So it looks like today Satoshi's wallet address got some action, with 2 million in stablecoins sent via the Lightning Network. But here's the catch: it's not the OG Satoshi wallet, just a project called Wallet of Satoshi. With stablecoins now on Lightning, do you think that could actually be useful?
I don’t think they added it to the LN in the way people think. They just let users send/receive stablecoins alongside the regular Lightning payments in the same app. I've never been a fan of stablecoins, never used them either. Anyone claiming "self-custody" via the internet just doesn't sit right with me.
Honestly, if I'm holding stablecoins like USDC or USDT, I feel like I don't really own them. I've been using a wallet that doesn’t give you a seed phrase to back up, and that just feels wrong to me.
Self-custody is a big topic, but stablecoins on Lightning is interesting. However, stablecoins are tied to central entities like Tether or Circle to maintain their value. Even if they’re on the Lightning Network, they can still be controlled and frozen, which might be counterproductive for Bitcoin's decentralization.
Answering your question:
1. Some might find it useful, but for me, it raises red flags. We can’t ignore the fact that centralized exchanges are still marketing themselves as providing ‘self-custody’ wallets.
2. Whether on LN or not, stablecoins should preferably be in a non-custodial wallet.
That’s not how it works for stablecoins. They can be frozen in your non-custodial wallets too. If funds are frozen via smart contracts, you’re rekt. For long-term, I stick to Bitcoin, it's just more secure.
What’s the point of self-custody if they can freeze your coins anyway? It's all nonsense. If it's not Bitcoin, it's not comparable. Sharing space with BTC doesn’t change the core issues.
I feel like stablecoins added to Lightning is just marketing fluff. Why open a new channel for stablecoins when using Bitcoin directly seems better? Difference in speed and fees between alts and Bitcoin isn't that noticeable.
Yeah, totally a promotional move, lol. Stablecoins are still centralized, just because they're running on Bitcoin doesn’t mean they’re safe. Keeping them seems dumb when they can get frozen at any time.
Look, the space is vast and we need options. Bitcoin might be the best, but altcoins, including stablecoins, add diversity to the mix. Understanding the pros and cons is key for strategy.
Enabling stablecoins on Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is definitely a step forward. It allows for fast transactions similar to Bitcoin. But, honestly, they’re still pegged to fiat.
Stablecoins serve different purposes. Bitcoin is decentralized, while stablecoins depend heavily on third parties. In investment terms, Bitcoin is where the value is. Stablecoins are more for short-term trades.
Stablecoins are not an investment, you won’t see returns holding them. They’re just risky assets; for example, look at how easily funds can get frozen, like those OFAC sanctions on Iran.
Stablecoins are basically the same regardless of the blockchain. They're centralized and can be frozen anywhere. I only use them for quick trades, never for long-term holds.
I like stablecoins for quick USD swaps. Freezing issues are real but I don’t hold them long-term. Wallet of Satoshi is on my radar now that they offer self-custody.
You gotta remember, not all fiat-backed stablecoins are the same. They have different protocols, USDT vs USDC, etc. Know your goal: preserve value or take risks.
If you’ve been holding Bitcoin long-term, stablecoins probably aren’t on your radar. They can’t compete with the wealth growth potential that Bitcoin offers.
Most people don’t even know the difference between coins and tokens. Stablecoins are usually tokens, which adds to the complexity. Be wary of freezing risks!