Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
it's inevitable that crypto product frontends will price access in stables and allow users to pay in whatever asset they want. pricing access to a product in a volatile asset is too bad of a user AND builder experience for it to remain the norm. speculators buy access they'll never use, drive up prices and lock out potential real users. bad for builders (who need real usage), bad for users (who can't get in). "what's wrong with adjusting access requirements as price changes?" if you're dropping access from 10k $token to 1k $token while nothing about the product changed, you're already pricing in stables — you're just using $token as an unstable middleman, introducing volatility risk for users and extra work for yourself. defi enables any product frontend to show price to access at a stable $25, yet users can still pay in whatever they want (ETH, USDC, ANON, HIGHER, VEIL). the tech for this already exists today. zero friction for users. zero complexity for builders. zero volatility risk for everyone.
14 replies
35 recasts
205 reactions
EmpiricalLagrange
@eulerlagrange.eth
The only reason paying in a volatile asset is a thing is because most projects do airdrops to subsidize demand. By default this creates a lot of sell pressure. The trick around this is to get people to spend and burn those tokens, dec supply -> inc price. Imo it’s retarded, because you need to update burn rate with price, usually pegged to a dollar amount. —— If you charge in usdc, use that to buy/burn, it’s much better. But people would have to spend money
2 replies
5 recasts
46 reactions
Jack Lhasa
@jacklhasa
I wish I could agree with this, but in the 4 years I’ve been trading crypto, I’ve only received about half a dozen airdrops and they were mostly peanuts.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Kamil
@kamildebicki
yes
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
