July 13, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Stablecoins: Scam or Cryptocurrency Volatility Safehaven?

Stablecoins: scam or cryptocurrency volatility safehaven?

Stablecoins: Scam or Cryptocurrency Volatility Safehaven?

Nick Chong · April 4, 2018 · 5:00 am

Stablecoins, cryptocurrencies pegged to external values outside of the cryptocurrency market, have been all the talk lately, especially in the recent market pullback. Tether, the biggest stablecoin pegged to the US dollar, has recently come under fire due to a lack of transparency.


Let’s face it, the cryptocurrency market, in general, is far from stable. Over the past 6 months, the market cap of the cryptocurrency space has been a gut-churning rollercoaster ride from one hundred to eight hundred billion dollars and everywhere in between.

Compared to traditional markets, the cryptocurrency market has faced magnitudes more volatility than these traditional markets. On an average day, stock markets often see single percentage movements, while cryptocurrency markets have become used to seeing 3-5 percent movement days. This may be due to the fact that the industry is in its infancy with sentiment being widely varied between different countries and organizations.

Volatility and risk have been found to be the primary reasons why more conservative retail investors still have not dipped their toes into the cryptocurrency market. Traditional markets and their respective investors often try to avoid volatility as a high volatility factor will often damage profits and the security of funds.

As a direct result of this volatility, which has become commonplace in the cryptocurrency market, blockchain developers have begun creating and working with cryptocurrencies that are pegged to values which exist outside the blockchain industry. The main examples being Tether and the DAI token which have both been key players in this newly founded cryptocurrency sub-sector.

So What Are Stablecoins?

As alluded to earlier, stablecoins are pegged to the value of an asset outside the cryptocurrency and blockchain space that is stable or at least more stable than other assets. The biggest stablecoin by market cap, Tether, is pegged to the value of the United States dollar. That means that at all times, Tether should be trading at just around $1.00 USD. The reason why it continues to hold that dollar price points is due to the fact that Tether claims to have a US dollar for each Tether coin issued. 

Other projects will allow for you, the consumer, to buy a token based on other assets such as gold, oil, and habanero peppers. These cryptocurrencies, some of which are still in the works, will allow investors to invest in a wide variety of assets while still benefiting from the transparent and efficient aspects of a blockchain.

So why would people need to own and use a cryptocurrency which is backed to the common US dollar?

As mentioned earlier, these stablecoins often provide the same benefits which blockchains provide but with a vastly larger amount of stabilization in the price of the cryptoasset.  Additionally, trading your ‘normal’ cryptocurrencies to Tether coins, or ‘tethering’ as it more well known on online forums, has become a way in which people have been able to take shelter in bear markets.

When you trade into Tether coins, you are essentially shorting the cryptocurrency market. By converting your traditional cryptocurrencies into Tether or another market equivalent, you remove the risk of portfolio value fluctuation.

For example:

Let’s say you sell 1 bitcoin at $10,000 for 10,000 Tether. Then the price of bitcoin drops down to $5000, you can then buy 2 bitcoin for the same 10,000 Tether. This is, in essence, a short play on the cryptocurrency market as you benefit from buying on a market decrease. Many investors have begun using this strategy when bear signals have become prevalent in the space. Tether has proven themselves to be a reliable way which investors can use to maintain profits in bull runs, like the one seen late last year. 

Is it All Sunshine and Rainbows?

At the time of writing, Tether’s market cap has reached over $2 Billion US dollars and continues its relentless growth with the overall market. Recent document leaks have shown that Bitfenix is closely linked with the Tether organization and critics worry that Tether is a way which Bitfenix and affiliated parties can help pump the market with artificial methods. These files have shown that the Bitfenix founder is also the founder of the Tether organization.

Although there is no clear regulation about relationships like this. There have been questions about conflicts of interest and insider information floating around.  

Tether’s ability to procure these balance sheets and financial statements has been lackluster. There are some in the community who doubt that Tether actually has the assets to support the amount of Tether coins in existence. This rightfully led some to become worried about the imminent collapse of the Tether coin.

Every time Tether is ‘printed’, people further doubt the legitimacy of the funds which is so central to the purpose of these so-called ‘stablecoins.’ Just 2 weeks ago, over $300 million worth of Tether was created which brought up another debate about the legitimacy of the funds. As the Tether market cap continues to grow, it will only make sense that the Tether organization will have to release a statement regarding the funds to make sure that they can become fully transparent.

Alternatives to tether

Alternatives to Tether

On the other hand, there have been other examples of stablecoins which have proven themselves to be trustworthy and fully transparent. Projects like DAI Token and TrueUSD have a much smaller impact on the market with relatively small market caps but still are important players in the stablecoin sub-industry.

DAI token works by using smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain that allows it to maintain its value through dynamic interest rates and creating collateralized positions. DAI is created by the transfer of Ethereum to the DAI smart contract and then is collateralized to make sure that there are funds backing the DAI tokens. The reason why DAI stays stable at just around one USD is due to the fact that the dynamic interest rates investors can receive in return for holding DAI and a minor amount fees being taken which allows for there to be a stability around the price of DAI.

Some believe that this system is more superior to the Tether system as it serves more processes and applications. Like the rest of the cryptocurrency market, it makes sense that the market’s sub-sectors will have many different competitors so a large variety of stablecoins in the future will become necessary. 

As blockchain and cryptocurrency adoption begins to spread, the market will begin to stabilize. However, it is clear that stablecoins will continue to be a good escape in bear markets and will allow for investors to keep their funds stable in volatile times. Additionally, the stable aspect of these specialized cryptocurrencies makes these stablecoins perfect for day to day use. In a sense, Tether is an entry-level cryptocurrency as the lack of any volatility at all makes it appealing for those interested in the industry.

What do you think about the Tether controversy? What makes a stablecoin reliable? Let us know in the comments below.


Images courtesy of DepositPhotos, AdobeStock

blockchainblockchain technologycryptocurrenciesStablecoinsTether Show comments

Published at Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:00:30 +0000

Altcoins

Previous Article

Hardware Wallet Trezor Confirms Upcoming Cashaddr Support for Bitcoin Cash

Next Article

Indian bitcoin exchange Zebpay cuts intraday trade fees by half

You might be interested in …

It's a vibe

It’s A Vibe

It’s A Vibe Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group North America It’s A Vibe · 2 Chainz · Ty Dolla $ign · Trey Songz · Jhené Aiko Pretty Girls Like Trap Music ℗ ℗ […]

Interview: Cryptographer Silvio Micali on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Proof of Stake

Interview: Cryptographer Silvio Micali on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Proof of Stake

Silvio Micali is an MIT professor and Turing Award–winning cryptographer known for his work in technologies that form the bedrock of blockchains today: public-key cryptosystems, digital signatures, pseudorandomness and multiparty computations. He is also the co-inventor of the zero-knowledge proof.

In the ’90s, he worked on Byzantine agreement, a protocol for getting nodes in a distributed system to agree on a state change. And in 2012, he and long-time collaborator Shafi Goldwasser were co-recipients of the A.M. Turing Award, essentially, the “Nobel Prize in computing.”

Upon learning about bitcoin three years ago, Micali turned his attention from mechanism design, which had consumed him for the previous seven years, and dove headlong into creating a proof-of-stake algorithm. His project is called Algorand.

Put simply, Algorand relies on a novel form of Byzantine agreement with only nine expected steps. In each step, committee members, chosen at random in a private lottery, are replaced. The result is a high-security system with a negligible risk of forks.

According to Micali, recent tests show Algorand can process 2 MB blocks in 17 seconds, compared to bitcoin, which produces a 1 MB block every 10 minutes. (A paper on these results will be presented at SOSP, the biennial ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, later this month.)

In an interview with bitcoin Magazine, Micali explained why he thinks proof of stake is superior to proof of work, the consensus algorithm that underlies most cryptocurrencies today, including bitcoin and Ethereum. Although Ethereum, more often viewed as a smart contract platform, aims to transition to proof of stake next year.

Unnecessary Evil

Micali thinks proof of work was a great idea when it first came out, but now that we have seen the consequences, he calls it an “unnecessary evil” for several reasons.

“The first time I heard about bitcoin, I saw all the difficulties. To me, the main difficulty is the waste of computational resources. That is really appalling,” he said. “It drives up prices and depletes the planet of resources.”

Second, he sees miners as “a new center of power” and an orthogonal force to the real users of the system: the coin holders.

“If five mining pools can control what goes in or does not go in a block, in what sense is the ledger decentralized? You don’t want miners having control over the ledger, particularly when they have low margins, are far away and accountable to no one. I think it is a recipe for disaster,” he said.

Finally, transaction ambiguity does not sit well with him. In bitcoin, occasionally two blocks are found at roughly the same time, creating a temporary fork in the chain. When that happens, the branch with the greater hash power is elongated, while the other and its blocks “disappear.” If your transactions happened to be in an orphaned block, it will eventually get picked up again in the main chain, but for Micali, the idea is unsettling.

“Every time I see my transaction is in a block, I worry the block may disappear. But never mind anxious people like me; banks may not be willing to take on the additional risk,” he said. “Can you imagine a financial world where wire transfers could be taken back?”  

Natural Democracy

Micali thinks proof of stake is a better option. In proof of stake, there are no miners, just the coin holders. Further, a coin holder’s ability to create or validate a block is based on how many coins in the system he or she owns.

“This is a natural interpretation of democracy,” Micali said. “Your influence in maintaining the integrity of the system is based on how much you are really invested in the system.”  

But there is a catch: creating a proof-of-stake algorithm is hard to do. While several projects claim to have come up with a secure protocol, Micali thinks some of those claims are questionable. “The fact is, people can claim anything they want,” he said.

One of the biggest challenges in proof of stake is the “nothing at stake” problem. If the chain forks, the optimal strategy for any coin holder is to extend both chains to earn additional block rewards or to double spend. That goes against the central design goal of all blockchains: getting users to converge on a single chain.

Some projects are looking at ways to sculpt their proof-of-stake protocols by adding perks or punishments to get coin holders to abide by the rules. As part of that, some proof-of-stake systems require users to put up a type of security deposit or bond.

Micali feels a well-designed proof-of-stake cryptocurrency should stand on its own, however, without extra measures. He thinks bonding opens doors to bad actors.

“Let me ask you, what fraction of your disposable income can you put on the table and not touch?” he said and suggested that honest people will put up only a small amount, ceding control to bad actors with big pockets.

“The danger is that only bad people will give up control over a large amount of money to manipulate the system. And if they earn much more money by misbehaving, they will be happy to lose what they put on the table,” he said.

He also disagrees with the idea of using punishment to get users to fall in line.

“A weak state rules through threats and fear,” he said, comparing the practice to barbaric punishments used by some nations to fight crime. Why do they do it? Because criminals are so rarely caught, he said. “So once they catch one, they disembowel the poor guy.”

He continued, “Do you want to oust somebody who misbehaves? Of course. But a well organized system is one in which you don’t need to punish people.”

bitcoin and Ethereum

Most people view bitcoin solely as a cryptocurrency, but Micali thinks the greatest value of bitcoin and Ethereum are as enablers of smart contracts, in which users can stipulate if-then conditions around payments.  

“At the end of the day, doing only payments is easy,” he said, adding that he did not want to trivialize the problem. “Of course, decentralized payments are better than centralized payments, but what really differentiates a cryptocurrency from any other form of money is that you can actually do a smart contract.”

Based on that, he thinks that both bitcoin and Ethereum would benefit from implementing the best consensus algorithm available. Currently, both systems are “huffing and puffing,” he said. bitcoin is constrained to 7 transactions per second, while Ethereum can process only 15 per second, compared to Visa’s 2,000 per second.

“If the blockchain scales, isn’t it better for bitcoin and Ethereum? If the blockchain has a [mathematical] proof of security, isn’t it better for its users?” he said. “If the blockchain cannot be hijacked by miners who are accountable to nobody and live in some faraway jurisdiction, isn’t that a plus for all users?” Micali thinks so.

The post Interview: Cryptographer Silvio Micali on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Proof of Stake appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.