TL; DR
-
PayPal released a US dollar-pegged stablecoin, known as PYUSD, on the Ethereum blockchain this year.
-
People are up in arms about the greater impact it will have on the crypto and financial industries. Both good and bad.’
-
Debates are difficult to settle. So we’ll postpone it the little girl from the Old El Paso ad and say, “Why don’t we have both?” Centralized stablecoins (and monetary systems as a whole) are fine for us, as long as there are plenty of healthy decentralized options to choose from.
Full story
Okay okay okay. Let’s pretend.
We are in debate class.
The question is:
“What is your position on the role of governance in supporting innovation in biotechnology?“
Jk, jk. This is a crypto publication.
So it’s a debate about stablecoins, specifically:
“Pro-PayPal stablecoin” vs. “Anti-PayPal stablecoin”.
Last lesson we went through the materials (we actually wrote about this in August).
And now you get to choose sides.
Here’s a refresher:
PayPal released a US dollar-pegged stablecoin, known as PYUSD, on the Ethereum blockchain this year.
People are up in arms about the greater impact it will have on the crypto and financial industries. Both good and bad.’
So here’s the breakdown:
First up: Pro-PayPal Stablecoin
-
Seeing a globally recognized/used brand like PayPal embrace blockchain technology, helping to legitimize both stablecoins and the broader crypto space.
-
PayPal may expose a lot of new people to Web3/crypto. There are millions from people connected to PayPal…merchants, suppliers, customers, parent companies.
-
If PYUSD was accessible across multiple blockchains…wow. It could make for a much easier crypto onboarding process!
-
A stablecoin hosted on PayPal could help bank a whole range of people who don’t have access to traditional banking (Yes Yes!)
Pretty cool.
Okay, now for: Anti-PayPal Stablecoin
-
The whole point of Web3 is decentralization. PYUSD could open a LOT of doors for Web3, but ultimately it would mean a large, centralized tech company with a lot of power and money in its hands. And that is exactly what we are trying to get away from.
Debates are difficult to settle. So we’ll postpone it the little girl from the Old El Paso ad and say, “Why don’t we have both?”
Centralized stablecoins (and monetary systems as a whole) are fine for us, as long as there are plenty of healthy decentralized options to choose from.
