This dominance of stablecoins over Bitcoins in its transactions feature may explain why – according Visa Onchain Analytics Dashboard and BitInfoCharts – since the passing of the Genius Act, monthly transactions using stablecoins have risen substantially while those using Bitcoin have decreased by more than 20 per cent.
Even more telling, estimates of the volume of illegal transactions using Bitcoin suggest that a majority (60 to 85 per cent) of such transactions may have migrated to stablecoins. As the acceptance of stablecoins continues to improve, this switch should only solidify. This will leave Bitcoin with only one use: speculation.
Interesting angle from a former central bank Deputy Guvnah. Unfortunately, he's right about people using on-chain (even if he's wrong in his starting premises.)
I wonder if the Govnah and Royal Bank Professor did their homework on the Lightning network.
If stable coins can do this better than Bitcoin, then, yes, they will kill it. I, however, am inclined to believe that stable coins will feel the jaundiced gaze of the state on this front, and will be compelled to curtail "illegal" transactions.
Bitcoin, on the other hand cannot curtail transactions, because no transactions are illegal.
I'll be honest I'm not sure about how the stable coin works, nor have I thought that much about whether the US or other powerful country could censor transactions. I suspect their opreating companies could fall out of favour just aas easily as they won it.
There are many ways to make a stable coin. All of them require some amount of centralization. Centralization = a throat to choke. If the US wants to shut down a stablecoin, they can.
Can't kill what is already dead!
What is dead may never die
Great framing. Loving the eulogies that crededentialed hacks like these keep coming out with. Majorly entertaining.