2. "seize you" is much harder to do (ie. court conviction) than freezing a bank/stablecoin account

What activities can a non-american do that would result in seizure of their funds, but wouldn't also subject them to arrest? (other than accruing IRS debt)

If your net worth is high enough to afford such an arrangement, by all means do that.

> What activities can a non-american do that would result in seizure of their funds, but wouldn't also subject them to arrest? (other than accruing IRS debt)

activities that generate enough suspicion for the authorities to target you (ie. civil forfeiture) but for which the authorities don't have enough evidence to convict you.

How much net worth do you need to find a bank that's doesn't have a branch or other offices in the USA which would require them to obey USA seizure requests? Can't you just look for a small local bank that's not part of an iternational bank with offices in the USA?

activities that generate enough suspicion for the authorities to target you (ie. civil forfeiture) but for which the authorities don't have enough evidence to convict you.

I meant specifically, not general hand waving "anything that makes authorities suspicious".

I just want to know what the legitimate use case is for using crypocurrency to shield your funds from the USA that couldn't also be done at a traditional bank.

It was unclear whether you were talking about american or foreigner in that context. For a foreigner, you'd have to contend with local banks that are subject to requests from local police.

>I meant specifically, not general hand waving "anything that makes authorities suspicious".

literally any of the civil forfeiture horror stores that show up on HN from time to time.

You said "not everyone lives in the USA", so I was speaking of non-americans, keeping their money out of the reach of american authorities. But for the German citizen keeping money in a German bank, what specific activity would lead his money to being seized that would not also subject himself to arrest and prosecution.

literally any of the civil forfeiture horror stores that show up on HN from time to time.

I've seen lots of cases reported where cash is seized, but what ones had their bank accounts seized without having committed a crime that would lead to prosecution?

Again, I'm just asking for a specific example of why someone would use cryptocurrency because they are doing some legitimate activity that would lead to their bank account being seized, but wouldn't also open themselves up to prosecution.

Stories of paypal cancelling a business because they locked up all the revenue were quite common when I was interested in that kind of stuff a few years ago.

Banks in the developing countries may be less trustful than crypto currency.

- Government agencies can ascertain the identities of virtually all accounts with Chainalysis, following the money to the fiat entry/exit points.

- Even with a theoretical anonymous account, with centralized stablecoins like USDC or USDT, the balance held by that account can be frozen because the issuers of those tokens have crafted their token contracts such that they maintain the ability to mark certain addresses as incapable of transfer

Theoretically yes, but in practice no. A quick search turns up https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/129133/tether-freezes-ov... for instance

Of course, if you're going to use it, you'd better understand the system behind it. There's a DAO called MakerDAO that maintains a pegged stablecoin called DAI that is pegged to USD using actual crypto reserves. It works very, very well. Of course, given time, all pegs break. But it's miles ahead of this Terra system that was an obvious sham from the get go.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/09/29/28m-makerdao-blac...

At any rate, I don't think most people really have the skills to discern what is and is not a grift in the cryptocurrency space. Best to assume they all are, unless you can basically read and grok all the code and fine print.

MakerDAO is pretty self explanatory if you look at the code and the spec of how the protocol works. You overcollateralize based on the ratio set by the DAO, you get dollar pegged coins (which then, are undervalued, providing the stability) and the system keeps the amount of stablecoins in circulation always less than the value of collateral. It can break, it will break eventually, as all pegs do, but it is wildly more stable than these other obviously flawed schemes.

Skimming through that article, it looks like a frivolous attempt at a settlement. There's no misrepresentation whatsoever: open a CDP, if the value of collateral drops below the threshold, your CDP gets liquidated unless you can top it up. I'm not surprised the judge allowed it to go to arbitration. It also looks like a plaintiff tried to get a class action going but not a lot of people joined in.

Thanks for skimming the article before dismissing it though, I guess.

All you have to do is vet the handful of things you're interested in. I don't know everything about every crypto project out there, and I assume everything is a scam unless something piques my interest and so I dive in depth on it and determine it isn't. Most things that do pique my interest turn out to be scams within. 5 minutes of reading. Sometimes that means I miss out on money, it's a risk assessment.

I'm not invested in maker because it isn't a passive investment. You either buy a stablecoin, no gains on that, or you become a DAO member and have a role to play. But it is a very interesting tool that people can use that works really well. It does what it's designed to do, keep dai correlated highly with the dollar.

Not terribly interested in discussing it further, but a comment I made elsewhere applies, at least:

> They think that the flaws of the incumbent system justify any flaws in the new one, without realizing the burden is on them to prove the new system doesn't posses _all_ of the problems (and more) of the original.

> I think "whataboutism" describes the situation well. See it a lot with the crypto crowd. Clearly a lot of cognitive dissonance going on there.

why not buy something like USDC that's allegedly you know, backed by USD?

Here, corrected it for you.

2. You want "a stable value" but don't really want to hold USD (because to hold USD, you need access to the US capital markets and banking system).

We desperately need to support collateralized stablecoins like USDC through clarifying regulation that standardizes reserve requirements and transparency. This would likely drive use away from algo coins and bring stability to so called stablecoins.

The psychology driving crypto for the last half decade or so is the same sort of psychology that drives penny stocks and scratch-offs. The only people who don't understand this yet are sitting in SV/NYC/Miami and are totally out of touch.

Stablecoins were sold as "the stability of a savings account with the returns of dogecoin".

In practice they are extremely fragile as seen here.