nostr:npub18m4nmc2wchzgcmzvnluqjzxyrpshp64mwje2vuz60kulny3v6c0qtgcl2x : We don't need that.

At least for the use case you mention here.

A little surprised by this position... but let us explain :

Not so long ago, you referred to #Bitcoin as the value layer of the internet, with satoshis being the transport units of value, similar to data packets for TCP over IP.

It was such a great comparison, you nailed it, we loved it, it inspired us!

If you still believe in this, and in the fact that "Bitcoin is the only viable neutral settlement asset and network that can usher in a new era of global real-time payments", then, you should have a look to what can be achieved using Discreet Log Contracts...

and thus fostering, strengthening the resilience and the adoption of the underlying technology and native asset.

For example, we've managed to implement the first synthetic dollar on Lightning (USDP) : users can use the network as a means of transferring value displayed in dollars, yen or whatever, while only holding satoshis and contracts under the hood.

No issuer, no token, no counterparty risk.

We believe in this approach over relying on tokens and token issuers that could quickly become great points of failure because : "Everything else is either too centralized, not secure enough, doesn't have the required regulatory clarity [...]" in your own words.

Put another way, bringing stablecoins on Lightning means introducing centralized trusted parties AND counterparty risks on it, and could be a significant waste of energy (people wishing to use stablecoins already do so with USDT via TRON, for example).

Not to mention the risks of market/technology/regulatory capture.

There are other ways to bring fiat on Lightning of course, just like POUCH are doing with regulated banks for the custody...

Let's use Bitcoin and Lightning for what they are!

#Bitcoin as highway, sats as vehicles, let's ride!

nostr:note1et9l9aq0yk0w72sxme8eghgmea76lyqfvfluh97psqaf9s8qym9smzzkue