currency needs stability. Speculation needs volatility.
Speculation only works when there's a stable currency to dump your value into when the the security your trading is going in the wrong direction.
The word “currency” is inherently a tautology. How does something become a currency?
> Speculation only works when there's a stable currency to dump your value into when the the security is going in the wrong direction.
Precious metals long predate government monies. Gold and silver couldn’t have become currency under the definition you’ve presented here.
gold and silver were bad currencies back then, when people had no real alternative. People clipped coins, and debase the currency. People horded them when times were tough, and prevented lending and circulation, causing issues with the economy regarding liquidity.
Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)#Economic_... and educate yourself about the past.
Hence the rise of algorithmic stable coins.That's highly debatable. I'll grant you, it's advertised to be.
No. Your argument is "Yeah, we know it's terrible... so you can't hold it against us." Nevermind the fact that coinbase started to support Tether.
I think what's most interesting to me (and should be to you as a pro-crypto advocate) is that underlying backing in tether appears to be highly volatile, yet it's not represented in the price. Also what should be shocking is hodlers don't care about this either.
Nobody cared about Bernie Madoff as long as their accounts and the market kept going up. As soon as people tried to take their money out, however....
I wouldn't call me a pro-crypto advocate, just as I wouldn't call you an anti-crypto advocate. I like to keep track of what's happening in the crypto space but I'm not advocating pro or against it.
My opinion on Tether is that there should be a lot more transparency regarding their backed funds and personally I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Because you quickly resorted to ad hominem attacks even though you failed to provide any alternative or even a single counter example.
It does not seem you're able to point out anything at all.
Is that because you are aware that there is actually no good argument to refute OP's point? And thus you resorted to name-calling?
Is it worse to peg your economy to a decentralized cryptocurrency, or a fiat currency controlled by a large powerful near-neighbor who only occasionally even remembers you exist? (and sure as hell will not modify their fiscal policy with the needs of your economy).
Having a backup official decentralized currency doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Maybe I'd use Eth or something that can scale better, but the point is the same.