<story><title>Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks</title><url>https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/08/07/why-regulators-should-treat-stablecoins-like-banks</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mdorazio</author><text>Devil&amp;#x27;s advocate: 2008 was bad because of regulatory failures (specifically deregulation).  Lack of transparency was only part of the problem.  So if you want to avoid 2008 in cryptocurrency, the answer would be more regulation, not less.</text></item><item><author>Zamicol</author><text>Firstly, Tether is rat poison.  Unfortunately, newcomers to the space identify &amp;quot;stable coins&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;tether&amp;quot; or wrongly assume that other stablecoins share similar mechanisms.  There are many alternatives that operate radically differently in the nascent space.&lt;p&gt;DAI is immensely exciting. Stablecoins like DAI are interesting experiments that could powerfully create new online economies.&lt;p&gt;Blockchains like Ethereum are currently far more transparent than the state-sponsor US monetary system.  I hope to live in a society where economic experiments can be executed, new lessons learned, and transparency maintained.  If stablecoins are persecuted, the need for cryptographic zero-knowledge proofs will allow these systems to continue with far less transparency.&lt;p&gt;As a different matter, how can society say &amp;quot;2008 bad&amp;quot;, which resulted in little economic progress, and then threaten problem solvers from making new solutions?  Innovation is a hedge against regulator lethargy.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mbesto</author><text>&amp;gt; So if you want to avoid 2008 in cryptocurrency, the answer would be more regulation, not less.&lt;p&gt;To expand on this point. Deregulation with a federal reserve fallback is especially dangerous because it&amp;#x27;s essentially fake deregulation. When you know that you&amp;#x27;re too big to fail and the government is going to bail you then your risk to allocate capital effectively becomes zero.</text></comment>
<story><title>Regulators should treat stablecoins like banks</title><url>https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/08/07/why-regulators-should-treat-stablecoins-like-banks</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mdorazio</author><text>Devil&amp;#x27;s advocate: 2008 was bad because of regulatory failures (specifically deregulation).  Lack of transparency was only part of the problem.  So if you want to avoid 2008 in cryptocurrency, the answer would be more regulation, not less.</text></item><item><author>Zamicol</author><text>Firstly, Tether is rat poison.  Unfortunately, newcomers to the space identify &amp;quot;stable coins&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;tether&amp;quot; or wrongly assume that other stablecoins share similar mechanisms.  There are many alternatives that operate radically differently in the nascent space.&lt;p&gt;DAI is immensely exciting. Stablecoins like DAI are interesting experiments that could powerfully create new online economies.&lt;p&gt;Blockchains like Ethereum are currently far more transparent than the state-sponsor US monetary system.  I hope to live in a society where economic experiments can be executed, new lessons learned, and transparency maintained.  If stablecoins are persecuted, the need for cryptographic zero-knowledge proofs will allow these systems to continue with far less transparency.&lt;p&gt;As a different matter, how can society say &amp;quot;2008 bad&amp;quot;, which resulted in little economic progress, and then threaten problem solvers from making new solutions?  Innovation is a hedge against regulator lethargy.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>grenoire</author><text>Right, OP, CDOs were also &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; innovative when they first got rolled out!</text></comment>