GME is still 5x from before the nonsense. I know if the market was "rational" we'd be able to predict it and the rationality would get arbed out, but it skeeves me out that prices can fluctuate so wildly based on vibes. I am an index fund guy, the government doesn't care that much about individual big companies but it's not gonna let the overall line go down long term.
I'm pretty confident about USDC, I think the only way I'll get popped is if Eth/BTC/etc actually goes to 0 and kills Coinbase (can't get rid of all price risk). I passed on UST a few months ago when I was looking at something called Stablegains. At that time the ecosystem was pretty obviously rotten: basically every project's yield ultimately flowed from Anchor, which was just shoveling out investor cash at an insane unsustainable rate. The market knew it too, every pool with UST in it offered much higher yield than the reputable stables because of the risk.
I'd prefer USD as collateral, because what I'm actually interested in is decentralized stuff where reading the code is enough to tell you 80% of whether it's good. Algo stablecoins are risky in a market like this, even if they're backed by Eth instead of Luna (lol), and I think the other centralized coins are made by sketchier companies than Coinbase. Unfortunately there is little financial incentive to accept deposits, issue stablecoins, and just sit on the deposits instead of investing them. Coinbase says they do this now, pretty sure they subsidize this arm of their business in order to be the default reputable exchange for US users.
Its trading $10 (40%) off its 2014 high of $14/share. The $1-2 valuation during its brush with bankruptcy was (not unjustifiably) seen as artificially low. A company with $1B in revenue enjoying an $8B market cap isn't unheard of, even if it is hemorrhaging $100M/year. And - baring another internet hysteria sponsored surge - it'll likely bleed out over the next five years like a normal failing company would.
But again, its an exception, not a rule.
I’m pretty confident about USDC, I think the only way I’ll get popped is if Eth/BTC/etc actually goes to 0 and kills Coinbase (can’t get rid of all price risk).
They don't need to go to zero. They just need to slip below the point at which you can reliably liquidate. That will set off a panic that kills the stablecoin. These vehicles don't function when everyone tries to exit them at once precisely because the brokerages are futzing with their cash reserves on risky investments so often. Maybe Coinbase really is a This One Is Different case. But... :doubt:
what I’m actually interested in is decentralized stuff where reading the code is enough to tell you 80% of whether it’s good
They just need to slip below the point at which you can reliably liquidate.
TL;DR I give Coinbase the "this one is different". Think that the NY attorney general and SEC will continue keeping them in line. The only thing that differentiates them from other CEXes is that they're not sketchy; to keep that they've done stuff like shutting down margin trading when the CFTC said rather than just moving jurisdictions. Based on this I think that (1) they're not commingling with Circle (2) their statements are accurate, e.g..
sigh Well, good luck with that.
I write Solidity for a living, would not be so confident if I hadn't been able to compare my work to that of auditors.
GME is still 5x from before the nonsense. I know if the market was "rational" we'd be able to predict it and the rationality would get arbed out, but it skeeves me out that prices can fluctuate so wildly based on vibes. I am an index fund guy, the government doesn't care that much about individual big companies but it's not gonna let the overall line go down long term.
I'm pretty confident about USDC, I think the only way I'll get popped is if Eth/BTC/etc actually goes to 0 and kills Coinbase (can't get rid of all price risk). I passed on UST a few months ago when I was looking at something called Stablegains. At that time the ecosystem was pretty obviously rotten: basically every project's yield ultimately flowed from Anchor, which was just shoveling out investor cash at an insane unsustainable rate. The market knew it too, every pool with UST in it offered much higher yield than the reputable stables because of the risk.
I'd prefer USD as collateral, because what I'm actually interested in is decentralized stuff where reading the code is enough to tell you 80% of whether it's good. Algo stablecoins are risky in a market like this, even if they're backed by Eth instead of Luna (lol), and I think the other centralized coins are made by sketchier companies than Coinbase. Unfortunately there is little financial incentive to accept deposits, issue stablecoins, and just sit on the deposits instead of investing them. Coinbase says they do this now, pretty sure they subsidize this arm of their business in order to be the default reputable exchange for US users.
Its trading $10 (40%) off its 2014 high of $14/share. The $1-2 valuation during its brush with bankruptcy was (not unjustifiably) seen as artificially low. A company with $1B in revenue enjoying an $8B market cap isn't unheard of, even if it is hemorrhaging $100M/year. And - baring another internet hysteria sponsored surge - it'll likely bleed out over the next five years like a normal failing company would.
But again, its an exception, not a rule.
They don't need to go to zero. They just need to slip below the point at which you can reliably liquidate. That will set off a panic that kills the stablecoin. These vehicles don't function when everyone tries to exit them at once precisely because the brokerages are futzing with their cash reserves on risky investments so often. Maybe Coinbase really is a This One Is Different case. But... :doubt:
sigh Well, good luck with that.
TL;DR I give Coinbase the "this one is different". Think that the NY attorney general and SEC will continue keeping them in line. The only thing that differentiates them from other CEXes is that they're not sketchy; to keep that they've done stuff like shutting down margin trading when the CFTC said rather than just moving jurisdictions. Based on this I think that (1) they're not commingling with Circle (2) their statements are accurate, e.g..
I write Solidity for a living, would not be so confident if I hadn't been able to compare my work to that of auditors.