Posted by shscs911 3 days ago
Neither of these were "publicly anti-Trump" as much as Garry Tan has been.
Actually, where'd you even get that from? I cannot with my life imagine that Dalton would publicly post about politics. I've googled around a bit and found nothing either.
Either way, my point is it's an extreme stretch to believe their departure, Trump, and crypto stablecoins are somehow related.
ramen is at least 1:1 backed by noodles, and doesn’t depeg.
Both are equally stupid, and you have to exchange them to buy most of the things you might need.
Crypto more hype-able
Most goods today are denominated in fiat, so stablecoins are a better fit than gold.
And at this stage, stablecoins are great for easy money movement (rather than holding in crypto). I actually think most people won't even know that crypto rails have been used to move their money, with stablecoins like tcp/ip for money movement.
It'd be friction against spending, a little bit of investing, in the case of gold, but friction against spending with crypto only makes sense if you don't lose a lot on moving it into a real bank account.
It costs more as I'd have to drive 250 km round trip to pick it up (or pay extra for transport).
solo 401(k) is for you
The Fed is interested in converting the debt to another medium, for obvious reasons. Stablecoin looks to be the leader, since a number of the new administration have talked about it in the last decade (re: Scott Besset stablecoin speech).
I can understand why some companies want their runway in a currency that may go up during a transition (a more favorable exchange rate). There's little lossage in the exchange of USDT/USDC in the short term. Seems like a hedge strategy.
Nope. Not until these companies allow an independent external audit. I don't take "trust me" from a crypto bro as proof of backing funds.
Oh, and the current administration is clearly corrupt, so this administration wanting to convert the US to bozo bucks isn't one for the plus column.
This is a good distillation of the inherent issue going forward with crypto. The people in tech I trust _least_ (cryptobros) are selling in a service that I require the _highest_ level of trust (finance). It's a very bad sales pitch.
I edited my comment above to provide answer. Swap whatever stable to PyUSD (negligible) and then send to your Solana address in Paypal. You can also hold crypto in US banks pretty soon.
I don't see how that's relevant to YC startups. Startups can't legally pay their employees in crypto through transfers, any more than they can write checks out of their bank account or pay their employees in cash. I've paid an overseas employee in BTC before, but we still had to go through a payroll provider and do everything above-board to satisfy IRS requirements.
The way it worked was our payroll provider would release the paycheck in USD to Circle, who would do conversion to BTC at prevailing exchange rates same day before executing the transfer.
If we already had the money in BTC, we would have had to convert the money to USD to send to our payroll provider so they could do withholdings and all that, and then have Circle convert it back to make the transfer.
There are foreign transfer reporting requirements and rules about currency conversion at payment time so that you can't skirt paying taxes. If you try to do it yourself you're making a lot of extra work for yourself.
...
> It's not illegal
Why did you write that it was?
> you have to do all the paperwork the same as if you pay in USD
Yes. Obviously.
You misread. You can't legally pay through transfers (between wallets). You need an intermediary that verifies identity linked to wallets and does escrow to satisfy anti-fraud requirements.
- I bet with whatever way I can convert the stable coin to my local currency (EUR), that it will be more expensive than Wise. Certainly Paypal is really expensive (as in SWIFT transfer would be better)
From Lulo's site[1]: "Lulo’s yield comes from interest paid by traders and borrowers in integrated DeFi protocols. These loans are over-collateralized with assets like SOL, ETH, and BTC, reducing lender risk."
SOL, ETH and BTC as collateral? What if their value goes down? We know what happened when the banks made bad housing loans (2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis). At least the houses had some tangible value - bricks and mortars. Crypto seems like a fiat currency minus the "full faith and credit of the United States government".
> 1234.56 in PyUSD means you get 1234.56 in Chase or Wells Fargo or whatever. In future your bank will hold these assets directly without need to off-ramp at all.
If the appeal of PyUSD is that you can convert it into equivalent USD anytime, why do we need PyUSD at all? What's the value-add, apart from low transfer fees?
[1] https://lulo.fi
The lender provides the collateral. If when the value goes down, Lulo does a partial liquidation.
> What's the value-add, apart from low transfer fees?
High interest, with insurance. Mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
I mean, for goodness sake, "normie"? Come on.
More importantly, not only are those regulations not in effect, the final regulations haven't even been written or approved yet - which brings up certain questions about how a stablecoin could be compliant with them.
And of course, even if a US-based stablecoin is well regulated, it still doesn't make these foreign "savings" account companies offering guaranteed high rates of return is a safe place to park your money.
Everything about it feels scammy. The claim of compliance against non-existent regulations, too good to be true guaranteed high rates of return, companies set up in questionable jurisdictions and the emotional appeals of not being a sucker and fear of missing out? All that's missing is a suggestion that there's a limited time left to act.
> > (tranferring USDC or another GENIUS-compliant stablecoin on Solana).
> > The Genius act regulates stablecoin provision. US-issued stablecoins are backed by government bonds with proof of reserves. USDC and PyUSD are compliant already, USAT exists because USDT isn't compliant.
No.
> More importantly, not only are those regulations not in effect, the final regulations haven't even been written or approved yet - which brings up certain questions about how a stablecoin could be compliant with them.
No. The GENIUS Act is in effect, it was signed on July 18, 2025, becoming Public Law No: 119-27.
The law itself isn't the regulations. The law authorizes and directs regulators to create the regulations.
Moreover, the GENIUS Act doesn't become effective until January 18, 2027 (18 months after it was passed) or 120 days after regulators issue final regulations, whichever is earlier.[1][2]
The regulations for it are still being developed across dozens of state and federal regulatory agencies. The only thing someone like Tether did was get an existing bank to issue it which is a basic requirement to qualify as stablecoin issuer at all.
[1] Pub. L. 119–27, § 20
Take it as someone who worked in crypto doing on chain analysis.
It's 99.999% scams, rug pulls, insider trading, ponzis, pump and dumps, and insiders stealing customer funds. It's a zero sum game because crypto does not increase productivity. Crypto is also one of the best ways to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.