logicalmind

But, the wealthy use their wealth to influence policy. Policy that benefits them. Like policy that allows them to spend infinite money to influence elections. How do the non-wealthy stop that?

The status quo rails in the U.S. are ACH or Fedwire. These are slow and require you to get connected to the rail in some way (directly or indirectly). And they have fees.

There is also same-day ACH and the new FedNow. Which are faster, but still require some kind of connectivity and have fees.

The cost of stablecoin settlement is mostly the gas fees of the chosen chain. There are various optimizations possible such as private chains and off-chain ledgers (no gas) and some single on-chain settlement to minimize gas fees. Note that these type of stablecoins are closed-loop and are not publicly available.

As I said in my other post, these institutional stablecoins are mostly just MVP use cases until regulations are finalized. Depending on the final regulations, there are quite a few other possibilities.

Source, I work for a large financial institution and run a team that launched a stablecoin this year.

Isn't this trump's modus operandi? He comes up with an insulting name for every person he disagrees with.

I don't disagree, but there is a lot of hesitancy at financial institutions right now because the regulations are all over the place. I think what we are seeing now are MVP use cases that people are willing to try before regulations are finalized. There are some very large (macro-level) use cases possible, but the regulations have to allow for that.

There are two layers of value on chains that are not bitcoin. There is the native currency and then various forms of tokens that can be transacted. Tokens are things like NFT's or Stablecoins. In order to trade tokens you need to pay gas in the native currency of the chain. For example, ETH on the Ethereum network.

Large financial institutions are already doing work using stablecoins. In order to turn stablecoins back into fiat, you have to take them back to the issuer for exchange. Countries with unstable currencies can hold USD by purchasing stablecoins. And financial institutions can do settlement between each other using stablecoins.

Same here. I found it highly inspiring as a young developer. Whenever I lacked motivation in my career, I would rewatch it.

Not sure why it's not covered in that wiki article, but I'm specifically referencing the FDIC and related agencies. They have been so decimated by DOGE that it is possible that multiple of those related agencies will be consolidated into one (FDIC, NCUA, OCC, etc.).

I can't go into too much detail, but for a financial institution to offer certain financial products, you have to submit a proposal to one of the above regulatory bodies to get their approval. We were attempting to do just that and we couldn't even find the proper person at the given agency who should be receiving said proposal. It was even rumored that regulatory agency who would normally review such proposals didn't have the staff to review them. And the review would be done by an entirely different group of regulators who have not done such things historically.

Additionally, these agencies do regular exams of financial institutions to ensure they are complying with regulations and handling fraud properly. These cuts have led to those exams either not happening, or happening at a fraction of the depth they had been previously.

I also work in finance and my recent experience with regulators is really discouraging. DOGE wiped out a large amount of the regulators in government. It seems like most of the regulators remaining are the inexperienced and low tenure. Within the past few months we've attempted to roll out new financial products. When we attempt to send our proposal to them, they can't even tell us who we're supposed to send it to.

It doesn't feel like we're living in the same world of regulation that existed prior to DOGE.

Rather than have me guess about what you know, would you care to explain what you meant by your original comment then? What exactly were you referring to as "racist"?

You should probably take a look at the demographics of the top scores of the standardized tests like the SAT. You're not going to find the race you think at the top.

I'm curious as to what you're implying with the DEI comment. It is often used to imply that white people are being disadvantaged in favor of minorities. But I highly suggest you take look at the demographics of the standardized test scores. Heck, take a look at the demographics of any of the top schools in the country. Berkeley included. Many of the school groups, business, clubs, etc. wouldn't have any white people in them if it wasn't a DEI requirement. Source, my daughter is a junior at Berkeley.

At this point I'm skeptical enough to believe this is yet another attempt at market manipulation.

It's the same in Southern California. When I sold my first starter home it was bought by internationals to rent. There were already multiple homes on the block owned by foreign interests.

And at the new home I moved into, the house next door is owned by foreign interests and rented out to the highest bidder. It makes it extremely difficult to get anything done that involves shared areas (like common fence or overhanging trees) because the owner is essentially unavailable and doesn't speak english. Not to mention that every year or so we have to deal with renters who are minimally vetted. We've had a group of 5 college kids turn the place into a frat house once. There is also a property management company involved, but they can't get in contact with the owner either.

In my experience, this seems to be a bigger issue than wall street investors.

The problem I see is that the term "conservative" is not defined. There are many places where current "conservatives" would be at odds with "conservatives" of just a few years ago. If you're a fiscal conservative, where did the tea party go?, you'd by furious by the spending of the current "conservatives".

Companies are driven by profits, but their decisions are usually based on legalities. I think their knee-jerk reaction to pull Kimmel was due to what might happen, or what the government was threatening to do. That doesn't amount to damages, legally. However, if they bring Kimmel back, and the government follows through on its initial threats, then that does amount to damages for which they can sue the government.