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
@m-j-r.eth
@valkenburgh is an expert on this. from an civil liberties POV, it's a nonstarter, and bank surveillance is already overreaching with mandatory surveillance of transfers in the triple digits. besides, it's been in development for a long time, and stablecoins are already in production and battle-tested through black swan events. relatively, it's more Luddite than innovative.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Shant Mesrobian
@shantmm
Agree with all except for the optimism
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@m-j-r.eth
what optimism? say more.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shant Mesrobian
@shantmm
I am less optimistic that a first mover advantage and longer development time will give stablecoins a leg up. It's more a political/monetary battle.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@m-j-r.eth
I was in an all-hands during the last black swan, and despite the challenge of managing adversarial pressures, I was confident at the time that DeFi would eat the volatility as always. whether or not the political/monetary climate is receptive, treasury-backed stablecoins are a straight win-win for USG as one of the top holders. even if that weren't the case, we have decentralized algostables as plan B (and were traded in that black swan). we're not twiddling our thumbs until a political crisis would necessitate CBDCs. it only makes sense for totalitarian ends.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction