News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by ryukoposting on Thursday May 26, 2022 @08:00PM (#31524713)
It feels to me like a logical conclusion would be to have a government manage such a stablecoin. But at that point, it's just normal money but less convenient.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by pjc50 on Friday May 27, 2022 @04:41AM (#31527382)
I've been annoying people lately by referring to Black Wednesday as "the collapse of the stablepound against the algorithmic stablecoin the ERM". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by thedstrat on Friday May 27, 2022 @12:11AM (#31525946)
Why do you think this would be best facilitated by a government as opposed to a large group of stakeholders?
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by turtledove on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:33AM (#31526305)
Because if it's that central to the economy, representing half of all outstanding dollars, it needs to be managed centrally or bad things are gonna happen?
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by nsonha on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:57AM (#31526429)
I mean who watch the watcher, we have democracy for the government right. Even that's an oversimplification, we have the 3 branches and check and balance so that everyone watches everyone else.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by logicchains on Friday May 27, 2022 @03:41AM (#31527021)
>Even that's an oversimplification, we have the 3 branches and check and balance so that everyone watches everyone else.

The Federal Reserve, which manages the current currency, was explicitly made independent of such checks and balances.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by tfehring on Friday May 27, 2022 @09:19AM (#31529266)
Because it’s easy to credibly promise someone their claim is worth X dollars when you (and you alone) control the creation of dollars.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by obilgic on Thursday May 26, 2022 @11:41PM (#31525812)
well normal money, but in a revolutionary form factor. metal coin usd -> paper usd -> crypto usd

Smaller jump then gold -> usd -> btc which actually means changing the global reserve currency.

If you think about it didn't the U.S. government did a similar thing by gold. USD was pegged to gold initially, then they changed it.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by jimmydorry on Thursday May 26, 2022 @11:47PM (#31525837)
I think you missed a step:

metal coin usd -> paper usd -> digital usd (closed, permissioned system) -> crypto usd (transparant, permissionless system)

The jump is a lot less between digital and crypto should be small.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by obilgic on Thursday May 26, 2022 @11:49PM (#31525847)
true, revolutionary (compared to even digital usd) as in It shouldn't require a third party (aka bank etc) for 2 individuals to transact.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by scq on Thursday May 26, 2022 @11:53PM (#31525867)
No bank involved, but for every transaction you burn down an unspecified amount of the Amazon rainforest. But hey, you win some, you lose some.
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by tsimionescu on Friday May 27, 2022 @03:13AM (#31526847)
You always need a 3rd party for two individuals to transact. It's banks for dollars, miners + the whole infrastructure for crypto.

In principle, miners or the infrastructure maintainers could be forced to never mine your transactions (well, transactions to/from particular wallet IDs), by the way. It would be of course harder, since your money is in a single bank, but all miners would have to agree to the ban for it to work.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by throwawaycities on Friday May 27, 2022 @12:04AM (#31525916)
>It feels to me like a logical conclusion would be to have a government manage such a stablecoin.

I think you give Governments far to much credit, they can’t even manage to peg the penny to 1cent or a nickel to 5cents.

In 2020 a penny cost 1.76cents and a nickel cost 7.42cents.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by mikeyouse on Friday May 27, 2022 @12:12AM (#31525951)
You’re confusing seniorage with value..
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by throwawaycities on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:24AM (#31526261)
Seniorage is the profit between cost of producing currency and the value of the currency.

Technically there is no seniorage when there is a loss, historically it was called an inflationary tax, meaning a loss in value to the existing money supply you hold.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by mikeyouse on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:32PM (#31532320)
I think you're mistaken -- seigniorage is the difference between the cost and the value, it doesn't need to be a profit. Negative seigniorage is still seigniorage and many such papers treat it as such, e.g.;

https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.2307/3552184

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by throwawaycities on Friday May 27, 2022 @08:50PM (#31536581)
>Negative seigniorage is still seigniorage and many such papers treat it as such

Notice how you qualify your statement as many such papers treat it as such.

Yes, you can find some people, articles that refer to a loss as seniorage, but that’s a misuse and inconsistent with the actual definition. That’s also why when they do use the term improperly they typically add “negative”, specifically because the definition of Seniorage refers specifically to revenue/profit from printing money.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by ackbar03 on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:07AM (#31526180)
I think Ambani (the Indian billionaire) actually made some of his money in early fays melting down coins, and did it at such a scale government officials had to investigate what was going on
Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by Koffiepoeder on Friday May 27, 2022 @07:58AM (#31528497)
Interesting side story: for centuries coins were intentionally made to have a ribbed side surface because otherwise people would sand/cut off the sides and sell the obtained metal.

Nowadays coins are usually not made of pure and/or very valuable metals, but the notches have stayed to help impaired people and automatic identification of coins.

Re:Two thought experiments to evaluate automated stablecoins by throwawaycities on Friday May 27, 2022 @01:36AM (#31526329)
In the US it’s not illegal to melt pennys, but it’s illegal to melt pennys to profit on the raw materials.