Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/brypto
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
I think this is why stablecoins are actually a disruptive rather than sustaining technology (h/t @alok) I question the assumption that incumbents will be able to add stable rails quickly and gain the efficiencies without bearing the UX cost of crypto The infra is still not “locked in”, which penalizes incumbents more
2 replies
1 recast
20 reactions
Alok Vasudev
@alok
The fundamental startup premise: can the incumbent figure out tech before the startup figures out distribution So, with stablecoins, how might the latter play out in your view?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
Crypto's cultural unsavoriness acts as a moat Stables are still too coupled with crypto and incumbents cannot leverage existing distribution bc of brand risk / backlash from userbase -- the juice ain't worth the squeeze Startups on the other hand can use FC and other crypto-native distribution channels (ie. downmarket) to grow by targeting already polarized users Polymarket is a good counterexample, but even there, Kalshi positions effectively as the safe or "regulated" alternative on existing rails
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
Related — I know Bsky is pretty anti crypto but the mental dynamics here to avoid using stables is fascinating: https://bsky.app/profile/cameron.pfiffer.org/post/3lm6rfigkhc2m What do you think?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Alok Vasudev
@alok
To answer your question - like, I get it I just see a lot of indefinite optimism and not a lot of concrete visions for what's the right product/biz to build
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
Definitely. I think that's commensurate with an extended infra phase ("think of all the possibilities!") Also doing my part to be more definite :)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction