[dane-pgp]

> I'm still not convinced that anyone is even working on these requirements

Aren't stablecoins supposed to fix the volatility issue? I don't know how well they work in practice (or how decentralised they are), but people are working on them (and at least some of them aren't scammers).

Even if the stablecoins themselves aren't easily spent with low fees, there are people working on decentralised exchanges and low fee blockchains (and "second layer" solutions), so I'm confident that it's not a lack of intention that is preventing this outcome from being achieved.

https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/stablecoins/

[version_five]

I've heard of stablecoins but aren't you at the mercy of a dodgey third party if you're using e.g. tether? I haven't followed it recently but I remember stuff about them trying to prove they had reserves, the whole thing seemed much less trustworthy than most sovereigns or banks (even if none of them are really trustworthy)

Re the second layer, I'll have to learn more, I previously thought it basically implied some kind of centralization. In any event, there is so much corruption and scamming obscured by technical jargon right now that I'd have a hard time feeling as comfortable as with fiat.

[dane-pgp]

I think you're probably right to a first approximation.

My (not fully researched) understanding is that there are stablecoins that aren't as dodgy as Tether, and there are scalable blockchains that don't rely on centralising second layers, but it's hard to know which, if any, of these projects have a decent future ahead of them.

Perhaps a few more years of these systems being battle-hardened by use in economically mismanaged countries, with some extra work on the UX/onboarding process, will help separate the viable technologies from the scams.