[woeirua]

This kind of systemic risk did not exist in the crypto space in 2017. USDC didn't even exist yet, and USDT was a small player. The exchanges have always been the major risk factor for crypto (see: Mt. Gox and the other exchanges that have swallowed their customers crypto along the way), but it's not until the last few years that the fate of all the exchanges have been linked together. That's why this time is different.

[lupire]

Theft is bad, but it isn't an existential risk to the whole system. The value is still there, just moved.

Leverage is a different matter entirely, because "fractional reserve" style financing inflates the money supply. The monetary economy is like a juggling act. Increasing velocity makes it look more valuable, but when velocity slows down, the system becomes insolvent.

[thebean11]

Tether was not a small player in 2017, not sure if you remember but people were already sounding the alarm bells about it. Obviously it's bigger now, but so is the whole market.

Having USDC to compete with USDT puts things in a less risky position, not more. All evidence points to USDC being fully backed. The "bank run" scenario this article alludes to seems like a huge stretch.

[btilly]

You appear to not understand how banks work.

Yes, USDC is fully backed at the moment. Mostly by deposits in SBNY. However SBNY has most of its money lent out. Therefore the size of a run that USDC can survive is set by how much investments its banks, mostly SBNY has, which https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbny/financials/... says is somewhat over $9 billion.

There is over $50 billion of USDC outstanding. So trying to redeem about 1/5 of it will result in a run on SBNY that SBNY can't handle.

Our financial system knows what to do with that situation. It is outlined in https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html. SBNY gets shut down, a new bank buys them, and depositors with accounts over $250,000 see their bank accounts reduced TO $250,000. USDC, as the largest of those depositors, would then no longer be backed.

So in the event of a crypto panic, about 80% of the money backing USDC is likely to go poof. Not because USDC did anything wrong, but because that is how banks work. It is not for nothing that banking has been described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller".

[thebean11]

> Our financial system knows what to do with that situation. It is outlined in https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html. SBNY gets shut down, a new bank buys them, and depositors with accounts over $250,000 see their bank accounts reduced TO $250,000. USDC, as the largest of those depositors, would then no longer be backed.

That is..not how it works. Are you assuming all of SBNY's loans are worthless / bad debt? If SBNY folded the loans would get sold to pay back the creditors. They wouldn't get the full value obviously, but those loans don't just magically disappear. They'd certainly get more than the 20 cents on the dollar you are claiming..

Even your own link covers this..

> If for example, a depositor has only a single account with a balance of $255,000, he or she would be paid $250,000 through FDIC insurance and would receive a claim against the estate of the closed bank for the remaining $5,000 which is not insured. The depositor would be given a Receiver's Certificate as proof of this claim and would receive payments as the assets of the bank are liquidated.

Someone being so confidently and condescendingly wrong is peak hackernews.