This question is obviously a bit like putting the cart before the horse but a relevant question I’m curious of others opinions on.
A stable coin, especially a well known and highly used one backed by the worlds “reserve” currency (though I know some countries are distancing from) is needed to have successful DeFi projects and/or DEXes able to launch on the SAFE Network.
I personally view Tether as crooked but serving a purpose.
They would be attracted to SAFE because of having multi-sig (one reason they used Omni which is built on top of Bitcoin) and also high transactions speeds and low fees (why they use other newer blockchains more than Omni). I’m assuming smart contract ability would be attractive too which is something that SAFE can achieve once BLS is integrated (multi-sig).
So having them dedicate liquidity to SAFE if Tether was supported might not be so difficult but the question is, do we want to invite that? It’s inevitable right? I’m guessing there would HAVE to be a transactions fee but likely highly minimal compared to other protocols. Is it inviting too much traffic too soon or would it possibly be a boon to the ecosystem? Would they not supply Tether liquidity until there was a certain level of adoption?
I’d say it’s up to the application developers (in this case tether) to decide if the network will meet their needs. I don’t see there being any invitation involved. Secure access for everyone means anyone can use it however they see fit. I guess the main question this boils down to for me is: what native support will the network have for other coins (something akin to the ERC20 & ERC721 specs)?
Should is opinion; could perhaps better, as a test that all applications are possible. If SAFE is to provide for everyone, then generic capacity most important… something of building it and they will follow… evidencing th capability to replace blockchain without the energy overhead, at speed; allowing for base that lends itself to xyz; etc most useful for encouraging other to put skin in the game.
Exactly what I said when the US stock markets realized we were infected with the corona virus, haha. All the real life money printing to keep our “economy” aka stock market from dumping and tether printing is so manipulative to crypto prices it seems and I think it could be considered sleeping with the enemy in a sense. Would like to hear more of your thoughts though.
One way to view this and granted it’s very assuming but personally I think SAFE can totally transform e-commerce in such a unique way. I know @JimCollinson and many others here get this too. One shopping cart across the entire net, the ability to purchase easily with ID management, of course giving rise to other markets that have been argued to be safer than the alternative. That to me makes Safecoin a reserve currency. One backed by data. Maybe Safecoin should be used instead
That would be nice if SAFE wallet would keep your private key of BTC, Tether, etc. And anytime you need to pay PUT it would allocate part of your other crypto and pay it with SafeCoin.
Once you would like to to move your BTC, you could do it will your all available coins, So there would be no risk for SAFE.
The wallet have to be connected to SAFE exchange for liguidity.
I would say no to tether. DAI sure I am cool with, but no not tether. Tether is admitted they are about 75% backed now… The other 25% must have gone to “administrative fees” .
.