[godelski]

I'm not a big fan of crypto but I've always wondered why the US wouldn't want to create a highly secure private coin that's pegged to the dollar. I mean you put a very small transaction fee on it (can be far less than Visa's 2%) and you're suddenly generating revenue from tons of global transactions, benefiting from the status of the dollar being the global currency. You even get to "tax" illegal transactions, and as a consumption "tax". It would only work if it was highly private (effectively like cash) as no one else wants to be handing all that data over but it still sounds like it would be a big win to many parties (well not the authoritarians? Maybe?). Everyone will be "banked", you get digital payments everywhere, and you even probably reinforce the reliance on the US dollar. Is the demand for control so much greater than the demand for money combined with providing a public good? I know there's still challenges to resolve but a guy can dream, right?

[throwaway473825]

You're describing a CBDC, not a coin. Why isn't it being done? Because commercial banks are vehemently against that. The current administration in particular will never go against the big banks.

[godelski]

If that's the word, then yes. Thanks, I'll update my terminology.

As for the government, I'm sorry, I thought I acknowledged that point. Though I also don't think we should just take it and give up.

[dakial1]

Because highly secure coin wouldn't allow the government to track money.

I firmly believe that the Federal Agencies do not fight bitcoin exactly because it is so easily tracked.

[godelski]

My bad, I thought I acknowledged that issue

[pjc50]

> Is the demand for control so much greater than the demand for money combined with providing a public good?

Yes. Also the current administration is hostile to public goods as a concept.

The politics around this is very weird. The US is basically regularizing "stablecoins" as electronic dollar-proxies while banning central bank digital currencies which the Fed has never planned to do. Basically to ensure all the profit and privacy risks stay in the private sector.

[XorNot]

Because nobody needs a cryptocurrency when you have a centralized trusted broker.

[godelski]

Another commenter pointed out that the correct term for what I'm suggesting is a CBDC, which, yes, uses a centralized trusted broker. Which I personally don't care if it is a centralized ledger or a distributed ledger, as long as it is actually private (a-la zcash ZKP or something similar)

[arccy]

So like Circle's USDC Circle Payments Network?

[godelski]

Is Circle private? Their whitepaper is very lacking in that department...