All security tokens and stable coins running "on a blockchain" should really be ecash instead. You have to trust somebody anyway, and you get better privacy features with ecash.
Discussion
the more i learn about ecash the more i agree with this
Was thinking this the other day as well. Makes no sense to use a blockchain for stables.
Yup. ecash that can be redeemed via Lightning and settled with Bitcoin makes stablecoins and CBDCs completely unnecessary. nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg
The emergence of more solid ecash implementations and the following lowering of costs to adopt them will put a lot of pressure on custodians, which is great.
In a world were adopting ecash in your custodial service is easy, not doing so makes it evident that you want to know what your users are doing.
It will be great for consumers. We will be able to know who's willing to comply with KYC and who likes spying their users just by looking at whether they provide their service with ecash or not.
I've heard that take from Udi Wertheimer maybe 5 years ago on a podcast he had with nostr:npub1s6z7hmmx2vud66f3utxd70qem8cwtggx0jgc7gh8pqwz2k8cltuqrdwk4c.
I'm fairly sure I never did a podcast with Udi?
Oops, then my memory is broken. I thought it was you.
It was Lawrence Nahum, https://www.recklessreview.horse/
Yes but for regulatory arbitrage.
Realising the nature of smart contracts and learning the implications of upgradeable and non-upgradeable smart contracts, their tradeoffs and what smart contract ownership means was eye-opening.
One of the main reasons I turned Bitcoin-only from being an apologist for Ethereum.
e-cash + nostr is a more viable alternative for most 'dApps' and can even disrupt the cloud-computing industry.