It's a multi-billion dollar industry, thus most of the pro-stablecoin opinions you'll read were paid for in one way or another.

Obviously decentralized technologies don't make stablecoins any less centralized, they are still just some companies liabilities and may as well be SQL entries. It's all theater and manufactured hype (see above)...

However, it's become a multi-billion dollar industry because they've proven useful at one thing: scamming the regulator.

Stablecoin companies have made a fortune by simply juking around borders and regulation through technobabble and bullshit, but in many cases also providing better service to their customers than a regulated bank can.

Is it innovation? No.

It is however free-banking, which would once be considered good from a purely Libertarian perspective.

In a world where Bitcoin exists though, free-banking is redundant... obsolete even. So, stables are "bad" because they are a reminder of how far we have yet to go in upgrading people minds and behaviors to a Bitcoin standard.

Stablecoin users are like AOL users of the early internet.

Not advocating for it, but I guess the biggest use case for stablecoins is they give access to dollar stability while not having direct access to actual dollars... like in sanctioned countries or in highly inflationary countries where buying dollars is hard.

But I'm good with this remaining on other chains...

I think because stablecoins have to be fully backed, so its a big buyer of treasuries, while banks are just extending credit most of the time, so not really driving much demand for the base level debt, that's one reason for it

I can't speak for why people in the US would use stablecoins other than to trade in and out of tokens, but for a lot of other countries, USD of any kind is better than their local currency especially when doing cross border payments, and because these people feel that they can't "risk" the little they have on Bitcoin, they prefer the relative stablity of USD

You can see it in how fee sensitive they are and why USDT is so popular on chains like TRON or POLY so the theory is if you can give them something cheaper that is USD with LN, they might switch to the Bitcoin/LN ecosystem instead bringing along that activity and capital which will juice the LN networks numbers and hopefully convert these people to a sat standard in the future

Personally I think its more risk than benefit, as moving USD could be seen as money transmittors and stir up a shit load of drama, it also opens up LN to scams like fake tokens or shitcoins that people could fall for

I think they just see the stable coin market and want to tap into that. I hear that trading volume on stablecoins is usually higher than Bitcoin. There is a huge demand for stablecoins, unfortunately because they haven't done much research as to what bitcoin is.

I don't think we need it on bitcoin, but like with other ordinals/inscriptions you can't really stop them. I also think the LN network needs to work a lot better for this to get any traction.

I don't think it's a good thing, having the possibility of creating tokens on the lightning network would become like ethereum full of meme coins and tokens that only bring speculation, having usdt would not bring anything good, however having a stable coin backed by bitcoin like DOC would be a good thing, we would return to the times when the dollar was backed by gold and that would be the best.

I think that too cause Unstable coin is not great for lighting they are good for chain tho Liting transaction is fast and easy it must need to stable for new crypto user

Because some people cannot let go the fiat mindset... Remember this meme Any stablecoin is just a disguised cbdc