For stablecoins, I think normal people dont think thar much about the shadiness but more if it works or not. Tether has been keeping their stablecoin stable for 6+ years, for normal users it looks good for quite wide variery of uses. Of course no one is saving their pension in USDT but there are lots of shorter term use cases.
Probably all wealthy countries are big destinations for dirty money. Wouldnt make sense to bring dirty money to poor country because there it would attract more attention.
> The fact that Coinbase did a DPO instead of some kind of fancy DeFi-based offering is telling in their potential lack of conviction in the ability to offer public securities at this stage in the game through some of these smart contract based platforms. I'm sure @barmstrong has spent a lot of time thinking of this, I certainly would be if I was him.
I think the reason is very simple. Traditional markets have way more investable capital, which leads to better liquidity and higher price. Yes it is possible to issue an equity token, but credible companies will get better valuation and liquidity from traditional equity markets.
The bitcoin blockchain is full of transactions, and lots are probably being made offchain on Lightning Network or on centralized services. Your claim is that all these transactions are for speculation only (which is quite common claim). On what data do you base your claim?
If tumblers are a problem, why wouldnt monero be? You could view it just as a BTC that has built-in tumbler. I dont really follow this logic of Monero shills. Exchanges can ban both tumblers AND monero.
Depends on the kind of transaction you are doing. For bigger transactions it is actually nice not having to pay percentual fee as with Bitcoin. However with coinbase I believe they are high percentually.
Binance has never been in Malta, in fact they are not located anywhere. I would be very cautious in dealing with them because to me that kind of approach to regulation doesnt sound healthy.
Basically, if you dont want to deal with the onchain transactions, you could sell the risk of that to someone else and only deal in internal offchain transactions. Dont know if this actually happens though.
Even in the ancient Silk Road you could sell contraband effectively using internal, offchain transactions only. The customers pay using offchain transactions using the market, and the vendor can cash out via some trader in the same market.
The boards try to maximize ownership value, and I think they genuinely believe thar if they give CEO the stock options that is also making the stock price to go up on average.