Agree with your assessment. I do believe $PYUSD will have a net positive effect, primarily as an enabler of liquidity into crypto. However, the innovation is definitely not there (even though expected as they obviously want to be in the good side of regulators and centralized players).
The stable coin terminology “call to action” is a much needed one. The challenge I see is that only sophisticated players care about the technical variations, and it is unrealistic to think that the average user ever will (they will instead always gravitate towards the USD representation with the most access/use/adoption).
Agree, but as operators we need to do our best to discriminate - it is in the interest of any good operator to provide the minimum shade possible for bad ones to hide in.
Luca and Bernardo - It sounds like you both believe there is value to be drawn from the "two-tier" system into crypto - If so, should we encourage more TradFi issued stablecoins as a way to access that value? And, since $PYUSD is insufficient, could you give some suggestions for what would make a stablecoin designed & issued by a FinTech sufficiently innovative?
Have you read the terms and conditions of PYUSD? They are very weak legal rights - maybe even for retail products. This agreement sheds almost all legal liability, including:
You must agree not to litigate - instead use binding NY arbitration which is very pro-issuer.
You cannot get more than 3X you monthly fees paid to PYUSD as potential damages.
Thanks for this, Luca.
Agree with your assessment. I do believe $PYUSD will have a net positive effect, primarily as an enabler of liquidity into crypto. However, the innovation is definitely not there (even though expected as they obviously want to be in the good side of regulators and centralized players).
The stable coin terminology “call to action” is a much needed one. The challenge I see is that only sophisticated players care about the technical variations, and it is unrealistic to think that the average user ever will (they will instead always gravitate towards the USD representation with the most access/use/adoption).
Agree, but as operators we need to do our best to discriminate - it is in the interest of any good operator to provide the minimum shade possible for bad ones to hide in.
Luca and Bernardo - It sounds like you both believe there is value to be drawn from the "two-tier" system into crypto - If so, should we encourage more TradFi issued stablecoins as a way to access that value? And, since $PYUSD is insufficient, could you give some suggestions for what would make a stablecoin designed & issued by a FinTech sufficiently innovative?
And thanks for the Holmstrom paper reference. It is a great paper.
Luca, this is interesting - I just saw it.
Have you read the terms and conditions of PYUSD? They are very weak legal rights - maybe even for retail products. This agreement sheds almost all legal liability, including:
You must agree not to litigate - instead use binding NY arbitration which is very pro-issuer.
You cannot get more than 3X you monthly fees paid to PYUSD as potential damages.
https://paxos.com/general-terms-and-conditions/
Basically PYUSD offers token holders almost no legal rights. Not exactly great innovation for token holders?