Quote from: Abiky on June 11, 2025, 10:19:09 PM

Quote from: o48o on June 07, 2025, 10:15:58 PM

So when you are comparing this to CBDCs, i am assuming that you are talking about basically replacing banks with other companies like Tether? A company that didn't even bother to meet up current regulations in EU. You think they would be more transparent are responsible then banks that are actually following the transparency requirements? I am not sure who this idea would benefit.

And it's not just banks. You are talking about replacing SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications). At least CBDCs were planned for that. So you think they want slower tech to replace working tech and that's somehow now scalable to the whole US? Why would this be better?

I believe that it stablecoins can thrive without trying to replace the current system so why it would need to be replacement?

Not to mention that majority don't understand how anything crypto related works and get constantly scammed because they can hardly use existing tech (which is as easy as it can be). Forcing people to use complex new systems isn't beneficial.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Corporations replacing both retail and central banks, effectively taking control of the traditional monetary system. In no way, this will strip away governments' ability to freeze, track and trace account, or even change monetary policy. Corporations will simply establish a partnership with the government and work together for a "better future". While SWIFT is widely adopted by financial entities worldwide, it's certainly an obsolete system. Blockchain proves to be superior, even though it has its limitations (like fees rising all the way to the moon and confirmation times slowing down due to increased network activity).

There were rumors that the XRP Ledger was going to replace SWIFT in the future. XRP is centralized, fast, and cheap, making it the perfect contender against SWIFT. Not to mention, many banks have partnered with Ripple. The real deal would be getting people to use native digital currencies on a daily basis. Not everyone is tech-savvy. Especially the elderly. Governments need to educate the masses if they want people to use stablecoins. Between a CBDC and a centralized stablecoin, I can't imagine which would be worse. Let's what happens in the long run.

Why would US give all this trust and power to some 3rd party private company? They would basically give keys to break the financial system, or keep US as a hostage and making them vulnerable in time of crisis.

And banks partnering with Ripple doesn't mean anything. What are those partnerships exactly? Pilot programs? Institutions are constantly making all sorts of partnerships that are testing different systems. That doesn't mean they would lead to anything meaningful.

You are talking about blockchain proving to be superior, and SWIFT being obsolete, when it's clearly working 24/7, and you don't back up your claims with anything other then blockchain tech might be hard to scale (which is opposite of better). Blockchain is just a distributed ledger, and tech used to do it can vary a lot and it doesn't really make sense to call any of them superior, because they are not even comparable to existing tech. I can't see any way how that any of them are somehow "better" to adopt.

Only reason them being better is the argument of them being self-custodial, but that wouldn't even be the case with centralized blockchains when they comply with regulators and have control over your money. Major problem of current banking are the fees, but that's an artificial problem and could be cut by regulations if we wanted to do that.