Clearly implies that you either really mentioned bailouts as a positive feature, or that commentary of yours makes no sense. Why do you call your opponent dishonest? If you mean something else it's probably better to explain than to immediately enter holywar mode.
and my point is that their overlapping features of custody and their overlapping vulnerability to bank runs (or lack thereof) is more important
if banks operate at 3-10% reserves or immediate liquidity, all the time, then tether is just as or more resilient.
if you need to move the goal post to insurance, simply to look at differences, its apt to remember that banks are private corporations that thought it would be funny to codify state sponsored insurance to bolster their own business of deposits. putting the con in congress. similarly uninsured products have been covered in bailouts for the exact same reason. And can happen again. There is zero history that suggests crypto products would be excluded simply for being crypto. Its far more likely that crypto industry grows big enough, and crypto friendly personnel run regulatory agencies and congress to be ready to act and advocate for it.
But even that isnt important to me, only an observation. I dont need that confidence game just to move the goalpost even further on tether, you might.
My only point is that we’re clear on what the controversies are and why. Its withstood extremely trying macroeconomic environments because it is designed better, and that was the only thing people were worried about.
That being said, I would like an even better designed product. Overcollateralized stablecoin with completely onchain collateral. We’ve been close but not quite.
- A is better than B!
- B has bailouts fearure!
Clearly implies that you either really mentioned bailouts as a positive feature, or that commentary of yours makes no sense. Why do you call your opponent dishonest? If you mean something else it's probably better to explain than to immediately enter holywar mode.