Contributed by @BrianDColwell.
Previously in Part 1: Stablecoins: Use Cases
“Price instability and market speculation have contributed to extreme volatility in cryptocurrencies, creating an ecosystem that is not supportive of vital financial functions. For there to be a modern financial system on the blockchain, there needs to be a stable medium of exchange. There needs to be transparency and accountability, as well.”
Previously in Part 2: Stablecoins: Collateralization Types
“A successful stablecoin implementation would be a major catalyst for disruption to global financial infrastructure, challenging weak governments and mismanagement of national economies. Furthermore, stablecoins allow for decentralized insurance, prediction markets, transparent credit and debt markets, and create a level playing field between small and large businesses in global finance.”
With a total addressable market of ALL the money in the world, a fiat-free, digital currency that’s price stable, such as Dai from MakerDAO, represents the opportunity to finally end hyperinflationary policies, economic controls, and mismanagement of national economies by weak governments around the world.
Now let’s explore the strengths and weaknesses of the various types of stablecoins.
The first issue with which all stablecoins must first contend is referred to as “the oracle problem.” This issue revolves around transparency of market conditions and ease of acquiring information about the exchange rate between the stablecoin and the asset against which it is pegged.
There are three primary approaches to resolving this problem:
The best understood solution to the oracle problem that also provides a decentralized data feed uses a mechanism that relies on Schelling points.
Schelling points, named after theorist Thomas Schelling who introduced them in his book, The Strategy of Conflict (1960), provide a target for coordination, a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication. Schelling points are important to understand in Game Theory and have proven useful in negotiations and situations where one cannot completely trust a negotiating partner’s words.
And, of course, another challenge facing stablecoins is privacy. It’s argued that traceability impacts fungibility, and privacy is often viewed as an essential element for large-scale business adoption. That said, one can also argue that the security breaches of 2018, which included Facebook, have proven that complete privacy of data isn’t an essential need for consumers, and that transparency and auditability are also important for business adoption.
As discussed in Part 2 of this series, most stablecoins fall into three categories based on how they are collateralized. Now let’s consider stablecoin strengths and weaknesses by collateralization type.
“Backed by fiat currencies, these centralized stablecoins rely on a single actor to issue IOUs redeemable at a 1:1 ratio for the underlying asset, with reliable convertibility of the IOU helping to maintain the 1:1 peg.”
“Backed by crypto assets, these decentralized stablecoins rely on trustless issuance, also referred to as on-chain issuance, and maintain their 1:1 peg against assets via overcollateralization, incentives, and other methods.”
“Algorithmic stablecoins, also referred to as Seigniorage Shares and Future Growth-Backed stablecoins, are algorithmically-backed with expansion and reduction of coin supply mathematically determined. There is NO collateral backing issuance as Seigniorage is the profit made by a government through issuing currency, especially the difference between the face value of coins and production costs.”
“When one studies the history of money one cannot help wondering why people should have put up for so long with governments exercising an exclusive power over 2,000 years that was regularly used to exploit and defraud them. In fact, history is largely a history of inflation, and usually of inflations engineered by governments and for the gain of governments…
Governments have at all times had a strong interest in persuading the public that the right to issue money belongs exclusively to them, and the monopoly of money has buttressed government power. It is perhaps significant that Adam Smith does not mention the control of the issue of money among the ‘only three duties [which] according to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has to attend to’.” — F.A. Hayek
No one can pretend to know the future of cryptocurrencies, but what seems obvious is that stablecoins are a step in the right direction–a step towards a future where the government monopoly of money issuance is destroyed by fair markets through real competition.
In case you missed them, don’t forget to check out Part 1 and 2 of this series: