Thread by @TheStalwart

If it turns out that the Blockchain/Coin framework turns out to be a good one for banks transferring money around, then the JPM Coin should absolutely obliterate Ripple

Think about it, let's say you were in the business of transferring money, why would you take on the exchange rate volatility risk associated with having Ripple as a bridge currency, when you could have a fiat-coin backed by JPMorgan. No brainer.

As someone argued it to me via email, you can think of these bankcoins as form of short-term credit, while the underlying transaction goes through the settlement process. Parties transfer the coins instantly and then destroy them once the money actually goes through.

The key to thinking about Stablecoins (whether retail focused or institutional) is to not think of them as being in competition with "cryptocurrencies" at all. Entirely different purpose and premise.

With cryptocurrencies, the idea is to move value from Person A to Person B in some decentralized manner, such that there's no Person C who can block it

With Stablecoins, it's about centralized transfer and the ability to place rules and conditions on how coins are spent.

So thinking back to Ripple, which is targeting regulated institutional customers on the premise that transfer via coin is faster than existing systems.

But why wouldn't those institutions prefer a fiat-backed stablecoin from JPM. What advantage does a decentralized system offer?