On P2P payments from their FAQ: “While the payment appears to be directly between wallets, technically the operation is intermediated by the payment service provider which will typically be legally required to identify the recipient of the funds before allowing the transaction to complete.

How about, no? How about me paying €50 to a guy for fixing my bike doesn’t need to be intermediated and KYCed? How about it’s none of the government’s business how I split the bill at dinner with friends? This level of surveillance is madness, especially coming from an app that touts “privacy” as a feature.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just smoke and mirrors. If there was a “bank run” on a stable coin all of them would immediately collapse as there is nothing of real value backing them.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anything of value is capable of losing its value under some circumstances, since value is assigned by humans. Obviously you pick and choose based on your use cases.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a cop-out to avoid discussing that none of the stable coins have anywhere close to the assets they claim to have and which would be necessary to peg the value.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can examine the MakerDAO contract, for example, and see all of the assets they claim to have sitting right there under its control on the blockchain. You can see the contract logic behind how those assets enter and exit its control.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you can’t see how the snake bites its own tail here I can’t really help you, but on-chain “assets” do nothing for a stable coin that needs to be secured by off-chain assets.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              So basically you only “believe in” off-chain assets? That’s fine, but it kind of removes you from any discussion of the details of blockchains. You’ve rejected their entire premise so why bother?

              • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I am rejecting the notion of stable coins, which are by their own definition literal scams. But I am strongly suspecting that you are directly involved in such scams as you continue to muddle it with entirely unrelated issues just so to make it sound like this is a general problem and not a stable coin specific one.

                • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I am rejecting the notion of stable coins, which are by their own definition literal scams.

                  By what definition is that?

                  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That they can peg them to a currency like the USD. Unless you are the United States of America, that is literally impossible. But even if you discard that technical impossibility, none have even close to the assets required to even approximate a peg, so it is a scam both theoretically and practically.