I got half way through that. He's on the right track but so many things he is saying shows he's pretty confused, and his strawman argument style tying it together is just cringe.
He's mixing up ethereum-based stablecoins and bitcoin as though they all belong to the same blockchain, and he's mixing non-custodial and custodial wallets as though they are the same.
Key points I hope people learn (but won't from this guy):
- Bitcoin is out of (((their))) control now...there's too many nodes (who process queued transactions) spread around the world to stop it. It's decentralized and will remain that way. Non-custodial bitcoin wallet apps (as opposed to an account on some exchange server) do not confirm your gov't identity because the node program doesn't require it. If some idiot writes such an app, people will just choose to run one of the other dozen that doesn't do that.
- Ethereum is now majority in (((their))) control because most of the nodes are company-run in the USA and have proven to put US law above the free market. These nodes _could_ be coerced into only processing transactions that are gov't approved, and _could_ force wallet apps that use them to provide gov't identity used for that approval.
- USDT and USDC tokens are supposedly backed by real USD. USDT's reserves are questionable but the company is essentially outside USA. USCD's reserves are less questionable but that company is trying to be the darn best american financial company possible and is now in cahoots with BlackRock (helping to manage their reserves).
- USDT and USDC are accessible many ways: (1) open an account with the company, prove your gov't identity, start buying/selling, (2) trade some other crypto token for USDT / USDC on a blockchain that USDT / USDC supports... can even do this on de-fi exchanges without even opening an account with an exchange (as long as you already have some other crypto token to trade for it). Ethereum is one of those blockchains, but bitcoin is not.
- A CBDC will only be deployed to a blockchain like Ethereum (or maybe to Ethereum itself, who knows), as long as it remains centralized so that nodes are governed by the government.
So, if you purchase USDC you are at risk of losing control of it from two places: Circle can stop you from trading it for USD, and most Eth nodes can stop you from trading it with other Eth tokens. Other Eth-like blockchains are centralized the same way, and if those nodes are mostly in the USA then USDC has the same risks on those blockchains too.
USDT suffers the same risks for the same reasons.
But if you purchase BTC and move it to a non-custodial wallet (i.e. your own, not some account-based access to a company's wallet), then your access will remain the same w/ or w/o the existence of a CBDC.
I got half way through that. He's on the right track but so many things he is saying shows he's pretty confused, and his strawman argument style tying it together is just cringe.
He's mixing up ethereum-based stablecoins and bitcoin as though they all belong to the same blockchain, and he's mixing non-custodial and custodial wallets as though they are the same.
Key points I hope people learn (but won't from this guy):
- Bitcoin is out of (((their))) control now...there's too many nodes (who process queued transactions) spread around the world to stop it. It's decentralized and will remain that way. Non-custodial bitcoin wallet apps (as opposed to an account on some exchange server) do not confirm your gov't identity because the node program doesn't require it. If some idiot writes such an app, people will just choose to run one of the other dozen that doesn't do that.
- Ethereum is now majority in (((their))) control because most of the nodes are company-run in the USA and have proven to put US law above the free market. These nodes _could_ be coerced into only processing transactions that are gov't approved, and _could_ force wallet apps that use them to provide gov't identity used for that approval.
- USDT and USDC tokens are supposedly backed by real USD. USDT's reserves are questionable but the company is essentially outside USA. USCD's reserves are less questionable but that company is trying to be the darn best american financial company possible and is now in cahoots with BlackRock (helping to manage their reserves).
- USDT and USDC are accessible many ways: (1) open an account with the company, prove your gov't identity, start buying/selling, (2) trade some other crypto token for USDT / USDC on a blockchain that USDT / USDC supports... can even do this on de-fi exchanges without even opening an account with an exchange (as long as you already have some other crypto token to trade for it). Ethereum is one of those blockchains, but **bitcoin is not**.
- A CBDC will only be deployed to a blockchain like Ethereum (or maybe to Ethereum itself, who knows), as long as it remains centralized so that nodes are governed by the government.
So, if you purchase USDC you are at risk of losing control of it from two places: Circle can stop you from trading it for USD, and most Eth nodes can stop you from trading it with other Eth tokens. Other Eth-like blockchains are centralized the same way, and if those nodes are mostly in the USA then USDC has the same risks on those blockchains too.
USDT suffers the same risks for the same reasons.
But if you purchase BTC and move it to a non-custodial wallet (i.e. your own, not some account-based access to a company's wallet), then your access will remain the same w/ or w/o the existence of a CBDC.
(post is archived)