Shant Mesrobian
@shantmm
Perhaps another stupid/newb question but: A CBDC basically demolishes the use case of stablecoins, right? I understand that current Trump policy has buoyed people's hopes of throwing CBDCs into the ash heap of history, but highly contentious and partisan-aligned policies are not very, uh, stable nowadays. I can easily see this seesawing between administrations. And in the event of a financial crisis? Forget about it. I think the opening for monetary innovation in that event would put CBDCs squarely back on the table.
10 replies
6 recasts
16 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
If it were to happen, yes. But: 1. If the STABLE Act passes, would require a repeal and replace. Which would be much harder. 2. If stablecoins continue to grow, they will be a big business for banks, so would expect a lot of lobbying against. 3. The analogy here would be trying to move email over to the Postal Service in the 1990s. Once it's out there as a protocol, very hard to unwind culturally.
3 replies
2 recasts
12 reactions
Shant Mesrobian
@shantmm
I'd like to share in your optimism. The Postal analogy only goes so far for me, given that the incentive for the U.S. government to move email into its domain has never been very strong. Even the Postal Service in its current form is perennially on the chopping block. It's nothing like a sovereign government's desire to control its own currency. And imagine if the government has an existential need to create a new currency...
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
christopher
@christopher
FedNow is pretty great and has gotten very little coverage. Solves everything a CBDC would solve for, except realtime transparency, but that’s not actually a concern member banks care about.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Koolkheart
@koolkheart.eth
The key point here is, entrenched protocols are politically durable. Especially once the private sector latches on. Banks making money off stablecoins is the most underrated moat
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
