Interview with Preston J. Byrne

Interview with Preston J. Byrne

For this week’s podcast, we had the honor of interviewing none other than Preston J. Byrne. Preston is a banking and securities lawyer in London, specialising in securitisation and derivatives. He advises the Adam Smith Institute on legal aspects of its policy proposals and writes on a range of subjects including housing and planning law, the security state, freedom of expression and, of course, cryptocurrency. He is also a founder and former COO of Monax, makers of the first open-source permissioned blockchain client way back in 2014, which is now known as the Hyperledger Burrow.
Preston has written critically about stablecoin projects, and is an outspoken and often-quoted critic of the current state in cryptocurrency , which we really need. Also: he loves marmots. Actually, that’s how we got in touch, through a marmot meme, but that’s another story.

This interview is 25 minutes long, feel free to click play and listen to it now, subscribe to our podcast here to listen later, watch it on YouTube, or simply go ahead and read the edit below. Please enjoy and let us know what you think!

SR: Our first question in the Stable.Report podcast is always: what got you interested in cryptocurrencies?
PJB: I have to admit it kind of started with Dogecoin. As a young lawyer, I was researching and writing on different topics every year, and in 2013 Bitcoin seemed interesting. A friend of mine was working at a think thank in Guatemala and he had an idea that was basically a version of Bitcoin designed as a municipal accounting system, he called it MuniBit, and that got me thinking about using something like Bitcoin to create a tamper-resistant enterprise database. That idea eventually became what is now know as Hyperledger Burrow, which is a fork of the Ethereum Virtual Machine but with permissioning involved, so you could get all of the cryptographic certainty of your hashing and digital signatures bundled into a neat little package. Dogecoin was when the penny dropped as to how to do it, but the idea was in that initial proposal that my friend Zachary Caceres came up with, called MuniBit. That’s how I got started into cryptocurrencies.

SR: Let’s get something out of the way, do you believe stablecoins could work?
PJB: I think a stablecoin could work as long as it is convertible. If you have a token of some kind which is backed by an asset somewhere, held on trust for the holder of the token, then the token basically represents a coupon which entitles them to proceed to the place where the physical thing is being held and claim it back. That is really the way to do it if you are going to do it, the downside is that you have to be a 100% cash or asset collateralized at all times, which isn’t necessarily the most efficient way to record a dollar balance, this is why we do fractional reserve banking. What we see with stablecoins is slightly different: people with large crypto-balances trying to use the crypto markets as a way to store value which is somehow related to those underlying crypto-balances, and generally speaking there are three ways you can do this. 
The first one is more or less equal to the asset backed, so something like Tether — forgetting all the criticisms and FUD in the market — if everything that the people who run Tether are saying is true and there is no regulatory problem with it, then Tether has dollars sitting in the bank account which ostensibly you should be able to go and redeem with the Tether Token. That’s not really a stablecoin, that’s more of a coupon for an asset which exists in the real world. Then you have MakerDAO-style stablecoins, which I would call the collateralized stablecoins; and Basis-style stablecoins, or algorithmic stablecoins.
With collateralized stablecoins, basically what you do is make a margin long bet by locking up some Ether in the contract and getting another “dollar” of exposure, which you can spend and potentially buy more Ether with. It’s like a bet on price movement of Ether (or other crypto as collateral). The idea is that if the price of Ether deteriorates, you’ve locked up enough collateral in the smart contract, to basically “call” that contract and be able to get your money back as a stablecoin holder. You multiple collateralize by 200% or 300%, and the issue with that is that it’s very value destructive in an environment where the value of the underlying cryptocurrency is falling. If the value is going up everybody wins in the transaction, the person who holds the coin can spend it, its always worth a dollar, and they can go redeem it for a dollar. If the value is going down, by contrast, you are burning through the collateral that many times faster, so if you have 400% collateral, as the price of Ether falls you are losing 4 times as much money.
With algorithmic stablecoins, they think they can set up incentives arrangements to try and incentivize people to spend money in the system, in order to keep the price at or near a dollar. It’s an interesting idea, but ultimately that kind of concept relies on the stablecoin being in a closed system — which nothing in economics is, everything has to interact with something else, and the motivations of the actors are not solely locked into the stablecoin. For example, if someone with a margin long position needs to go get liquidated and needs to get money from somewhere, they might be perfectly ready, willing and able to part with their stablecoin for less than what they paid for as long as they would get cash to meet their liabilities. This is not something that you would usually see when the market is moving upwards, but when its moving downward very rapidly — as it did in 2008, you can have a cascade effect where people are constantly trying to get out of everything at once. It is not a bubble being drawn down as we’ve seen in cryptomarkets, but a systemic fear of people not being able to meet their obligations and a flight to liquidity and safety. What this event would mean for a stablecoin like Basis is that if people are not buying it, there is no way it can’t hold its value, because it needs that central component of a purchaser. The criticisms of this scheme, generally speaking, is that you have bright young guys coming from Google and Stanford, who do not have a lot of practical experience in finance and were not around last time the big financial crisis happened, so these lessons are going to be learned the hard way because they developed these systems. With some modifications, these things could be useful for some really interesting trading applications or derivatives automation, but I don’t think you could make a stablecoin out of it because the economics don’t make sense.

SR: It’s interesting, I think a big problem in this space is that most being going into it are either very well-versed in technology and not in finance, or the other way around. What’s interesting about Basis is that one of their investors is Stanley Druckenmiller, who helped George Soros infamously break the Bank of England.
PJB: Another stablecoin project, Saga, has Nobel laureate Myron Scholes, famous for the Black-Scholes options pricing model, as an advisor. So there is something in it that is getting people really interested in programmatic money. People often said Bitcoin is its own Federal Reserve because it has its own money supply algorithm, which determines how many bitcoins are produced, but that’s not quite what the Fed does, because the Fed is actually responsive to changing market conditions. So what’s happened is they’ve kind of added another layer of complexity to ensure that the purchasing power of a coin stays close to a dollar. I can foresee in the future a system like this being used as a better vehicle for the market to communicate information to regulators, but I don’t necessarily see a stablecoin as being the logical outcome of that development. 

SR: What about a system to whitelist and combine the most stablecoin projects, with a mechanism for risk takers to take the loss in case one of them fails. Could that work?
PJB: I think there you are looking to get stability by basically having people enter into default swaps. If the stablecoin goes down and a counterparty is willing to satisfy the loss and insure that everyone who invested in the stablecoin is made whole, that is a very significant risk. I wonder how you would price that risk and how you would get someone to take the other end of that trade. So far we’ve seen a lot of stablecoin failure, NuBits failed and MakerDAO failed in January losing 40% of its value, so in the absence of knowing how these things are going to perform, and in particular when you don’t have something that is asset-backed where you could at least have some recourse and some assets, are you going to allow everyone to rack up a huge balance that you are going to guarantee?

SR: You mentioned asset or fiat backed stablecoins serving as coupons, in a way. As you know, the Venezuelan government is pegging their hyper-inflated currency to the “stablecoin” Petro, which is collateralized by thousands of petroleum barrels underground. Of course, I don’t believe in the Petro and it has been banned by the United States. But theoretically, could a country achieve stability by de-coupling from the USD?
PJB: The Petro strikes me as a way for the Venezuelan Government to try to get its paws on some bitcoin and other assets that it can sell for cash, particularly USD, which it desperately needs because its national currency is so worthless. You can buy Petro tokens from the Venezuelan Government, which is an entitlement to the equivalent amount in Bolívares of what a barrel of petroleum would cost at the date of issuance, so it’s basically an IOU or cash settlement. If a barrel of oil costs 100 Bolívares and you buy it for 100 Bolívares worth of USD today, you will get back 100 Bolívares back when you claim it. The 100 Bolívares is backed by the barrel of petroleum so it should stabilize the currency, but that does not make a lot of sense to me, because they are two different things. The barrel of petroleum is an asset which you can sell for cash or in future contracts, and the Bolívar is a different type of asset, and they are saying: if you pay in cash or Bitcoin now we will give you back Bolívares later, priced at the price now. It’s not a very good deal and not a very good idea.
Now, does that mean you can’t have some type of government asset which is tokenized in the future, which could raise municipal funds or be used for municipal debt? Absolutely not, and you could certainly make those processes more efficient using blockchain technology. 

SR: It’s been over 40 years since the Gold Window was closed by Richard Nixon. Theoretically, could going back to the gold standard be a possibility to restart the economy? If Venezuela’s next government uses its gold reserves to back their cryptocurrency, could that be a way to achieve stability?
PJB: I think Venezuela’s issue now is not one that gets solved with a stablecoin, but with the medium of exchange that people are legally required to use and pay taxes in, and starts bearing some rational relationship to economic activity instead of the government’s printing press. You need to get the government out of the industries that were nationalized, stop the government from making economic decisions on people’s behalf and get PDVSA back up and running as soon as possible as a source of revenue. The government pushed out all private enterprise, so of course the country is falling apart. I don’t think having a currency backed by gold makes a lot of sense, there is a lot of reform needed from the ground up and get the government to stop devaluing the currency for their own short-term objectives.

SR: We are in agreement on that. Do you envision countries with a decentralized bank, where they don’t have control of the printing press?
PJB: We’ve seen that before, specifically in Britain in the late 1700s, the issue with that was the credit crisis of 1722. Banks were issuing their own notes and they endorsed them repeatedly, drew multiple notes on the same deposits, and whatever you might imagine. So there was a crisis of confidence, because you couldn’t be certain of wether the note that you held, which said “5 pounds in Bank X”, was actually there. A blockchain kind of changes that because you can be certain if a note is recorded at the bank, because you can go and look at the entire history of everything at the bank. Would you then want to say: well, we are moving our printing presses and we are going to start using blockchain as digital cash? I don’t think you want to do that until significant advances in scalability, storage and network capacity make that feasible, because right now centralized systems are much more efficient for most transactions, like Visa and MasterCard. 

SR: That brings me back to one of your main motivations to be such a prolific writer in the space, I think, which is how greed took over the space. Everything is fairy dust and a lot of marketing buzz-words. Rather than telling our readers to DYOR, what are some pieces of content out literature that have helped you to frame the space, or that you would recommend others to read up on?
PJB: There’s not a lot of good literature out there, there is a lot of bad writing. I’m naturally quite skeptical and what I would recommend is to follow the other skeptics in twitter, such as: @izakaminska ‏, @davidgerard ‏, @ofnumbers ‏; and some of the bitcoin maximalist like: @bitstein ‏, @pierre_rochard ‏ and a couple of others. The sober voices are not trying to sell anything to you, and that’s what you need to be aware of. Every book that’s been written on blockchain, generally speaking, if you dust of the cover and ask: who wrote it and why? There is always a sell somewhere in there, so look out for people trying to sell you on a dream or a vision. If they are selling a product or a coin, that’s when alarm bells and red flags should be going off.

SR: So you also agree that even Bitcoin is not the proper solution to our problems today, and perhaps Bitcoin won’t be here in the long term.
PJB: I think Bitcoin is here to stay. Do I think that Bitcoin is going to be the basis of the global financial system and replace cash? No. Do I think people are going to denominate debt in Bitcoin? No. Do I think that before those things could happen you are going to need substantial regulatory supervision of places like exchanges? Yes.
There are a lot of improvements that need to be made, one thing to look out for in particular are the layer-2 solutions like Lightning, which will add capacity to it. The technology is brilliant, its had hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of man hours directed at Bitcoin itself to ensure that the network works, and as a result its a very robust system. That works in Bitcoin’s favor, as compared to other projects which may only have a few thousand or tens of thousands of hours put into them. 

SR: What will it take to achieve mainstream adoption if stablecoins are not the answer, and Bitcoin may not be the answer long-term to achieve stability?
PJB: What is necessary for mainstream adoption of cryptocurrencies is what’s necessary for anything else using the blockchain. You need to have people who are familiar with the idea of using distributed P2P networks and with key management. If you can get those two things, then you have the necessary pre-conditions not only to adapt cryptocurrencies, but also to adapt other types of automates financial assets. I think time is the answer to that.

SR: How much time?
PJB: I remember four year ago I had just started a company, and there were maybe five other companies that were blockchain (not bitcoin) companies in existence, and six month later we released permissioned blockchain — and it was a scandal! Now, three and a half years later, Venezuela has its own cryptocurrency, right? The speed is unbelievable, but a lot of that has been experimentation, I think installations are going to come in 2–3 years probably, but it may happen quicker. I’ve had friends come to me, in the small town where I live, telling me about their altcoins portfolio, so there is something going on and people are getting used to the tools. I think that stablecoins are a temporary solution while the mainstream financial system figures out how to on-ramp dollars into these systems, so we will see. 

If you’d like to read Preston Byrne’s writings on law, politics, distributed systems, and Marmots, check out his blog at ‘prestonbyrne.com’ or follow him on twitter at @prestonjbyrne

For this week’s podcast, we have the honor of interviewing none other than Preston J. Byrne. Preston is a banking and securities lawyer in London, specialising in securitisation and derivatives. He advises the Adam Smith Institute on legal aspects of its policy proposals and writes on a range of subjects including housing and planning law, the security state, freedom of expression and, of course, cryptocurrency. He is also a founder and former COO of Monax, makers of the first open-source permissioned blockchain client way back in 2014, which is now known as the Hyperledger Burrow.
Preston has written critically about stablecoin projects, and is an outspoken and often-quoted critic of the current state in cryptocurrency , which we really need. Also: he loves marmots. Actually, that’s how we got in touch, through a marmot meme, but that’s another story.

This interview is 25 minutes long, feel free to click play and listen to it now, subscribe to our podcast here to listen later, watch it on YouTube, or simply go ahead and read the edit below. Please enjoy and let us know what you think!

 

SC: Our first question in the Stable.Report podcast is always: what got you interested in cryptocurrencies?
PJB: I have to admit it kind of started with Dogecoin. As a young lawyer, I was researching and writing on different topics every year, and in 2013 Bitcoin seemed interesting. A friend of mine was working at a think thank in Guatemala and he had an idea that was basically a version of Bitcoin designed as a municipal accounting system, he called it MuniBit, and that got me thinking about using something like Bitcoin to create a tamper-resistant enterprise database. That idea eventually became what is now know as Hyperledger Burrow, which is a fork of the Ethereum Virtual Machine but with permissioning involved, so you could get all of the cryptographic certainty of your hashing and digital signatures bundled into a neat little package. Dogecoin was when the penny dropped as to how to do it, but the idea was in that initial proposal that my friend Zachary Caceres came up with, called MuniBit. That’s how I got started into cryptocurrencies.

SC: Let’s get something out of the way, do you believe stablecoins could work?
PJB: I think a stablecoin could work as long as it is convertible. If you have a token of some kind which is backed by an asset somewhere, held on trust for the holder of the token, then the token basically represents a coupon which entitles them to proceed to the place where the physical thing is being held and claim it back. That is really the way to do it if you are going to do it, the downside is that you have to be a 100% cash or asset collateralized at all times, which isn’t necessarily the most efficient way to record a dollar balance, this is why we do fractional reserve banking. What we see with stablecoins is slightly different: people with large crypto-balances trying to use the crypto markets as a way to store value which is somehow related to those underlying crypto-balances, and generally speaking there are three ways you can do this. 
The first one is more or less equal to the asset backed, so something like Tether — forgetting all the criticisms and FUD in the market — if everything that the people who run Tether are saying is true and there is no regulatory problem with it, then Tether has dollars sitting in the bank account which ostensibly you should be able to go and redeem with the Tether Token. That’s not really a stablecoin, that’s more of a coupon for an asset which exists in the real world. Then you have MakerDAO-style stablecoins, which I would call the collateralized stablecoins; and Basis-style stablecoins, or algorithmic stablecoins.
With collateralized stablecoins, basically what you do is make a margin long bet by locking up some Ether in the contract and getting another “dollar” of exposure, which you can spend and potentially buy more Ether with. It’s like a bet on price movement of Ether (or other crypto as collateral). The idea is that if the price of Ether deteriorates, you’ve locked up enough collateral in the smart contract, to basically “call” that contract and be able to get your money back as a stablecoin holder. You multiple collateralize by 200% or 300%, and the issue with that is that it’s very value destructive in an environment where the value of the underlying cryptocurrency is falling. If the value is going up everybody wins in the transaction, the person who holds the coin can spend it, its always worth a dollar, and they can go redeem it for a dollar. If the value is going down, by contrast, you are burning through the collateral that many times faster, so if you have 400% collateral, as the price of Ether falls you are losing 4 times as much money.
With algorithmic stablecoins, they think they can set up incentives arrangements to try and incentivize people to spend money in the system, in order to keep the price at or near a dollar. It’s an interesting idea, but ultimately that kind of concept relies on the stablecoin being in a closed system — which nothing in economics is, everything has to interact with something else, and the motivations of the actors are not solely locked into the stablecoin. For example, if someone with a margin long position needs to go get liquidated and needs to get money from somewhere, they might be perfectly ready, willing and able to part with their stablecoin for less than what they paid for as long as they would get cash to meet their liabilities. This is not something that you would usually see when the market is moving upwards, but when its moving downward very rapidly — as it did in 2008, you can have a cascade effect where people are constantly trying to get out of everything at once. It is not a bubble being drawn down as we’ve seen in cryptomarkets, but a systemic fear of people not being able to meet their obligations and a flight to liquidity and safety. What this event would mean for a stablecoin like Basis is that if people are not buying it, there is no way it can’t hold its value, because it needs that central component of a purchaser. The criticisms of this scheme, generally speaking, is that you have bright young guys coming from Google and Stanford, who do not have a lot of practical experience in finance and were not around last time the big financial crisis happened, so these lessons are going to be learned the hard way because they developed these systems. With some modifications, these things could be useful for some really interesting trading applications or derivatives automation, but I don’t think you could make a stablecoin out of it because the economics don’t make sense.

SR: It’s interesting, I think a big problem in this space is that most being going into it are either very well-versed in technology and not in finance, or the other way around. What’s interesting about Basis is that one of their investors is Stanley Druckenmiller, who helped George Soros infamously break the Bank of England.
PJB: Another stablecoin project, Saga, has Nobel laureate Myron Scholes, famous for the Black-Scholes options pricing model, as an advisor. So there is something in it that is getting people really interested in programmatic money. People often said Bitcoin is its own Federal Reserve because it has its own money supply algorithm, which determines how many bitcoins are produced, but that’s not quite what the Fed does, because the Fed is actually responsive to changing market conditions. So what’s happened is they’ve kind of added another layer of complexity to ensure that the purchasing power of a coin stays close to a dollar. I can foresee in the future a system like this being used as a better vehicle for the market to communicate information to regulators, but I don’t necessarily see a stablecoin as being the logical outcome of that development. 

SR: What about a system to whitelist and combine the most stablecoin projects, with a mechanism for risk takers to take the loss in case one of them fails. Could that work?
PJB: I think there you are looking to get stability by basically having people enter into default swaps. If the stablecoin goes down and a counterparty is willing to satisfy the loss and insure that everyone who invested in the stablecoin is made whole, that is a very significant risk. I wonder how you would price that risk and how you would get someone to take the other end of that trade. So far we’ve seen a lot of stablecoin failure, NuBits failed and MakerDAO failed in January losing 40% of its value, so in the absence of knowing how these things are going to perform, and in particular when you don’t have something that is asset-backed where you could at least have some recourse and some assets, are you going to allow everyone to rack up a huge balance that you are going to guarantee?

SR: You mentioned asset or fiat backed stablecoins serving as coupons, in a way. As you know, the Venezuelan government is pegging their hyper-inflated currency to the “stablecoin” Petro, which is collateralized by thousands of petroleum barrels underground. Of course, I don’t believe in the Petro and it has been banned by the United States. But theoretically, could a country achieve stability by de-coupling from the USD?
PJB: The Petro strikes me as a way for the Venezuelan Government to try to get its paws on some bitcoin and other assets that it can sell for cash, particularly USD, which it desperately needs because its national currency is so worthless. You can buy Petro tokens from the Venezuelan Government, which is an entitlement to the equivalent amount in Bolívares of what a barrel of petroleum would cost at the date of issuance, so it’s basically an IOU or cash settlement. If a barrel of oil costs 100 Bolívares and you buy it for 100 Bolívares worth of USD today, you will get back 100 Bolívares back when you claim it. The 100 Bolívares is backed by the barrel of petroleum so it should stabilize the currency, but that does not make a lot of sense to me, because they are two different things. The barrel of petroleum is an asset which you can sell for cash or in future contracts, and the Bolívar is a different type of asset, and they are saying: if you pay in cash or Bitcoin now we will give you back Bolívares later, priced at the price now. It’s not a very good deal and not a very good idea.
Now, does that mean you can’t have some type of government asset which is tokenized in the future, which could raise municipal funds or be used for municipal debt? Absolutely not, and you could certainly make those processes more efficient using blockchain technology. 

SR: It’s been over 40 years since the Gold Window was closed by Richard Nixon. Theoretically, could going back to the gold standard be a possibility to restart the economy? If Venezuela’s next government uses its gold reserves to back their cryptocurrency, could that be a way to achieve stability?
PJB: I think Venezuela’s issue now is not one that gets solved with a stablecoin, but with the medium of exchange that people are legally required to use and pay taxes in, and starts bearing some rational relationship to economic activity instead of the government’s printing press. You need to get the government out of the industries that were nationalized, stop the government from making economic decisions on people’s behalf and get PDVSA back up and running as soon as possible as a source of revenue. The government pushed out all private enterprise, so of course the country is falling apart. I don’t think having a currency backed by gold makes a lot of sense, there is a lot of reform needed from the ground up and get the government to stop devaluing the currency for their own short-term objectives.

SR: We are in agreement on that. Do you envision countries with a decentralized bank, where they don’t have control of the printing press?
PJB: We’ve seen that before, specifically in Britain in the late 1700s, the issue with that was the credit crisis of 1722. Banks were issuing their own notes and they endorsed them repeatedly, drew multiple notes on the same deposits, and whatever you might imagine. So there was a crisis of confidence, because you couldn’t be certain of wether the note that you held, which said “5 pounds in Bank X”, was actually there. A blockchain kind of changes that because you can be certain if a note is recorded at the bank, because you can go and look at the entire history of everything at the bank. Would you then want to say: well, we are moving our printing presses and we are going to start using blockchain as digital cash? I don’t think you want to do that until significant advances in scalability, storage and network capacity make that feasible, because right now centralized systems are much more efficient for most transactions, like Visa and MasterCard. 

SR: That brings me back to one of your main motivations to be such a prolific writer in the space, I think, which is how greed took over the space. Everything is fairy dust and a lot of marketing buzz-words. Rather than telling our readers to DYOR, what are some pieces of content out literature that have helped you to frame the space, or that you would recommend others to read up on?
PJB: There’s not a lot of good literature out there, there is a lot of bad writing. I’m naturally quite skeptical and what I would recommend is to follow the other skeptics in twitter, such as: @izakaminska ‏, @davidgerard ‏, @ofnumbers ‏; and some of the bitcoin maximalist like: @bitstein ‏, @pierre_rochard ‏ and a couple of others. The sober voices are not trying to sell anything to you, and that’s what you need to be aware of. Every book that’s been written on blockchain, generally speaking, if you dust of the cover and ask: who wrote it and why? There is always a sell somewhere in there, so look out for people trying to sell you on a dream or a vision. If they are selling a product or a coin, that’s when alarm bells and red flags should be going off.

SR: So you also agree that even Bitcoin is not the proper solution to our problems today, and perhaps Bitcoin won’t be here in the long term.
PJB: I think Bitcoin is here to stay. Do I think that Bitcoin is going to be the basis of the global financial system and replace cash? No. Do I think people are going to denominate debt in Bitcoin? No. Do I think that before those things could happen you are going to need substantial regulatory supervision of places like exchanges? Yes.
There are a lot of improvements that need to be made, one thing to look out for in particular are the layer-2 solutions like Lightning, which will add capacity to it. The technology is brilliant, its had hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of man hours directed at Bitcoin itself to ensure that the network works, and as a result its a very robust system. That works in Bitcoin’s favor, as compared to other projects which may only have a few thousand or tens of thousands of hours put into them. 

SR: What will it take to achieve mainstream adoption if stablecoins are not the answer, and Bitcoin may not be the answer long-term to achieve stability?
PJB: What is necessary for mainstream adoption of cryptocurrencies is what’s necessary for anything else using the blockchain. You need to have people who are familiar with the idea of using distributed P2P networks and with key management. If you can get those two things, then you have the necessary pre-conditions not only to adapt cryptocurrencies, but also to adapt other types of automates financial assets. I think time is the answer to that.

SR: How much time?
PJB: I remember four year ago I had just started a company, and there were maybe five other companies that were blockchain (not bitcoin) companies in existence, and six month later we released permissioned blockchain — and it was a scandal! Now, three and a half years later, Venezuela has its own cryptocurrency, right? The speed is unbelievable, but a lot of that has been experimentation, I think installations are going to come in 2–3 years probably, but it may happen quicker. I’ve had friends come to me, in the small town where I live, telling me about their altcoins portfolio, so there is something going on and people are getting used to the tools. I think that stablecoins are a temporary solution while the mainstream financial system figures out how to on-ramp dollars into these systems, so we will see. 

If you’d like to read Preston Byrne’s writings on law, politics, distributed systems, and Marmots, check out his blog at ‘prestonbyrne.com’ or follow him on twitter at @prestonjbyrne

Stable.Report, Sep.3 - Sep.9

Stable.Report, Sep.3 - Sep.9

Stable.Report, Aug.27 — Sep.2

Stable.Report, Aug.27 — Sep.2