[rvz]

> Moving forward I'm staying away from projects with a "stable coin" component as I don't think the fundamentals work.

Not all stable-coins are the same. Out of all of them USDC seems to be the strongest out of the rest of them and is more likely to survive in the long term out of the others.

That does not mean you should put your whole savings into it. It is still very early for stable-coins. I would rather wait for regulatory clarity to define a set of rules that will wipe all the meme-coins, tokens, copy-paste projects and any crypto project that doesn't fit the incoming regulatory framework for crypto and only then will stable-coins like USDC will improve.

Regulations for crypto is inevitable and is only going to make some coins that are compliant stay for much longer and separate the non-compliant ones into obscurity or non-existence.

[icu]

I kind of agree, but at the risk of being completely wrong, I think in the future central banks, or global financial institutions backed by central banks, are probably going to be the issuers of stable coins.

[GTP]

...And then we're back to fiat currency again.

[rvz]

Yes. No single cryptocurrency replacing and taking over the entire financial system or a complete destruction of all cryptocurrencies.

Instead having both a co-existence of stablecoins like USDC on multiple blockchain technologies and CBDCs operating on the same form of blockchain and DLT.

Only the blockchains that fit those requirements of ISO 20020 will indeed continue to survive. A disappointing and upsetting result for both the absolutist crypto-maximalists and the absolutist anti-crypto crowd.