Quote from: o48o on August 30, 2025, 06:33:52 PM

Quote from: Hispo on August 30, 2025, 01:20:19 PM

I don't really understand why they would do such a thing, unless there are regulators behind all this choice for these stablecoins.

It could be a plan to force people who desire to continue to use their stablecoins to move to more centralized protocols, for the sake of keeping control over users and exchanges.
Anyways, as it stands, one can only hope most of users won't fall for this and stay with stablecoins being offered in Ethereum and Tron.

In the end, the direction of Blockchain as a liberating technology depends almost exclusively on all of us...
This is very bad news... Everyone using those two stablecoins should know about this.

Their own centralzed network is probably easier to control in cases of tracking, identification and freezing unwanted wallets. I mean they are already doing it, but having more control over it wouldn't be bad from their perspective.

To rest of us it just makes USDT and USDC even more of centralized corporate coins. Even if they are more accepted all around because of better regulatory compliance.

That is why I liked stablecoins which were fairly decentralized as the original concept of Dai by Makerdao was. It was over-colateralized by Ethereum and people were free to engage with the smart-contract and issue as much stablecoins as they desired, as long as they had enough Ether to give as collateral, there were no centralized power and the smart contract was open source, for anyone to see and verify, it was a step in the right direction, but people preferred to rely on centralized Fiat backed coins instead, now we could be about to see the consequences of it...
Obviously exchanges and hot wallets will asked by regulators to comply and switch all the capital of their depositors to those centralized networks, without asking the owners of the tokens.