Banks make money from inefficiencies in payments. Stablecoins make payments more efficient. It's going to be fun watching them slowly, and painfully, discover the incongruence.

False. This is the opposite of what’s likely to happen. And I say this as someone who got in trouble at Citi talking about stablecoins as far back as 2018. (I was also on calls with Circle management where various bank MDs mocked the very idea of a tokenized dollar). Fraser is

Recycling the previous cycle's FUD is the ultimate sign of a lesser mind. At least have the creativity and audacity to come up with new FUD!

The most important thing to remember about fiat going on chain (via stables or tokenized deposits) is that unless the solution changes the current architecture of payments, it doesn't achieve anything. It's a step backwards. This is not some anti-bank ideology. It's a practical

It’s amazing to think that the discounted cash flows of Ethereum have doubled in like a week. But they must have, because markets move on math only. Things like narratives and sentiment don’t matter, as many said when ETH was down. BTW the DCF of XRP had spiked even more.

That ONDO is a scam is something almost universally known in crypto. But few dare speak up about it, particularly prominent VCs who otherwise hold themselves out as important thought leaders. Step up and be a real leader. This project is a liability for all.

Let's start differentiating where stables trade in the secondary market vs what they can be redeemed for in the primary. Temporary depegs that can be arbed are normal. But it's unclear what this means for tokenized deposits where the secondary market could trigger a run.

Didn't we agree that we wouldn't call USDE a stablecoin due to the additional risks of it's structure? Yet this company is called Stablecoin_x?? I know I know, hot topic and Circle's IPO mooned etc etc. But still - we shouldn't confuse TradFi even further. What say you

The Federal Reserve has been on the wrong side of every major economic event in my lifetime - as measured by their own predictions. Those who treat them as beyond reproach are likely biased (e.g., they work for a bank that got bailed out). Glad to see this

it’s perfectly right and reasonable to criticize the fed and its “independence” first, article 1, section 8 of the US constitution authorizes congress “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..” money printing is the people’s prerogative, delegated (abdicated?) to the Fed by

Of all the sins the Federal Reserve has committed over the years, the biggest (yet least discussed) is as an engine of inequality. And I don't mean wealth inequality, though they've contributed plenty to that too. I mean inequality of opportunity, particularly when it comes to

I love it when critics of stables (like the FT) try to call them dangerous...as compared to banks. As if Credit Suisse, literally an official "Global Systematically Important Bank" didn't blow up few years ago, requiring a massive bailout. Like, what planet do these people

So are the pump and dump chat groups, the sandwiching syndicates, and paid market manipulation KOLs. Guess which team will win?

Recommend a new industry standard: we stop referring to private networks (like Goldman's) as blockchains. These offer literally none of the benefits of an actual chain: no liveness or safety guarantees, no censorship resistance, no transparency. Whatever cryptography they use

While I fully believe in the benefits of crypto (now more than ever) I am increasingly wary and skeptical of the shenanigans of the crypto industry and am compiling a running list of behavior to be wary of. Here are a few: 1. The most likely motivation of a central player