for generations, depositors have been subsidizing bank loans and getting terrible cash mgmt ux in return
the FUD around impact to credit markets is similar to when money market funds were introduced
one answer might be to require stables to hold some reserves as bank deposits in addition to treasuries
This keeps M2 stable and banks lending
but also reduces rate pricing power of banks (they go from lots of little depositors to a few big depositors)
It's becoming increasingly clear that stablecoin distributors โ exchanges, wallets, payment apps etc โ have more leverage over stablecoins issuers than most people intuitively think.
Value almost always accrues to whoever owns the end user. Stablecoins will be no different.
@MikeBotkin_@Apple@UPS A UPS account would provide all someone needs to do this. Maybe someone created a UPS account with your address and someone elseโs email? Or maybe your UPS account is compromised?
I think all stablecoin issuers assumed yield will necessarily be passed back to consumers. Just look at Coinbase - we're passing back yield on USDC held on Coinbase AND ALSO onchain.
It's not stablecoin issuers that are afraid, it's banks. They're the ones most vulnerable to consumers holding their own dollars while earning a fair yield on those dollars. Our highly leveraged financial system exists on the premise that consumers are locked into holding their funds at banks, on which banks pay close to zero interest, while making loans and other efforts to generate yield on those dollars for themselves.
It's the exact same reason the federal government hasn't allowed narrow banking whereby a bank takes in deposits and just holds all funds at the federal reserve, without making any loans, thereby creating incredibly safe and stable banking for consumers.
This isn't about consumer protection. It's about protecting entrenched interests and also preserving the ability of the federal reserve to monkey with interest rates and other risk parameters to control the economy.