Stablecoins require placing trust in more than one third party. You have to believe what the issuer and the banks that hold the backing asset tell you, and you can’t verify any of that on your own.
Bitcoin only requires the ledger.
Great answer. But I know for many people, the convenience factor will win out every time. The work of verification and self-custody - not to mention maintaining lightning channels - is what makes many people I talk to in finance say that it’s more for hobbyists than the masses. I think many people like having a trusted intermediary do the work for them. That’s where I get stuck in these discussions…
And just telling them to HFSP isn’t exactly staying humble and stacking sats
No, that’s a cop-out. But ask them if they understand how the internet really works, and remind them that we used to use typewriters and mailboxes to send messages to each other.
They would say, “yeah but now I have Venmo and tap to pay. Super convenient and cheap.”
Wait ‘til they get on FedNow. 😬
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Technology is being developed that will hide all of the complexity of Lightning from most of the the people who use it and don’t want to be bothered with that. I’ve talked to some of the builders. Before long, we may be transacting instantly in fiat-denominated sats and not even have to think about it.
That’s great, but doesn’t that just introduce new trusted intermediaries? Or are their solutions somehow supporting self-custody?
I think there will probably be a range of solutions that can minimize the trust issue and push toward self-custody, but you’re absolutely right that you can’t make someone understand custodial risks. Most people who dismiss bitcoin do it because they don’t trust themselves.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed