pull down to refresh

I'm no fan of David Frum, but this is yet another example of popularizing an attitude that says a transaction without kyc is a transaction that is criminal.
The real advantage of stablecoins is that they allow asset holders to enter the U.S.-dollar system (99 percent of all stablecoins are U.S. dollar–pegged) while eluding normal U.S.-government rules, such as the “Know your customer” laws that expose bank depositors to intrusive questions about who they are and how they got their money.
It would be laughable if we had to check with some government agency before speaking in public, telling them where we got our ideas and what we plan on saying. Money shouldn't be any different than this. That we have come to a point where there is no presumption of monetary innocence does not bode well.
Estimates of the global pool of dirty or covert assets are about $36 trillion, or 10 percent of total global wealth—an ocean of money in search of a passage to legitimacy. There is something perverse about a plan to boost demand for Treasury debt by making it easier for crooks to circumvent U.S. laws against terrorist financing and money laundering.
Again, it should not be the case that we assume all money is illegal unless it has allowed governments, particularly the US government to bag and tag it. When have governments ever shown that they deserve this sort of wide-reaching insight into our daily lives?
When Frum tries to bring up what he considers to be the other dangers of stablecoins, he wanders into the laughable:
In 2024, a Texas-based pharmaceutical CEO tried to move some stablecoins to another user, but made a single-digit transcribing error—and misdirected his entire holdings, worth about $1 million.
If a single digit transcribing error produces this kind of result, I don't believe anyone would use stablecoins.
archive link in the article is wrong. Here's a working one: https://archive.is/o6xZj
reply
You know where single digit transcribing errors have been a real problem for decades? Wire transfers between regular ass banks.
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 3h
I hate banks.
reply
I have two checks that I need to deal with. Both of which came from situations that should obviously be using bitcoin instead.
reply
123 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 3h
In 2024, a Texas-based pharmaceutical CEO tried to move some stablecoins to another user, but made a single-digit transcribing error—and misdirected his entire holdings, worth about $1 million.
I don't believe this. Since 2016 ETH has had error-correction checksums like Bitcoin. It would be statistically almost impossible to have a single-digit transcription error in either a BTC or ETH addresses and have it accepted by any major wallet....something tells me there is much more to the story.
reply
28 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 3h
There's a protos article on the matter, but it only skims the surface.
It definitely sounds like there is more going on here. I, too, thought most addresses had error correction in them.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 2h
It looks like the CEO is suing Circle....not sure why USDC would be to blame. If in fact his claim is true - a single transcription error of 8 -> B, then that would indicate that Coinbase's own wallet isn't enforcing EIP-55 (address checksums).
In that case, its reasonable to sue Coinbase as they're not providing reasonable level of protection to customers even though such technology is available and considered standard.
Who knows what the truth is.....
reply
Tether, based in El Salvador, recently announced that its U.S. Treasury holdings have reached $135 billion, making the company the 17th-largest holder of American debt globally, just behind Germany. Tether has faced a bank run once before. In May 2022, when the company’s assets amounted to about $80 billion, Tether saw demands for $10 billion in redemptions over two weeks. The panic was triggered by doubts that Tether was not in fact matching its obligations with safe and liquid holdings. It was also investing in digital assets and corporate bonds, which carry a higher risk for often-higher returns. Had the company tanked, the U.S. government could have shrugged off its failure. But as Tether’s deposits and assets continue to grow, a failure to repay U.S.-dollar deposits will be harder to ignore.
"Had the company tanked.." ... but it didn't. They were able to redeem about 1/8th of their market cap without crashing. How many traditional businesses could do so?
Given that the GENIUS Act doesn’t take effect until 2027, there’s time to contain the damage. This would mean treating stablecoin issuers as deposit takers, and requiring all U.S.-dollar stablecoin issuers that do business in the U.S. to pay insurance on their deposits. Stablecoin issuers should also be required to supplement their monthly disclosures with the same event-based disclosures required of banks. Stablecoin issuers that wish to do business in the United States should be domiciled and pay taxes here, as banks must, not in El Salvador or the Cayman Islands.
I don't see why this can't be arranged and stablecoins allowed. Issuers are already making money off of fees. Chainlink employees have already been meeting with US regulators, and they also have a proof-of-reserves architecture. I don't think these are impossible hurdles.
EDIT: As a side note, I like Frum's writing style. It's concise and clear. Even though I don't necessarily agree with him.
reply
Yes. It's not surprising that there is a FUD campaign against stablecoins. The traditional banking system has a very nice regulatory moat. They have no reason to let others come in and poach all their fat sheep.
reply
"illegal" money or "money laundering" has always struck me as contradiction in terms.
Either it's money or it's not.
reply
Double-check, triple-check... seriously, people are so damn dumb. Sovereignty comes with bigger responsibility, and some people just don't seem to want it!
reply