The existence of stablecoins does not prevent consumers from using any other traditional payment, savings or credit offerings
The #STABLEAct is a confused attempt at regulating perceived harms that are not actually caused by the technology, but are, ironically, inherent in the existing financial system that cryptocurrencies are designed to replace
👇🏽
The existence of stablecoins does not prevent consumers from using any other traditional payment, savings or credit offerings
This happens when banks make arbitrary and opaque risk decisions that are in turn based on cumbersome regulations which deputize banks to do the government’s job
1. Stablecoin issuers could take advantage of low income consumers
2. Stablecoins are an ‘outsourced issuance’ of US dollars
3. Stablecoins pose market, liquidity, and credit risk
But all of these concerns are misplaced👇🏽
https://t.co/g997ym8zCV
This is the opposite of stablecoins like USDC, which are fully collateralized and don't charge interest or fees
This objective does not justify regulating the issuance or transactional use of stablecoins
They are, at most, the issuance of a promise to redeem 1 stablecoin for 1 US Dollar, the same way as a check or money order
This issuance is already regulated under state money transmission laws
Perhaps they refer to the risk that stablecoins could become 'too big to fail' or somehow cause a 2008 style financial crisis, which of course is absurd...
And again, there are existing laws (state money transmission) which require issuers of stablecoins to have fully collateralized reserves with a 1:1 backing.
