At this point, the US government had an incentive to issue dollars, even if they weren’t really backed by gold
At this point, providers have an incentive to issue stable coins, even if they aren’t really backed by dollars.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The bugaboo in this whole argument is liquidity.
At some point, stable coins must be converted to fiat in order to be used in real world finance. You can't pay rent or buy food with stable coins.
No one is going to do this conversion to fiat for free. It takes time, effort and money (the *real* kind) in order to make this happen. There will always a gatekeeper just waiting to be paid.
So the idea that there is 1:1 equivalence is not exactly true. It may make sense for some cross-border transactions when the rates being charged by fiat gatekeepers are high. But not in most other *ordinary* situations as a universal way to transact.
At this point, providers have an incentive to issue stable coins, even if they aren’t really backed by dollars.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The bugaboo in this whole argument is liquidity.
At some point, stable coins must be converted to fiat in order to be used in real world finance. You can't pay rent or buy food with stable coins.
No one is going to do this conversion to fiat for free. It takes time, effort and money (the *real* kind) in order to make this happen. There will always a gatekeeper just waiting to be paid.
So the idea that there is 1:1 equivalence is not exactly true. It may make sense for some cross-border transactions when the rates being charged by fiat gatekeepers are high. But not in most other *ordinary* situations as a universal way to transact.