Regulated stablecoins are incentive aligned with tax payers. More demand for a country's debt = lower rates = less interest payments = less taxes. I think U.S. tax payers (i.e., voters) realize this first via GENIUS.

public chain finance

> It is a quest that is inherently incompatible with being permanently supportive of one Team, or permanently opposed to another Team. This ^ Most people cannot (or are unwilling to) think outside their tribal talking points. It's easier to just stick to the script.

> ETH goes hard

Evolution favors the simplest, most energy efficient system. So long as product teams account for identified risk, financial assets/transactions will use blockchain rails. Distribution of control is a risk. Single points of failure are both technical and non-technical.

You know, it's hard to take this kind of post seriously when your platform simultaneously lists a loooooong tail of memecoins. I think you need to decide which kind of blockchain company you want to be.

Canton is proof that tradfi is not above our token shenanigans.

Not many people understand this yet

Meanwhile USDS remains within distance of ATHs. Is this what they meant when they said we are entering a period of divergence?

Since learning about blockchain consensus in 2020, I never thought bitcoin was interesting *as a use case*. But, I was immediately interested in Ethereum, and remain interested. And 97% of the world has no idea what I just said (even when translated). 90% of the world may never

I spoke with some tradfi (trade-fi is how they pronounce it btw) folks tonight. Lovely people. They asked me four times about Canton, while I explained to them the product I'm building on Ethereum. They didn't understand bk at all really. But they know they should be using

I've met some of the Canton guys, and being super super opinionated about technical topics is their 'thing'. I think its a BD strategy (conscious or not). But you are debating blockchain ZK proofs with one of the teams working on this problem the longest. IMO this debate (right

I've met some of the Canton guys, and being super super opinionated about technical topics is their 'thing'. I think its a BD strategy (conscious or not). But you are debating blockchain ZK proofs with one of the teams working on this problem the longest. IMO this debate (right

You have to rethink everything you have learned about onchain 'liquidity' to understand how institutions want to come onchain.

"From my perspective, neither the institutional nor technical thinking made sense. It was just another attempt to centralize power and control. ... Creating a single, monopolistic, electronic payment system seemed ... [to be] an attempt to wrap the substance of the future in

This is the highest value offered by Ethereum's unique set of features--CR, resilience, open, programmable, verifiable... But, we should not outcast/ignore builders that are building institutional financial services/products on Ethereum because of these same features.

It is a business model to FUD Ethereum on this platform.

This is the kind of talking point that was necessary in the early days to maintain faith in blockchain being useful for the real world. But 15 years in, it is unreasonable. Nothing useful prices in BTC.

This is the benefit of bringing companies into the Ethereum ecosystem, and one of the primary reasons open source outcompetes. Those outraged by corporate adoption of EVM should reconsider. Python, Linux, tcp/IP wouldn't be what it is today without corporate contributions.