Quote from: bbc.reporter on Today at 12:51:17 AM

I am not quite certain what you are arguing about if a peg to fiat for you is a problem for a stablecoin.

Oh don't worry about it; it's off-topic anyway. You're correct; these coins are 'stable' compared to the dollar and Bitcoin is 'cheap' now compared to November - but this all assumes we value BTC against the US dollar.
It's obvious the dollar itself isn't stable in terms of purchasing power; and if we're calling something stable because it follows the value of something else, even though that loses value, we might just as well call BTC 'stable' when it loses (or gains) real value.

Or, to make it more analogous to Tether; maybe easier to understand, let's assume we create a BTCT (Bitcoin-tethered stablecoin that always has the value of 1BTC).

\|	Tether	\|	BTCT	\|
\|	Loses value when USD loses value	\|	Loses value when BTC loses value	\|
\|	Gains value when USD gains value	\|	Gains value when BTC gains value	\|
\|	Is only stable in reference to the USD	\|	Is only stable in reference to BTC	\|
\|	Is always worth 1USD	\|	Is always worth 1BTC	\|
\|	Is even called stable if 1USD lost 99% of its value	\|	Is even called stable if 1BTC loses 99% of its value	\|

So it seems very comparable; this BTCT should be called a stable coin right?

Quote from: bbc.reporter on Today at 12:51:17 AM

I am only talking about the concept of a stablecoin as a pemissionless, borderless and cheap internet currency we can use in crypto sportsbooks or in marketplaces similar to Opensea.

If you need permissionless, borderless and cheap you should try Bitcoin (on Lightning for small amounts where a few cents in tx fee is not considered cheap).
As far as I know, Tether is not decentralized, so it's not permissionless; at least not nearly as permissionless and borderless as Bitcoin.