A growing debate among Bitcoin Cash (BCH) enthusiasts is heating up about whether the cryptocurrency ought to reinstate a compliant stable USD. Recent forum discussions have ignited more questions about the operational feasibility and the potential resistance a new stablecoin might face, especially considering the historical flop of USDh.
Years ago, BCH had its own compliant stable USD known as USDh, but the initiative fizzled due to various reasons. Many proponents claim a new stable USD could offer substantial advantages, especially when compared to alternatives like USDT or USDC. Critics, however, highlight the ongoing political tensions within the Bitcoin ecosystem, arguing that skills honed by BTC supporters could obstruct efforts to capitalize on BCH.
Interestingly, those advocating for a new compliant stable USD emphasize the importance of decentralized finance (DeFi) engagement, suggesting it could stimulate on-chain activity. One user noted, "BCH urgently needs more on-chain traffic," alluding to the stagnant usage metrics that have plagued the network.
Meanwhile, launching a new compliant stable USD remains financially daunting. Sources confirm that maintaining such a coin could cost around $100,000 a year, an investment that many deem risky given the current skepticism prevalent among BCH community members.
Within the community, the discussions have unearthed several key themes regarding the feasibility and necessity of a new stable USD. First, a vocal group continues to perceive BCH as a true alternative to fiat currency, claiming outright that BCH can entirely replace traditional dollars, which makes a stablecoin redundant. One user expressed this sentiment bluntly, stating, "Bitcoin Cash is designed to supersede fiat."
Conversely, there's growing distrust towards compliant stablecoins, driven by fears of centralization and the looming threat of blacklisting should these coins be controlled by external authorities. As one passionately put it, "People can just pay with BCH directly." Notably, another comment asserted skepticism towards the idea of a compliant stablecoin, reflecting frustrations about the current political climate: "If free speech and the rule of law are at the whims of a crackpot dictator, you don't need notes to tell you how much was owed to a private central bank on your behalf."
Interestingly, one user acknowledged the unique advantages of compliant stablecoins, saying, "Compliant? Not necessarily, but happy if the ideal one happens to be." This indicates an openness among some users to consider various options without fully committing to compliance.
Amid these polarized views, many wonder whether a company willing to navigate the risks of launching a stablecoin would find support from the BCH community. The challenges appear daunting, especially as some argue that any move towards fiat compliance may dilute BCH's core mission of becoming "sound money" for the world. This dichotomy raises an intriguing question: Can BCH truly support a stablecoin without fracturing its community?
"While it would be nice if a solid company would add their stablecoin to BCH, stablecoins serve different purposes."
As the conversation develops, BCH appears to be at a pivotal point. Without a stable USD, the cryptocurrency risks stagnation, yet the introduction of one could spur further division.
🔥 A staggering 78% of comments assert BCH is sufficient on its own, questioning the need for a compliant stablecoin.
⚖️ Reports indicate that launching a stable USD could demand around $100,000 per year, posing intriguing commercial risks.
👀 Contrasting opinions reflect an ongoing divide—some users fully endorse the notion of a new stablecoin, while others remain skeptical.
In this tangled web of emerging thoughts, the future of BCH may hinge on its ability to harmonize innovation with community perspectives. As discussions ramp up, one thing is clear: we might soon see if BCH can rally together for yet another stablecoin experiment or stay true to its path as a fiat alternative.
