What do you begin to wonder?
I'm open to correction but I don't think that Paypal has invested too much in crypto (as in pure investment in startups, etc). It has enabled/facilitated the purchase and use of crypto on its platform though.
What do you begin to wonder?New in this space, but when I see Paypal and the giant merchant banks investing strongly in crypto, I begin to wonder.
The Duke's claim that synthetic dollars can't be achieved stably within crypto sounds like an argument that's going to fall by the wayside eventually.In your case, given that you have no background in algorithmic stablecoin design, I also know that when you speak in absolutes and say in no way is this possible that you have no notion whether it is or it isn't.
Please, please! I have stated that a perfect algorithmic stablecoin is impossible. It means that the programmer could "print" digital US$ at will, just like the FED. It is impossible as a technological achievement as well as being impossible as a political reality.This approach is not that of an algorithmic stablecoin per se - it involves inverse perpetual swaps behind the scenes.
In your unqualified opinion. How on earth would you know? Do you have a background in algo stablecoin design? . Can you tell me the technical reason as to why it will fail?I have stated that a perfect algorithmic stablecoin is impossible.
It means that the programmer could "print" digital US$ at will, just like the FED. It is impossible as a technological achievement as well as being impossible as a political reality.
In terms of outcome, it's the same. The objective is to achieve a synthetic/digital dollar without having to touch the fiat system.This Galoy stable coin aims to convert bitcoin into U$ at the going rate. It may be a slick way of achieving that but is is not at all near the algo's fantasy of printing digital US$.
I don't have a background in alchemy either, but I don't see how that prevents me stating that there can be no commercial way to turn base metal into gold.In your unqualified opinion. How on earth would you know? Do you have a background in algo stablecoin design?
It will fail to be a perfect forever proxy to the US$. It is the aspiration of some of these algo merchants to be able to create the perfect digital US$. You have expressed an open mind on this ludicrous possibility. The concept of an algo is that by somehow kickstarting a demand for a UWMB digital entry, the supply can be subsequently managed to keep supply/demand balance at BTC/US$ = 1. It can be crudely approximated for a while but as that one (whose name I forget) proved, this cannot be guaranteed. Note that if demand falls the supply is reduced to try and maintain the parity. What that means is that existing holders get their holdings reduced so whilst the price of each unit may be maintained the overall value reduces in line with demand. What good is that?. Can you tell me the technical reason as to why it will fail?
For the same reason that magic wands that turn people into dust are not outlawed. Now you can be sure that if people could print immutable digital US$ there would certainly be a law against it. The fact there isn't a law either against it or maybe more realistically attempting to achieve this only proves how totally nonsensical it is.On the technical claim, see above. On the political reality, why are algorithmic stablecoins not outlawed right now if that's the case?
Oh that old trick! Complex mathematical solutions are the basis of bitcoin. Maths will back algo. Wise up, son.Algorithmic stablecoins are very different by design, yes (even if the ultimate objective is the same). What you're getting animated about is who gets to profit from seigniorage. Maths is all that backs an algo - so yes, the project potentially benefits from seigniorage.
A couple of things Duke. Your alchemy analogy is wayward and doesn't belong here in any way, shape or form.I don't have a background in alchemy either, but I don't see how that prevents me stating that there can be no commercial way to turn base metal into gold.
Ok. Explain to me your rationale for that statement given what I've set out above and in the previous post? Also, you talk about 'perfect' - and I wonder if there's some misunderstanding in your thinking here. UST/Terra wasn't perfect - and it failed. If a stablecoin simply achieves stability and can't be unhinged, then that's it - objective achieved. Is that what you mean by 'perfect'?It will fail to be a perfect forever proxy to the US$.
Again, I don't know what your thinking is in terms of the mention of the word 'perfect' in this context? I don't think perfect belongs here - but simply an algorithmic stablecoin that tracks the dollar and can't be de-pegged = objective achieved.It is the aspiration of some of these algo merchants to be able to create the perfect digital US$.
Explain to me how it is 'ludicrous' to be open to developers designing an algorithmic stablecoin such that it can't be de-pegged? You are saying that is 'ludicrous' yet you have no experience in stablecoin design - so how can you present that as an absolute???You have expressed an open mind on this ludicrous possibility.
You're confusing two different things. I provided an example of innovation from banking platform Galoy where they're using inverse perpetual swaps to represent underlying BTC as USD.The concept of an algo is that by somehow kickstarting a demand for a UWMB digital entry, the supply can be subsequently managed to keep supply/demand balance at BTC/US$ = 1.
So you want to use a model that is proven to not work as an illustration as to why someone coming along and improving on that won't work? How does that make sense? You can suggest that they won't be able to solve the problem - and I won't have any problem with that. However, you are maintaining that there is NO WAY (professed as an absolute) they will solve the problem - and with that, I aint going to accept that nonsense. You don't have any experience in algorithmic stablecoin design on which to make that big phat claim. You have no earthly idea. There's no doubt in my mind that you wish that they won't solve the problem - but that's as far as it goes.Note that if demand falls the supply is reduced to try and maintain the parity. What that means is that existing holders get their holdings reduced so whilst the price of each unit may be maintained the overall value reduces in line with demand. What good is that?
BS - again, you are going waaay beyond your paygrade by suggesting that a stable aglorithmic stablecoin can't be designed. You have no idea - although I don't doubt that you are willing it to not become reality.For the same reason that magic wands that turn people into dust are not outlawed.
Maybe you have not noticed but in the case of algorithmic stables, we're talking about self executing code. Are you going to put a piece of code in Mountjoy?Now you can be sure that if people could print immutable digital US$ there would certainly be a law against it.
lol I've news for you - it doesn't.The fact there isn't a law either against it or maybe more realistically attempting to achieve this only proves how totally nonsensical it is.
Oh that old trick! Complex mathematical solutions are the basis of bitcoin. Maths will back algo. Wise up, son.
You have totally misinterpreted, possibly deliberately, the alchemist qualification. I was referring to turning base metal into gold. I understand that it is theoretically possible by changing the former's nuclear arrangement. There is no way whatsoever of creating digital entries which are immutably US$ without some real US$ backing like perpetual swaps (you were fooled by that one weren't you?, talk about above your paygrade!). In the same way there is no way to perfectly digitally reproduce the Mona Lisa, though I understand some are trying.A couple of things Duke. You're alchemy analogy is wayward and doesn't belong here in any way, shape or form.
Other than that, you've been saying up until this point that there is no technical way to produce a stable algorithmic stablecoin.
NOW you're saying something different (and please, come back to us and tell us whether we've now settled that at the very least, you have NO way of determining with certainty that a stable algorithmic stablecoin can't be designed). Now you're saying that it can't be done in a "commercial way". Firstly, what does that even mean?
I've misinterpreted nothing. The alchemy analogy is completely ill-fitting in this instance - it's just yet another attempt to misdirect and tar and feather.You have totally misinterpreted, possibly deliberately, the alchemist qualification. I was referring to turning base metal into gold. I understand that it is theoretically possible by changing the former's nuclear arrangement.
There is no way whatsoever of creating digital entries which are immutably US$ without some real US$ backing like perpetual swaps (you were fooled by that one weren't you?, talk about above your paygrade!).
This is just misdirection. I'll say it again - you have NO background in algorithmic stablecoin design and development. Your claim that this design can't be improved upon to the point where the algo stablecoin is robust/stable regardless of market conditions is completely and utterly baseless.In the same way there is no way to perfectly digitally reproduce the Mona Lisa, though I understand some are trying.
I don't think you've given this much thought. Let's say a development team work over a number of years to improve algorithmic stablecoin design such that it's fully robust and let's say they get there. The code is self executing. Following robust testing, they remove any centralised control that may exist and let the protocol do its own thing. A government might find the development team has broken some law or other - but if the protocol is self executing at that point, any action that is taken against the Devs isn't going to stop that protocol. If it's truly decentralised, they won't be able to stop it if (when) the government puts a gun to their heads.As to making this illegal being akin to putting code in jail (is that what the Chinese are doing?). Are counterfeit dollars serving time in Sing Sing? Such arrant nonsense shows that you have completely lost the plot and it's time to get out of yet another rabbit hole.
Swapped into what? Users have no knowledgeWhen it comes to Galoy's Stablesats product, the underlying swaps do NOT implicate the 'backing' of USD either. They're settled in BTC. The product is BTC backed. Users have no knowledge of the underlying swaps and have no contact with fiat money in acquiring that synthetic USD.
Considering this nonsensical impossibility is like asking oneself what would the world be like if we could do that Trekkie thing and beam ourselves to wherever we want. So let us imagine, purely as a thought experiment, that code has been developed which can create digital "fully robust" US$ at will and let us further imagine that society is powerless to do anything about it. You know the Germans tried dropping counterfeit sterling over Scotland in WWII, but I think it was detectable unlike your putative fully robust algorithmic US$. A source of unassailable creation at will of fully robust digital US$ would actually totally undermine our civilisation. But hey, dream on!Let's say a development team work over a number of years to improve algorithmic stablecoin design such that it's fully robust and let's say they get there. The code is self executing. Following robust testing, they remove any centralised control that may exist and let the protocol do its own thing. A government might find the development team has broken some law or other - but if the protocol is self executing at that point, any action that is taken against the Devs isn't going to stop that protocol. If it's truly decentralised, they won't be able to stop it if (when) the government puts a gun to their heads.
Firstly, your suggestion that information is being held back from anyone is nonsense. You use this discussion board. Do you - as a user - need to or want to know every intimate detail about the coding that has gone into this XenForo-based platform? Most users don't.Swapped into what? Users have no knowledgeHeavens and the Crypto Gods forbid that the faithful should become aware that behind the scenes there are swaps going on into the infidel fiat. :mad:
Again, you are in no way qualified to make that absolute claim. If you were an expert in algorithmic stablecoin design and development, that would at least add some credibility if you were to claim the design of a robust algorithmic stablecoin isn't possible. Even then, it would be an opinion. But you have no knowledge on the subject and here you are persistently talking in absolutes.Considering this nonsensical impossibility is like asking oneself what would the world be like if we could do that Trekkie thing and beam ourselves to wherever we want.
So let us imagine, purely as a thought experiment, that code has been developed which can create digital immutable US$ at will and let us further imagine that society is powerless to do anything about it. You know the Germans tried dropping counterfeit sterling over Scotland in WWII. A source of unassailable creation at will of immutable digital US$ would actually totally undermine our civilisation.
But hey! Dream on!
It was you who made a virtue of the "user having no knowledge (of fiat's role in the inner workings)".Firstly, your suggestion that information is being held back from anyone is nonsense.
Indeed I did - and there was no reason to respond in the way that you did ( by suggesting that users are deliberately being kept in the dark as regards the mechanism that makes Galoy's synthetic dollars possible). Anyone is free to delve into that if they wish. However, there is no need for a user to know the intricate workings of derivative products, etc. in order to use those synthetic dollars.It was you who made a virtue of the "user having no knowledge (of fiat's role in the inner workings)".
And approaching the subject by declaring in absolute form - without ANY basis or qualification - that developers won't be able to achieve a robust stablecoin design is definitely not a good thing.@tecate
It was a thought experiment around your belief that fully robust digital US$ can be created out of nothing. It is good to see there are limits to your imagination - I am not one to believe that a fully untrammeled imagination is necessarily a good thing.
If a fully robust algorithmic stablecoin is developed, then I believe it will be used. I don't think either of us speculating on the market capitalization that product reaches is in any way essential to this discussion. But it's general availability and utility as an option to people in those circumstances is what's important.Would you like to tell us the frontier of your imagination. Is it 1 trillion fully robust US$ out of thin air?
You want to continue to use wayward analogies? Then I'll continue to respond in the same way. You have no notion whether algorithmic stablecoin design can or cannot be improved upon even though you continue to make baseless, unqualified absolute claims that it's a technical impossibility.Ah! So it is like you think the Trekkie thing is possible but only sparingly and over short distances.
What would be reasonable Duke is the suggestion that you think such a thing is unlikely. To state in absolute terms that it can't be accomplished isn't reasonable. To then take that a step further and start making continuous analogies with alchemy and the likes is completely unreasonable (and a deliberate attempt to lead people astray).@tecate I am completely ignorant on "beam me up" technology. Still I feel confident in stating that it won't happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?