"The team behind cryptocurrency X has halted a primary use of the tokens."

Hmm...

"What do you mean the bank is out of money?"

Yes I realize that sometimes referendums give sub-optimal results (i.e. brexit), but I'd much rather live in a truly representative democracy that occasionally gets it wrong than a republic that doesn't represent the people's wishes at all.

Absolutely not, lol.

The world is way, way too complicated for every individual to have a meaningful and informed opinion about every particular topic. That's why we delegate to experts in the field. There's no way I want some corn farmer in Iowa voting on monetary policy. Most people here haven't the faintest idea how monetary policy works. The comments here are horrifying, and this is a pretty elite group to begin with.

Similarly there's no way I want some city-slicker who's never held a hoe to vote on farm policy.

That's before we even start in on civil rights.

It's a flawed, backwards idea best left in the dustbin of history. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Specialization is good. Delegation is productive.

So why on earth would you advocate for the people who know the least about a topic to make the decisions? It's bananas.

There's no janitorial staff on Apple's board. There's no cooks on the Facebook board. There's no software engineers on the Twitter board. At least in industry we've - more or less - accepted that the folks with the relevant experience should be making the relevant decisions. This should be no less true in governance.

Yes there is. 3 out of the 11 members the board are clearly software engineers.

I don't think "be done with it" on abortion is remotely possible. The two sides are completely intractable. In my long life I've never heard anyone be persuaded by the other side.

Besides, overturning RvW will not federally prohibit abortion. It will leave it up to the states, which will decide democratically.

This satisfies nobody.

For example, here in Washington State, there is no chance that abortion will be outlawed by the State. But that hasn't stopped major demonstrations protesting the Supreme Court.

Not wishing to be unnecessarily provocative, but if each state were to have to set the policy isn't it likely it would be that which is most popular in that state?

Wouldn't more people be satisfied overall? Even if some states end up hating each other a bit more ... than they already do

I do think something like Brexit is fine for a referendum. It's a singular issue and clearly very important. In California we have referendums for weird tax issues that become impossible to be informed on and it leads to bad outcomes.

This Country hasn't held a fair, informed referendum. Whether that be the AV , Scottish independence or brexit.

The game has changed, you have social media companies, Russia, Palantir and Cambridge Analytica types weaponizing misinformation.

The electorate got pushed to voting against their interests for both Brexit and AV by absolute bullshit lies. (E.g. 350 million to the NHS, AV referendum killing babies...)

At this point in time, we have seen the same thing happen in India, Brazil, the US, UK...

Also, I would very much like to see a 5 hour free form interview with major political candidates. I feel like politicians mostly just repeat prepared remarks and don't really have a thorough understanding of issues and/or are not that smart.

At the moment, the issues surrounding external influences, Cambridge Analytica/PLTR style voter manipulation occur outside the scope of electoral regulators.

In reality, both systems are failing spectacularly given they are being abused by lobbyists, monetary interests, gerrymandering, FPTP, and sheer electoral fraud.

E.g. The Tories openly lying (Brexit empty promises, Scaremongering, AV killing babies). The Tories splitting by campaigning for the left vote to abuse FPTP. The Tories openly ignoring electoral spending restrictions because the fines are ineffective. The electoral college system/voter boundary abuse resulting in people in London/California having far less voting power than those in rural regions.

Neither system will be fair until the above aspects are rectified.

In the future, we are going to need to take unpleasant actions for which the current government models fail absolutely. Take climate change, or even the most recent pandemic. The current government models in the West failed spectacularly compared to places like China or Singapore.

If 50%+1 of voters becomes the metric to hit, it will almost certainly be achieved. Looking at California's ballot referendums, it's clear that it's no impossible task to get voters to approve something against their best interest or ostensibly against their stated political values and beliefs.

See: The ballot initiative exempting commercial property from Prop 13 that failed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...), and the initiative to overturn California's law requiring ride share drivers to be classified as employees that passed: (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...).

Also, just wanted to point out that you said you'd rather live in a "representative democracy" when talking about direct democracy. Representative democracy is another term for a republic.

Not really. Since we're talking about Brexit, it's worth noting that the UK is a representative democracy but is definitely not a republic.

Everyone likes to talk about will of the people. Well here is news. Different people have different desires, in different regions of the country majority wants to do different things. Only way to keep lid on this without the whole thing blowing up is to have representation of the this and slow the process down as much as possible, quick changes are the most disruptive/dangerous.

Sure. But there is a big problem when the minority of people in an area end up getting what they want because the system that is in place isn't able to properly enfranchise the majority.

A. Hitler Mustache

B. KKK Hood

Do you think everyone should have to vote on that?

From there it's pretty easy to associate real political capital with digital decisions.

E.g. Automatic n+1 "ban proposing user" option added to all proposals. If after n votes (where n is large) the sum(ban proposing user) > 0.25*sum(all other options), proposal is removed and user is banned until a proposal to unban is passed.

Makes em easy to dupe...

Is "plutocratizing" a word? Because that's what most of them are actually doing -- granting power to whoever has purchased (or rented!) the largest number of tokens.

As if procedural hacks were not enough (leveraged seizure of stake sufficient to exploit anyone...?),

who could possibly both be smart enough to write a contract, yet dumb enough to entrust it with their own money?

Trick question. That's the crypto koan of rue. The answer is no one. The rest is an exercise a lot of students are learning the hard way.

Have you ever seen a road? Do you think everyone got an equal say and vote if and how that road was built? Cities that operate well and are not total disasters to live in, have governments that can improve infrastructure without having to include everyone's opinions equally. Obviously I think that is unfair, especially if I am the person who doesn't want brighter street lights on my street, but I don't want my city to end up like San Francisco where apartments cost 2 Million dollars and are surrounded by tent cities and taxes are super high.

In any system I'm not obligated to participate in, I prefer benevolent dictatorships. If I disagree with the dictator, I can take my business elsewhere.

We don't want to study history. It's boring. The immersive experience of doing the historical re-enactment is much more intense, and something you can talk about for years to come. Eventually to the next batch of people who want to learn things the hard way, until it's happened so often that you turn into that old person you swore you'd never be when you were that age.

These aren't games though. Learning things the hard way can mean death, chronic illness or crippling debt that affects the entire rest of your life. School needs history lessons, and more of them, but there's also quality vs quantity (how do you make history interesting to kids who think this is just an old story and not a parable?)

    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

There are certainly many scammers out there, but also some people who believe their own marketing material. But the thing is that once you start picking apart one infinite growth pyramid, then you start seeing them everywhere, and eventually respectable people start trying to draw lines and claim that the bullshit on this side of the line is obvious and bad, but the bullshit on the other side is okay because reasons (reason #1: we can keep this running for at least another 100-200 years at which point I will be long dead)

You might be right, but the only thing they were ever useful for, was money laundering.

So, I don't think that drawing a greater distinction between the first wave of money-laundering crypto, vs the current wave of Ponzi crypto, is really a defense of either.

And little did I know that others were laundering their money through me when they donated to my websites' bitcoin addresses.

I guess everything that isn't some incorporated third party transfering the money for you must be money laundering. Corporate persons transfer money. Human persons launder. Got it.

I can use a handgun for hunting, but that doesn't mean its primary use-case is hunting.

Bitcoin is accepted as payment essentially nowhere, in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you've found some niche places that allow it, but it's rare. When I think ransomware, the first thing that comes to mind is cryptocurrency (specifically Bitcoin and ETH). When I think of money laundering, I think of NFTs, through ETH. If you talk to most normal people and ask them what they think of when you talk about bitcoin, it's probably buying illegal drugs.

Ah yes. The "experts" that have only heard about Bitcoin from Fox/MSNBC/etc news. I'm sure they know what they're talking about.

This is a stablecoin which has a centralized management team that can halt and control activity on the blockchain, which is fundamentally different from a bitcoin or monero which is a truly decentralized system with no controlling organization that can change anything without slow bulding, mass consent of all participants in the network, and is anyway naturally very stable because of its simplicity and extremely conservative and risk averse development process.

It's more like an Englishman yelling out that they're a Scotsman as they ransack the public square. It's not a fallacy to point out that they're simply not a Scotsman.

The fact that there isn't a formal name for the era of "pre-finance-bro crypto" or "first wave crypto" doesn't mean it's has anything to do with the scotts. The parent's language might be a little ambiguous but that's to be expected when trying to describe yet unnamed things and their meaning is clear enough.

Willfully misunderstanding someone's words to create a logical flaw that isn't there should be its own fallacy.

What constitutes these eras? And why do you bring that up when it was about a class of products not being "an actual cryptocurrency". I would have thought there are properties to the product that make it belong to the class, not merely when it was created.To me these unnamed things and their meaning you talk about are absolutely not clear enough.

I believe you two have a point. But it doesn't come across...

PS: I would argue in 2015 "crypto" was mostly known as abbreviation for cryptography and had nothing to do with decentralized public ledgers.

NTS would be something like

* "All things people are calling cryptocurrencies made after 2015 are just finance-bro scams."

* "But what about TotallyLegitCoin, it's not a scam."

* "But that's not really a cryptocurrency."

Typically happens when the market's scary.

0. https://www.coingecko.com/

I was under the impression that providers being able to "temporarily disable withdrawals" [due to lack of liquidity, political pressure, or indeed any other reason] is one of the key things that crypto didn't suffer from?

Is it possible (just for example) to exchange fiat for crypto, or crypto for fiat, or indeed one crypto for another, without having to involve an "off-chain"* counterparty which comes with no guarantees?

In the fiat world it would appear one can do an exchange "old school" by going to a physical bank branch and exchanging [physical] fiat for fiat (USD to EUR or whatever) and not have to worry that the transaction is going to be halted half way through due to "temporary restrictions" leaving you unable to access your capital.

* I'm not sure I properly understand this phrase as you've used it

Fiat exists inherently off-chain, so you can't not involve an off-chain as you put it, unless you count stablecoins (government or non-government issued) as fiat. Crypto for crypto or crypto for stablecoins you can exchange purely on-chain via DEXs.

>In the fiat world it would appear one can do an exchange "old school" by going to a physical bank branch and exchanging [physical] fiat for fiat (USD to EUR or whatever) and not have to worry that the transaction is going to be halted half way through due to "temporary restrictions" leaving you unable to access your capital.

When you involve a bank or brokerage or paypal you do face those same risks (but possibly to a lesser extent) with fiat.

Aren't money exchange services fairly heavily regulated, for precisely this reason?

I'm asking specifically about unregulated counterparty risk. Which there seems to be quite a lot of in the grey area between crypto and, well, everything else that isn't pure crypto.

The commenter didn't even take a stand on crypto vs fiat. The market isn't scary. The stock market also halts trades when things get rough.

That said, I agree that this should be a point to debate not downvote.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dei/

Note the red explanation marks that indicate how the data is inaccurate.

https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/dei-token has a better estimate.

At peak, DEI was only around $100 million or so. Compared to roughly $20 billion for UST.

You could also look at the volume. UST frequently had $500 million of volume each day. DEI only had a couple million at best. (Volume is of course also a flawed metric and can be faked, but the lack of effort in faking volume is a signal in and of itself.)

With UST, the issuer controlled the blockchain and shut it down completely.

The issuer didn't control Terra. The Terra blockchain is unable to come to connesus about creating a new block if 33% of the staked Luna goes offline. You just have to get the largest validators to agree to go offline and it will stop.

> None of the things called “real world currencies” meet today this very simple set of criteria.

—-

I dont own crypto but Im able to see the hypocrisy in our current global financial system.

But where would be the money in that?

But that won't be enough money for these people, of course

>The wording on the Circle website changed from the previous "backed by US dollars" to "backed by fully reserved assets" by June 2021.

>USDC reserves are regularly attested (but not audited) by Grant Thornton, LLP

This is the same bullshit that Tether has repeatedly pulled.

An audit looks at the history of your overall financials, to ensure that you didn't just borrow that billion dollars two days ago for the sole purpose of passing the audit. Or that you didn't, like, cash a half-billion dollar check from yourself to yourself, and have the money immediately show up in the destination account, before it was debited from the source account.

I definitely feel like this is one of those situations where "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" actually applies.

I couldn't get a mortgage without a thorough check that income was indeed real income, the idea that billions in assets could be "attested" and not actually audited is incredibly shady.

https://www.centre.io/hubfs/PDF/2022%20Circle%20Examination%...

1) There are 51.39 billion USDC in circulation.

2) On a particular day (the Report Date) Circle held an amount of USD-denominated assets at least equal to the number of USDC in circulation in a segregated account.

Note what is absent: No statement as to what these assets are. No statement as to where they came from and whether they were in the account the day before or the day after the Report Date.

In the crypto world, where you can borrow a few billion dollars for a few seconds cheaply, that doesn't mean much.

Attestation: "Person X has $50 million dollars in an account."

Audit: "Person X has $50 million dollars in an account, and we know how it got there, who has claims on it, and whether it's fairly likely to still exist tomorrow."

As a concrete example:

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlemen...

> On the morning of September 15, 2017, Tether opened an account at Noble Bank. Later that day, Bitfinex transferred $382,446,847.71 from Bitfinex’s account at Noble Bank into Tether’s account at Noble Bank. Friedman conducted its verification of Tether’s assets as of 8:00 p.m. EST.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-...

> On November 1, 2018, Tether publicized another self-proclaimed ‘verification’ of its cash reserve; this time at Deltec Bank & Trust Ltd. of the Bahamas. The announcement linked to a letter dated November 1, 2018, which stated that tethers were fully backed by cash, at one dollar for every one tether. However, the very next day, on November 2, 2018, Tether began to transfer funds out of its account, ultimately moving hundreds of millions of dollars from Tether’s bank accounts to Bitfinex’s accounts. And so, as of November 2, 2018 — one day after their latest ‘verification’ — tethers were again no longer backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars in a Tether bank account.

An audit would've flagged this. An attestation does not.

It's like a kid who answers "are you eating cookies before dinner" with "no" because they stopped when you asked the question and are not currently eating one.

Has anybody trusted the attestations, but verified (audited)?

I admit I'm biased, I've used USDC personally & professionally, and I know people involved with running USDC. They're not evil geniuses. And even if they were, you could make so, so much money by breaking it ala Soros & the Bank of England, that I think it would've happened by now.

I could say my pencil is worth $52 billion and therefore I have the assets to cover $52 billion USDC and that would be the same as their 'transparency' reports which don't itemize a single asset, just an 'attestation' that the amount is covered.

We’re truly living like it’s 1929.

1. purely algorithmic stable coins (on-chain), such as UST. Voodoo, if you ask me. Can be decentralised.

2. (over)collateralised stable coins (on-chain), such as DAI (not DEI, which is at issue here). Collateralised by other crypto, smart contracts, and what have you. Can still be decentralised.

3. collateralised stable coins (off-chain), such as USDC or (allegedly) USDT. Those are collateralised by good old USD (or treasuries or commercial paper). Those need a central authority that holds on to the USD (or whatever form the collateral takes). So, makes sense that they have TOS.

Tether freezes $150 million in USDT https://cointelegraph.com/news/tether-freezes-150-million-in...

Circle Confirms Freezing $100K in USDC at Law Enforcement's Request https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/07/08/circle-confirms-...

The point of stablecoins is to have something that's the same value as a dollar, but which can interface with ("all the wonderful magic of") smartcontracts.

One way to achieve that is to have a big trusted organization honor redemption on demand. (GUSD and, I think but don't quote me, USDC.)

Another way is for an org to consistently honor enough redemptions (but not on an on-demand basis) that it trades at par (USDT, for now).

Another (dubious, increasingly unreliable) way is for some cryptocurrency to automatically buy the stablecoin when it falls below par (TerraUSD/UST with LUNA, already failed).[1]

Yet another is to issue the stablecoin only in return for a significant collateral buffer (with other cryptocurrencies) and force sellbacks when the collateral gets too close to critical (DAI and, I think, FEI, not to be confused with the DEI in this story).

[1] TerraUSD's platform had the Ponzi-esque Anchor paying 20% returns, but is stabilizing mechanism did not (attempt to) depend on this in any direct sense.

Of course, some might call fractional reserve banking a scam as well but what these algorithmic stablecoins are doing isn't the same thing as the credit creation by private banks. It's more like they tried to create a "decentralized" central bank. I put that in quotations because the ones I know aren't actually decentralized either, they just use such buzzwords to trick traders.

Not all stablecoins work that way. There are more reputable ones like DAI or USDC. Actually the first stablecoins were all collateralized, the shananigans started in 2017 during the last bubble and now there are even more of these scammy projects because the market has grown so much. Adoption brings in a lot of newbies with money, and that in turn attracts charlatans of course. You can get a feel for what level of education the general public has when even in a tech forum most people don't understand anything about the economics and mechanisms of all these projects.

...which makes you wonder: why the cryptographic overhead at all? Oh wait... Because places want to be banks, without adhering to the regulations thereof...

"Fractional reserve."

Obviously, as we've seen, algo stables are subject to their own engineered ponzinomics, but I don't think redemption is "the entire point", or even a cognizable concept.

Even if they could read the code and understand that there is a mechanism in place that allows designated humans to pause redemption, the code says nothing about when and how this mechanism should be used.

The user might reasonably expect such a mechanism would only be used in an emergency, like the network has been hacked, or there is a bug. They might expect that it would never be used for the financial advantage of the network operators simply because the coin has depegged and redemption is acting as expected.

They should probably stick to long lasting products like BTC, ETH, or XMR.

> The user might reasonably expect such a mechanism would only be used in an emergency

A de-peg event is an emergency if there's not enough real value to back it.

The USD was depegged from gold in the seventies for very similar reasons.

In both cases the printer got ahead of the backing.

Today we use a currency that survived a de-peg event due to military backing.

That's a fair criticism, but isn't it the status quo in the industry in general? Surely most people with stakes in the markets don't truly understand the regulations or the innate dynamics of them.

> One IRON token is always redeemable for $1 worth of collateral, which on IRON is a mixture of TITAN and the Circle and Coinbase-created stablecoin USDC.

[0] https://thedefiant.io/iron-finance-implodes-after-bank-run/

Algorithmic stablecoins don't work

Overcollateralized algo stables such as DAI are much more sustainable. They require substatially more of a user's unrelated capital (whitelisted assets not based on the stablecoin's issuing protocol such as eth or wbtc which also have relatively deep liquidity available on the market) to be locked up and held as collateral to mint the stablecoin. And that makes drawing down the supply much smoother when times get rough as folks with their capital locked up will repay their debt on their own or have the market do it for them in a liquidation of locked capital. This repayment is what burns the supply and keeps the stable from falling far below peg. In fact historically, DAI's problem was that it would go way over peg during drawdowns because damand for DAI to stave off or participate in liquidations would push the usd price of dai way up.

It is highly capital inefficient model, as it takes roughly at least $1.50 of the other asset to mint $1.00 worth of stablecoin, and users will usually go for a much higher ratio to prevent the liquidation threshold from kicking in. And this capital inefficiency really kneecaps growth since you can't mint anywhere near as much of the stablecoin, but it also means the protocol and thus the stablecoin is much more robust in downturns.

Now it still has real risks because the protocol still depends on lively and accurate oracles to watch and report the collateral values, and that liquidations execute properly when collateral values fall enough to trigger them. But those risks are much more manageable compared to the risks undercollateralized stablecoins present.

Everyone is thinking way too hard about this. There's no mathematical or economic way to create a parallel US currency that won't break in a credit crisis. It's called the Impossible Trinity [1] because it's empirically impossible to do the following all at once:

1. Setting a fixed currency exchange rate

2. Allowing capital to flow freely with no fixed currency exchange rate agreement

3. Autonomous monetary policy

If you do number 1 (set a fixed currency exchange rate, aka 1 DAI : 1 USD), you CANNOT allow for the free flow of capital in and out of your exchange regime. It will eventually break every. single. time. Even if you're a massive sovereign nation, you still can't defend a peg against the Trilemma [2]

Crypto investors should understand that they aren't up against ideology here or "haters", they are up against empirical mathematic principles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

[2] https://www.thebalance.com/black-wednesday-george-soros-bet-...

If you're a fan of crypto and still reading, here's a hint at the next financial innovation after pegged currencies that you can try to replicate in the cryptoverse: XDR [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_fixed_exch...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights

You present yourself as deeply knowledgeable about these topics, I’m surprised you missed it:

https://www.investopedia.com/terra-5209502

[+] Dai's monetary policy is not autonomous; new units can only be issued for sufficient collateral and must be destroyed when value falls too low, a constraint that would make a central bank not be regarded as autonomous.

The PSM takes your USDC and mints new DAI and gives it to you. When DAI is >$1 you can make an instant profit doing this. (take 1 USDC, trade it for 1 DAI that you can sell for $1.001.)

The PSM takes your DAI and gives you USDC (while stocks last.) When DAI is >$1 you can make an instant profit doing this. (buy 1 DAI trading at $0.999, and swap it for 1 USDC worth $1.)

Notice the issue? The PSM within DAI is contingent on having enough USDC (proxy for USD) to keep the peg. When that reserve runs out, the PSM mechanism breaks and the peg fails.

To suggest otherwise is financial alchemy.

The auction function doesn't work if USDC suddenly isn't worth 1 USD, because then you're facing down a reserve that isn't worth "more" than DAI, even though the algo still thinks it's in balance.

Basically you've tied DAI to USDC, which in turn is tied to Coinbase, which in the event of a bank run/bankruptcy event will freeze assets and cause massive capital flight causing people to sell their USDC for less than 1 USD as they flee for safety. This causes DAI to become unbalanced because their reserve of USDC isn't actually worth what it should be in USD terms, causing DAI to also lose the peg in terms of real US dollars.

I'm telling you, there isn't a way to make this stuff work. It's financial alchemy.

If USDC loses value, those vaults will be liquidated and the collateral will shift over to alternates - ie. eth. The scenario you are mentioning only plays out if USDC falls so much (and quickly enough that the auction bots don't respond) that it cancels out the overcollateralization from eth. given that dai is 166% collateralized, it wpuld have to drop a ton, which is difficult to imagine when it is credibly backed by real assets.

Exchanges respond by sealing themselves off to protect their $3000 ETH from the $6000 fake ETH trade prices, thus creating a massive freeze in the market, thus wrecking the redemption system that underpins DAI.

It's very, VERY important to realize that all of these things are interwoven. There's no such thing as "USDC collapsing" without it also taking all the crypto traded on Coinbase with it.

Explain to me how you arbitrage USDC falling out of Dai?

I really encourage you to read up more on this. There are real risks that come with Dai as a stablecoin (including eth or USDC collapsing very quickly) but they are not the risks that you are identifying.

I likewise encourage you to think about this from first principles and read up on the mechanics of a currency peg. You MUST be able to quickly sell T-bills on the market swiftly to defend your currency peg, otherwise you will see your currency break from the pegged range. DAI is shifting the reserves from directly holding USD or T-bills to holding USDC instead, which isn't the same thing as USD and WILL cause problems for DAI.

I wish this was a joke. How about you try to collect the $1m Millennium price with your proof of the Riemann hypothesis based on "empirical mathematic principles"? To be 100% clear about this: there's no such thing as empirical mathematical facts, there has never been and there will never be, not in this universe or any other. No matter how many (finitely many) roots of the zeta function you collect, they will never constitute a proof.

To your point: you do realize that stablecoins like Dai have given up monetary autonomy, right? The amount of Dai in circulation is governed by users/the market, not the protocol or a central bank. You seem to be acting in bad faith, because you deliberately only discuss two points, but according to this theory, a stable exchange rate and capital mobility are indeed compatible if you're willing to let the market dictate your monetary policy.

And what is an "empirical mathematical principle"?

is the incentive that "currently it trades below 1.0, so I buy it, then redeem it for 1.0" which should drive the price up, right?

where does the money come from to finance this arbitrage? is there a redemption pool that shrinks every time someone executes this cycle?

They’re illegal, but in reality the system is just broken

Source?

Imagine we're all back in early September 2008, and one of us were to post that Lehman Brothers was suffering unprecedented losses due to the subprime mortgage crisis.

Would you count that as organizing a bank run?

> in reality the system is just broken

Indeed. Yet another system which only reveals just how broken it is when you apply enough pressure.

Think of all the businesses you'd hamstring! All of the exec bonuses that wouldn't happen! Think of the traders, and speculators!

...I'll admit I do, and the ensuing chaos and having to come to terms and actually having to adjust the the economic vote of no confidence is a favorite pass time of mine.

With the amount of financial stimulus that governments have done in the last two years, in the event of a bank run there are possibly finance ministers who would simply print the required money and drop it from helicopters on the mobs waiting outside the banks.

4 years of jail

Is it along the lines of jurisdictions that have laws on the books to try to prevent rumor or malicious speech from causing runs on the banking system?

What if you're telling the truth when you say a bank (or some other financial institution or vehicle) is bankrupt and that investors should withdraw their money?

A bit like shouting fire in a crowded theatre, when the theatre actually is on fire... not a crime, more of a public duty.

Nothing to see here, move along

Doesn’t seem like this would be possible? When the peg fails, wouldn’t all the people holding the coin flood the redemption process, immediately draining it of all USD?

Or put it this way: those traders buying the coin for 80 cents and then redeeming it for a dollar…who are they buying it from and why wouldn’t they redeem it? They just left 20 cents on the table. I feel like I’m missing something.