| HN Mirror

Why would I care if a stablecoin blows up? My payment cost allocation more than compensates for that possibility and my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.

> my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.

Please elaborate :)

My theoretical potential losses compared to the costs of the payment processsors I ditched, and the chargebacks we used to deal with.

International payment processing is quite expensive, both on a teansaction and on an administrative basis.

My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing overhead, without counting fraudulent chargebacks and “we are going to freeze your account because we can” risks.

FWIW in the last 60 years I have lost way more money to fraud and theft dealing with banks and cash then I ever will using cryptocurrency. On a total, or a percentage basis. I see the risk profile, when properly managed, to be much, much lower using blockchain solutions.

> My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing

Okay, yes: what you're describing is the actual utility of these things.

I think you underestimate how many people dealing in them are using them much less intelligently than you are.

They are being marketed in an extremely dishonest way, as a safe long term store of value. I regularly overhear normal people at my local bars talking about how they're "investing big in stablecoins" and it terrifies me.

>>This "government issued fiat currency" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up.

What you are saying is a risk endemic to all fiat currencies, including stablecoins.

All symbolically represented forms of value quantization are subject to a failure of confidence. Cryptocurrencies are nothing new in this regard. All money is memetic in nature.

That's like saying "base jumping isn't really more dangerous than flying commercial, after all we're all going to die anyway".

Fiat currencies have militaries. Your stablecoin doesn't.

That’s one of the reason the stablecoins won’t be taking my assets? Idk what your point is but it doesn’t seem like you are debating from a point of rational examination.

Weird, people on the internet spewing BS? Who’d have thought?

Well, losing three months of revenue is going to really hurt when the stablecoin inevitably eats shit: hope you're prepared for that.

The risk is obviously lower because you aren't parking money there. I could certainly see how you might come out ahead in fees for certain international transactions.

But your original claim was that the aggregate risk-cost of dealing in stablecoins is lower than real currencies, and that is absolutely preposterous: you aren't accounting for all the risks.