Sorry to interrupt the love fest over this NYSE announcement, but this reads like vaporware and yet another corporate fantasy masquerading as innovation.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but everything they've put out so far leaves out all the crucial details:
- Which chain?
- What programming language or VM?
- Which stablecoins?
- What jurisdictions? Will it be domestic or global?
- Will the tokens be permissioned, permissionless, or some hybrid?
- What will be the fees and economics be - ICE is a for profit entity
- Why do we even need this when we have DeFi?
The fact that they are seeking regulatory clarity makes the lack of details even more suspect - regulators would need all of these questions answered for approval.
The NYSE is a centuries old institution that owes its entire existence to laws and regulations that guarantee its profits and success. The success of every person who works there, and every cent of its profits, stems directly from this highly centralized and oligopolistic architecture, one built around core principles like delayed settlement that don't exist in crypto.
Tokenization represents a radically different architecture. It requires different skills and business models to be useful. It changes things.
It is highly unlikely that a TradFi firm like the ICE succeeds at both. It would be great for society if they did, but that's usually not how things work.
Those of who have been in crypto for more than a cycle have heard this story before. It always ends the same way. The suit simps will be disappointed yet again.
A lot of people don't know this, but financial markets and banks don't close on nights, weekends and holidays to let people rest.
They close because the architecture of their underlying systems are the same as when everything was still analogue.
T+2 settlement for certain capital markets or delays in payments are vestiges of an outdated system.
They are comical given the progress the rest of the economy has made. You can get a couch delivered on Sunday, but not your money!
TradFi folks will tell you about the progress being made with solutions like SWIFT GPI, FedNow or T+1 settlement in US stocks. And they are right, these are major undertakings.
But they are the equivalent of faster fax machines in the late 90s. Or landlines with call waiting.
Here's another tell that crypto is going to matter: the same types of people who told us it was dangerous because it as unregulated are not saying it will be more dangerous if it is regulated. In the WSJ:
Reminds me of when Bitcoin haters switched from "but all the mining is in China" to " China just banned mining!" as their preferred critique,
Regulating crypto = bad FUD is only going to increase. I particularly like the argument that crypto is just gambling and speculation, not finance. Apparently nobody on Wall Street ever gambles!
The FT story on Hong Kong regulators pressuring banks to onboard crypto companies is revealing on two fronts. The first is the obvious one, China is pivoting hard into crypto.
This comes as a surprise to people who thought China "banned" crypto but that's a misunderstanding of how the CCP operates.
It was never about banning, but exerting control over a new industry. This is how State Capitalism works.
Freshly mined Bitcoin as moved through OTC trading desks became a bit too popular for evading capital controls, so the government "banned" mining: scmp.com/economy/china-…
I often wonder whether Bitcoiners like @saylor or @jackmallers actually use the Lightning Network. It's not the panacea they promise, and due to certain technical and financial limitations, it never will be. Understanding why is important to the future of Bitcoin, so a 🧵
P2P Channels are at the heart of LN. You can send a payment to anyone you open a channel with on the main chain, up to the amount of you lock up. But this introduces a major cost of capital constraint. Everything is pre-funded, so more channels = more locked up BTC.
The genius of LN is the ability to securely route payments through other channels. You have a channel with Bob and he has one with Alice, so you don't need a channel with Alice. So far so good. But what if Bob doesn't have a channel with all the other people you'd like to pay?
Really enjoyed the OddLots interview of @nic__carter by @TheStalwart and @tracyalloway but I want to pushback on the point that Bitcoin is a bad inflation hedge. It's based on a narrow view of what makes anything a good inflation hedge.
A thread:
The common critique of Bitcoin is that it lost value in 2022, a year of high inflation.
But if the definition of a good inflation hedge is "going up when the CPI is spiking" then the best hedge against dollar inflation last year was......the dollar!
That's because almost every asset class-- including stocks, bonds, gold, and real estate (via REITs)--fell in dollar terms.
A good rule of thumb for understanding central banking is they create problems that they must expand their powers to fix.
The Fed started the regional banking crisis by exploding deposits during Covid, then rapidly hiking rates. Now it must announce a new facility to stop it.
The two most likely solutions are some kind of total deposit guarantee, and a regional TARP.
The deposit guarantee alone won’t stop the bleeding, money will keep going to money market funds for better yield.
That means they’ll have to do something to prop up the equity. Back in 08, the Troubled Asset Relief Program did the same. Originally meant to buy toxic assets, it morphed into a government hedge fund that bought bank stocks and warrants.