[YossarianFrPrez]

I agree that the algorithms powering crypto are sophisticated pieces of technology. Just look at the zero-knowledge proofs.

The thing is that "not being regulated like a bank" is exactly what many people like / liked about it. (Yield farming, using DeFi for mortgages, etc.)

What I'm saying is that Crypto seems to be headed to being taught alongside, if not the Therac-25, then the Mars Climate Orbiter (which was lost to some people working in metric vs standard.)

[ISL]

If there were a clear and well-regulated equivalent of Tether, with obvious and transparent dollar-backing, I suspect it would find a lot of usage.

Might cost $1.15 to mint a new USD-coin redeemable for $1.00, but I suspect there would be an appetite.

Massive volatility and the occasional collapse of a crypto-bank are probably hindering the appetite of many people for anything in the crypto market. That population probably would dwarf any yield-farmers.

[atdrummond]

Right now stablecoins are a pretty profitable business because of interest rates.

An attestation report available 24/7 should be generated easily if you’re doing things properly, as well as frictionless burning and minting.

Note: I work for Glo, a non-profit stablecoin, so have a vested interest in this space. I do not and am not speaking on behalf of our group.

[everfree]

> If there were a clear and well-regulated equivalent of Tether, with obvious and transparent dollar-backing

There are several. I compiled a list of them a few months ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31381864

[jl2718]

A CEX is "like a bank" because it's a human that takes custody of assets, not because it does trades and loans. Smart Contracts, however, can't be regulated the same way that human custodians can, but they are also designed not to be able to do unexpected things.

[threeseed]

There have been plenty of examples of Smart Contracts doing unexpected things because all of the myriad of edge cases were not anticipated for.

It's one of the reasons the classic financial system works so well because it has the flexibility of manual fail-safes in cases where mistakes have been made. Smart Contracts will never really work unless it has the same.

[pksebben]

I don't really have a dog in either kennel, but something about the idea that a human absolutely must be in the control loop for a currency to work feels... not wrong, but maybe "not wrong so far".

We've managed to get computers to do some really batshit stuff. Drive cars, make art, algorithmically trade to a level of success a human could never dream of, etc. I don't know if a solution to the problem of managing the stability of a currency is around the corner, but I'm fairly sure somewhere in the future it exists.

And then, I can't help but think of how just about every disaster we've had in the financial system was a result of the humans with their hands on the economic knobs being knobs themselves. The solutions we provide when in crisis wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have such a strong tendency to drive ourselves off cliffs - not to mention that our current financial system has gotten so complicated I'm not sure there's anyone out there who truly, thoroughly, groks it without being reductive.