[bb88]

> To reframe this question, what would suffice to elevate Glo to the same level of trustworthiness as GiveDirectly, assuming we were structured similarly?

Why another shitty stablecoin? Stable coins have been anything but recently.

Why does this have to be on blockchain?

What happens to my money when you fold?

What happens to my money if there's a backdoor in your coin?

Where's the fund manager?

When there's a run on your coin are you going to buoy it up by selling your treasury holdings?

What happens on a weekend or a holiday when a run is happening on the coin and the treasury and the markets are closed? It can't all be in TBills, some of it has to be in USD. What's the breakdown? Where is it published?

What's to say tomorrow you won't rug pull and leave the country in a yacht? Or the leader who takes after you?

Where's your true heart at? Is it for the poor? Or are you going to transition from a non-profit to a for-profit organization, once you get a good amount of money in your coffers?

And then I see this:

    To end extreme poverty, Glo would need to replace 7% of all the money in the 
    world.  While ambitious, this is not impossible:

    We'd be at 100% of our goal if 87% of US savings deposits ($10.6 trillion) were converted to Glo
    We'd be at 63% of our goal if all cash held by US companies ($5.8 trillion) were converted to Glo

Look you guys are clearly smart, but you've drunk the kool-aid.

[jeffmgic]

Stablecoins offer a lot of utility already. Glo will be fully-backed by reserve assets to maintain stability. This is much different than stablecoins you might consider not so trustworthy.

Blockchain allows a new form of money to be created and used in a very efficient manner. There is no need to build out new financial infrastructure or payment network to use this new form of money. Blockchains have proven to be trusted forms of ledgers.

If we were to cease operations, we'd ensure that every Glo stablecoin outstanding is still redeemable for $1.

We are taking extreme care in our development to prevent any potential vulnerabilities in the stablecoin itself and the processes we incorporate as an organization.

We have expertise around managing funds and are also looking to add talent in that domain.

Treasuries will be liquidated to make sure redemption demand is met. We have no profit incentive to take any liquidity risk with reserve assets. The breakdown between USD and treasuries will be real-time transparent. At smaller market caps, we'll have to lean towards greater liquidity. At larger market cap, we'll conservatively estimate a trustworthy composition of assets.

Global Income Coin will exist solely for the benefit the mission.

[bb88]

> Blockchain allows a new form of money to be created and used in a very efficient manner.

See, here's the thing. If you cared enough about this project, you'd do this without the blockchain.

You bring this blockchain thing, and I feel like your mission is "Blockchain or bust". But you can always pivot to the blockchain later. As blockchain proponents have said, "It's early days." Why would you risk your mission on an untrustworthy technology? Boring tech is much much better for building on your mission. From SV to Des Moines, there's a reason people write their software in Java to this day, e.g.

You can use a BTC address for payments and payouts, as well as say traditional mechanisms (many of which are wrapped by Plaid). Essentially you become something like "Wealthfront".

Also, there's a lot of poverty in the US, such as in SV/SF itself. I would focus on that. Blockchain is sexy, but the homeless situation is not. It's a much harder problem. And your mission just assumes someone else will fix it and worse just assumes it's fixable in the first place.

But I still hear about people biking in SF talking about PPMs (poops per mile). Meanwhile NIMBY's are fighting new housing projects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not fixable, but simply relying on others to fix your core mission will end in tears.