Tether is one of the weakest stablecoins in terms of regulatory compliance and general community trust.
In other words, most arguments I hear against stablecoins apply narrowly and specifically to Tether, yet people tend to use those valid arguments against Tether to straw-man the entire asset class. Popularity and volume have nothing to do with that.
I would say that if 90% of stable coin transactions are through tether then they have the general trust of the community. It's as plain as day, and you seek to dismiss it as a "side show" when it's really the main act.
Pro crypto arguments these days have come down to basically "You're not allowed to make that argument. It's early days. There are no good critics..." and now "you can't conflate my argument."
You said that you don't trust stablecoins because one particular stablecoin is untrustworthy. That's a classic strawman, plain and simple.
You took down the Tether strawman, while pretending that you took down the entire concept of stablecoins.
This conversation is going way off track from your original claim that you don't trust stablecoins. Your perception of the community's perception of Tether is neither here nor there.
It’s not a strawman argument to point out that at least 90% of stable coin transactions have major issues.
If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them, the simple fact that they aren’t is extremely damaging to any argument supporting the idea.
Again, you're saying I can't make an argument here. It should be as plain as day to everyone.
If a stable coin can be shady and still transact 90% of all stable coin market without any apparent consequences, then why should we trust any stable coin?
There are plenty of reputable stablecoins out there that prove their reserves either continuously on-chain or through regular financial audits.