[bb88]

>... but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by it's weakest and shadiest actor.

Tether is the weakest actor? What reality are you living in? It has 90% of all stable coin trading volume.

I think it's silly to make arguments which are falsified by a simple google query.

https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/

[everfree]

You're conflating popularity into my argument.

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.

[bb88]

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."

[everfree]

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.

[Retric]

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.

[everfree]

> If there where better stable coins then presumably most people would use them

That's not true. Tradable instruments generally accrue network effects based on snowballing liquidity and trading pairs as a result of being first to market, not because of the instrument's superiority to another similar instrument. You can see this effect in the traditional markets with SPY and VOO. VOO is an all-around superior product (much lower expense ratio, better company structure), yet SPY has 20 times higher volume due to its liquidity, especially options liquidity. Likewise, USDC is an all-around superior product to USDT, yet USDT volume is much higher due to its liquidity, especially across smaller trading pairs.

I also want to point out that when you choose to measure by volume, you over-represent the people who trade through Tether rather than actually holding it for any length of time because they believe it's a sound holding. When you are actively speculating on moonshots like so much of this hyped up market is right now, USDT is the best stablecoin for you due to its high volume and liquidity, but when you're looking for a trustworthy stablecoin to hold onto long term, there are other stablecoins for that that have less volume.

Finally, it's surprising to me that you're now basing your argument on the premise that most cryptobros are rational, because that seems to run counter to everything you're trying to argue in this thread.

[Retric]

SPY and VOO have a slightly different mix of stocks and VOO had a larger maximum drawdown at -19.58% vs -19.43%. It’s easy to argue that VOO is obviously better, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate.

More importantly even with the first mover advantage SPY is only twice the size of VOO rather than 10x the size of all competitors combined.

[bb88]

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?

[everfree]

If a particular stablecoin can be shady and still carry a large amount of volume, why does it logically follow from that that no stablecoin should ever be trusted? The logic behind your assertion of cause and effect doesn't make any sense.

That logic is like saying 90% of torrent activity is related to piracy, therefore nobody has ever used the bittorrent protocol for any legitimate purpose. There is no logic in a statement like that.

[Retric]

Trust in stablecoins can be broken by the actions of any one stablecoin.

Trusting a specific stable coin can be independent of all other stable coins.