NEAR: I love the overall ecosystem. The default wallet is great, everything is fast and cheap and the foundation seems to be making the right moves (shutting down USN when it was clear it wasn’t going to work). The underlying tech is outstanding (so far as I understand it). My concern is utility and adoption. It’s a pretty dead community and I don’t know how that changes. I was hoping Solana devs would come over and bring users (both coded in RUST) but so far not so much. I’ll keep a little bag so I can keep using it but more and more I’m doubting anything kills ETH.
This post is too good to be flaired comedy 😂 I hope he learned his lesson and he won’t connect Kim coin with an algorithmic stablecoin… But if he do, what name should he give this stablecoin? USN would be a good one because Nukes are Kim’s favorite toys.
Indeed, but when zeros are cut from fiat denominations, that technically creates a new currency. USD would become USN or some such. "New dollar." Frankly it should be an embarrassment to any central bank when such a redenomination becomes necessary.
Anyone well-versed on Near's USN stablecoin? This sh\*t seems WILD! [https://www.publish0x.com/cryptoeq/feeling-reckless-and-risky-then-i-have-just-the-stablecoin-f-xozmrdq](https://www.publish0x.com/cryptoeq/feeling-reckless-and-risky-then-i-have-just-the-stablecoin-f-xozmrdq)
Quite some buzz with stablecoin news today \- USN escaped a smart contract exploit from having coins being over printed \- Aave founder, Stani Kulechov is requesting for comments on a possible new decentralized stablecoins called GHO that is native to the Aave ecosystem \- Shiba Inu has announced several new projects which include a new stablecoin, alongside a new reward token, TREAT.
It's double collateralised and reflexive in its rebalancing & variable yields. To take it to zero would require another a bigger vector to attack - USDT, and Near, in addition to USN exit if the faith disappears. Yields would dry, reserves would be spent, but the peg can be saved.
Near is another obvious Ponzi and will fail the same way that Terra-Luna did, only slower. The key thing to understand is that $NEAR doesn't necessarily have intrinsic value. It is supposed to be the collateral for USN but in a contracting market, nobody wants to have that collateral in their pocket. This will result in a similar price crash as Luna, and suddenly this reserve fund (holding mostly Near) will be pretty worthless.
May I offer you some algorithmic stablecoin USN, which offers a 10% APY, backed by the floating Near Protocol, with the possibility of making 20%? [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/143275/usn-stablecoin-goes-live-on-near-protocol](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/143275/usn-stablecoin-goes-live-on-near-protocol) It's toooootallly different this time.
So when is this guy: [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/143275/usn-stablecoin-goes-live-on-near-protocol](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/143275/usn-stablecoin-goes-live-on-near-protocol) Going to get hammered? Near (LUNA/TITAN incarnate) is currently valued at 4.5 billion and that just launched. So do we just have to wait until USN's market value starts approaching Near Protocol's (currently at 4.5 billion) and go through this shitshow again?
It's because of USN. Another algorithmic stable coin like UST. It's very new/recent so it won't be a crash that happens very near ;) in the future but watch it grow over the next few years, mature, and how they are planning to solve issues that failed Luna. I'd say WAVES and USDN is next after Luna/UST but pay close attention to Near over the next few years. It's already one of the top projects in this space and while history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes.
>Are they going to continue buying? I don't know, i've seen this info from someone tracking their wallets. What i guess is that they probably have some insight on some incentives coming for that coin. If that's the case there will be a lot of buying pressure on USN which should help Near's price. But that's just speculation on my part.
>But why would it? For one, a lot of liquidity could just relocate to higher APY stables like USN now. I mean for how long can the anchor sustain it's high APY printing? Luna tanked 20% today on a mere withdrawal of 1.5% of the supply from anchor with peg hitting as low as $0.9 and this is after they are collateralizing it like mad with BTC. It's almost a joke they are calling it coordinated attack. It certainly does not look good as more and more people are incentivized to rotate and withdraw, not to mention the de-pegging doesn't help.
No, it's possible but the chances are so low that it is not a valid reason to switch stable coins. It has so much backing it would quickly recover it's peg if it did lose it. It's 19.5% APY is unsustainable tho. They will probably settle around 13% in the future as that seems sustainable with the levels of borrowers they have. It will be interesting to see what USN does and tries to offer more then ANC.