Episode 50
Are Stablecoins Possible? | Nevin Freeman on the Reserve Protocol
Episode 50
Nevin Freeman
Are Stablecoins Possible? | Nevin Freeman on the Reserve Protocol
summary
This is the year of the stablecoin, or so says Nevin Freeman, the founder of a new stable-value cryptocurrency project based in the San Francisco Bay area. In order to understand what stablecoins and how they work, we first need to understand money.
In order for something to qualify as money, it has traditionally needed to function as both a store of value, and as a medium of exchange for goods and services. The medium of exchange component of money allows it to function as a vital coordination mechanism for society, allowing humans and international governments and organizations to collaborate on a massive scale. Money is thus an intrinsic part of our capitalist infrastructure and, without currency, many of our most important institutions and organizational structures would collapse.
Yet, our system of money and credit is not without its share of problems. Middlemen, financial intermediaries, and other central organizations often charge exorbitant fees for their services. These same intermediaries often function as “gatekeepers,” permitting or preventing access to financial counterparities at their discretion. The mismanagement of our financial system by such institutions has become a major source of systemic risk, the brunt of which is disproportionately carried by those at the bottom of the economic pyramid.
Cryptocurrencies offer a possible solution to many of the most prominent problems associated with fiat currency systems. However, there are significant roadblocks on the path to widespread adoption. As we mentioned, in order to qualify as money, a currency needs to both the medium of exchange and store of value functions. This becomes difficult to do when currency volatility can wipe out 50% of your net worth in a single day or double the cost of your company’s inputs overnight.
It is no secret that crypto markets are remarkably volatile. Even the most prominent cryptocurrencies – Bitcoin and Ether – fluctuate wildly. Unfortunately, it’s impossible for a decentralized currency to function as an effective store of value if its price varies by as much as 15% on any given day and in any given direction. Even if the cryptocurrency in question were rarely to drop in price, upside volatility can create a speculative feed-back loop that discourages anyone from actually using it as a medium of exchange. Why would you pay someone’s salary in bitcoin if you expected the currency to be worth more after you sold it? In this sense, even a highly volatile asset with little downside risk that serves as a great store of value can still be a poor medium of exchange.
Until cryptocurrencies are able to function as both a store of value and as a medium of exchange, they are unlikely to become truly mainstream or see real-world adoption. Yet, as previously mentioned in the case of bitcoin, a cryptocurrency’s capacity to store value directly undermines it’s use as a medium of exchange. How do we resolve this paradox?
This is where stablecoins come in. They aim to solve the problems of our volatile crypto markets by establishing price-stable cryptocurrencies that are pegged to some other stable asset, for example, the US dollar. Notably, these pegs are not determined by supply and demand. Instead, stablecoins effectively “price themselves” by making a standing promise to fulfill any buy or sell order at a set price, regardless of changes in demand for the currency by market participants. In traditional currency pegs and exchange rate mechanisms, currency boards manage the value of the peg by overseeing the promise to buy or sell at a preset conversion price. So, how does a currency peg work in the case of stablecoins?Here is an overview of how the most prominent stablecoin projects on the market promise to do this today:
Traditional asset-backed stablecoins: In short, under this system, each unit of the particular stablecoin is backed by a corresponding unit of fiat currency. Let’s use the US dollar as an example. According to this system, a third-party issuer sells tokens for one dollar each. The issuer then keeps all the dollars taken in from these sales in an account. If an individual holding a unit of the stablecoin wishes to cash out, the third party gives a US Dollar to the holder and removes a unit of the stablecoin.
The problems with this method loom large. First, there’s the obvious fact that, at any moment, the organization or individual issuing the stablecoin can abscond with all the money that’s supposed to be in the bank account. Second, a government or other centralized organization could freeze the aforementioned account of the issuer, which would grind the project to an abrupt halt. In short, there’s a lot of risk and a lot of trust needed for this method to function properly.
Collateralized Debt Stablecoins: Under this system, instead of attempting to back units of a stablecoin one-to-one with a fiat currency, the stablecoins hold a ratio greater than one-to-one of a crypto asset (or more commonly, various kinds of crypto assets). The way this works is rather simple. An individual who holds a crypto asset can deposit this asset into a smart contract, which creates a stablecoin for them.
The peg (the value of the stablecoin) is primarily maintained by the promise of future redemption for collateral if the stablecoin price diverges from the target for too long or the value of the collateral begins to drop. In either of these cases, all of the stablecoin holders can trade their coins for $1 worth of the collateralized crypto assets. In theory, speculators will step in to buy stablecoins below the target price based on this promise of future redemption and that will keep the price stable all of the time. The primary problem with this system is that that the underlying collateral is, by its very nature, volatile. As a result, in order to ensure itself against significant price drops, the system needs to hold a significant amount of collateral (often two-to-one, or even more). This is also a much more complex system, making it difficult to implement in a way that is efficient.
Future Growth-Backed Stablecoins: According to this system, the value is maintained by neither fiat or cryptocurrency holdings. Instead, a central account is created that uses algorithms to maintain the stability and manage the supply of the cryptocurrency in the face of fluctuating demand. It accomplishes this by increasing the number of stablecoins when the price goes up and decreasing the number when the price goes down. The increase in stablecoin supply is meant to reduce the market price of the coin to its target level. Conversely, when the price of the stablecoin drops below its target price, the system will reduce the supply of stablecoins and increase the price of the coin so that it returns to its target level. The primary issue with this method is tied to speculators. If they happen to lose interest in purchasing or actively begin to short the stablecoin, then the peg eventually breaks because the entire mechanism becomes worthless.
At the moment, it remains unclear which system, if any, will work. History has not been kind to currency boards, and the challenges of implementing a purely digital version of a currency peg has never before been tried until now.
In order to better understand the nature of stablecoins, and the promise that they have, Nevin Freeman joins us for a conversation about money and the fundamental properties of currency.
Ultimately, this is an exploration of how we can make cryptocurrencies a true store of value, while at the same time enabling these decentralized currencies to function as real and viable mediums of exchange.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Nevin Freeman began life as an environmentalist in southern Oregon, where he studied wilderness preservation, thought about climate change, and considered ways of producing energy more efficiently. He stuck with this theme in college, studying mechanical and transportation system engineering in Portland, Oregon, in hopes of producing more efficient vehicles. But upon graduating, Nevin realized his understanding of the global ecosystem was simplistic and he was not on track to single-handedly solve global climate change the way he had imagined as a child.
After reflecting on why he wanted to preserve the ecosystem on the planet in the first place and realizing the thing he valued was flourishing of conscious beings, Nevin took a much broader approach to thinking about global problems and opportunities, integrating himself into the Future of Humanity Institute community, and co-creating the Effective Altruism movement – a group of people relying on reason and evidence to find the highest leverage ways of improving our world. He co-produced the first Effective Altruism Summit, directed the second one, and facilitated its transition to what is now Effective Altruism Global.
Nevin has spent his recent years building Paradigm Academy, a company builder in the Bay Area that specializes in recruiting and training ambitious, altruistic founders. Last year, Nevin left his full-time role at Paradigm to spin off Reserve, a full-stack open currency designed to bring economic stability to regions in the world with inflation problems. The Reserve team comes largely out of the Effective Altruism community, where many people aim to earn profits in order to fund the most important causes in the world.
Nevin’s mission in life is to solve the coordination problems that are stopping humanity achieving its potential, and he’s particularly concerned about averting the long-term risks posed by the development of artificial intelligence. You can reach him through LinkedIn.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Nam aliquando posse recte fieri dicunt nulla expectata nec quaesita voluptate. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Ergo in gubernando nihil, in officio plurimum interest, quo in genere peccetur. Fadio Gallo, cuius in testamento scriptum esset se ab eo rogatum ut omnis hereditas ad filiam perveniret.
Licet hic rursus ea commemores, quae optimis verbis ab Epicuro de laude amicitiae dicta sunt. Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint.
Nam Metrodorum non puto ipsum professum, sed, cum appellaretur ab Epicuro, repudiare tantum beneficium noluisse; Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Isto modo, ne si avia quidem eius nata non esset. Positum est a nostris in iis esse rebus, quae secundum naturam essent, non dolere; Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Apud imperitos tum illa dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum; Si longus, levis; Haec dicuntur fortasse ieiunius; Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio.
Cave putes quicquam esse verius. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Quamquam in hac divisione rem ipsam prorsus probo, elegantiam desidero. Quando enim Socrates, qui parens philosophiae iure dici potest, quicquam tale fecit? Quid, cum volumus nomina eorum, qui quid gesserint, nota nobis esse, parentes, patriam, multa praeterea minime necessaria? Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Cur deinde Metrodori liberos commendas? Cenasti in vita numquam bene, cum omnia in ista Consumis squilla atque acupensere cum decimano. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nescio quo modo praetervolavit oratio. Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante. Nulla erit controversia. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus;
Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Illud quaero, quid ei, qui in voluptate summum bonum ponat, consentaneum sit dicere. Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Illi enim inter se dissentiunt. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Erit enim mecum, si tecum erit. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore;
Ut in voluptate sit, qui epuletur, in dolore, qui torqueatur. Cum autem in quo sapienter dicimus, id a primo rectissime dicitur. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Nam aliquando posse recte fieri dicunt nulla expectata nec quaesita voluptate. Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior;
Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Nam quid possumus facere melius? De hominibus dici non necesse est. Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec. Satisne ergo pudori consulat, si quis sine teste libidini pareat? Cum salvum esse flentes sui respondissent, rogavit essentne fusi hostes. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Semper enim ita adsumit aliquid, ut ea, quae prima dederit, non deserat.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Sin eam, quam Hieronymus, ne fecisset idem, ut voluptatem illam Aristippi in prima commendatione poneret. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sic exclusis sententiis reliquorum cum praeterea nulla esse possit, haec antiquorum valeat necesse est. At hoc in eo M. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Nihil ad rem! Ne sit sane;
Scripta sane et multa et polita, sed nescio quo pacto auctoritatem oratio non habet. Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Ex rebus enim timiditas, non ex vocabulis nascitur. Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus. Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis;
Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Nam de isto magna dissensio est.
Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Legimus tamen Diogenem, Antipatrum, Mnesarchum, Panaetium, multos alios in primisque familiarem nostrum Posidonium. Quid ergo attinet dicere: Nihil haberem, quod reprehenderem, si finitas cupiditates haberent? Quod autem meum munus dicis non equidem recuso, sed te adiungo socium. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Semper enim ex eo, quod maximas partes continet latissimeque funditur, tota res appellatur. Consequens enim est et post oritur, ut dixi.
extra material
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Est enim tanti philosophi tamque nobilis audacter sua decreta defendere. Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Refert tamen, quo modo. Quare ad ea primum, si videtur; Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere.
Scisse enim te quis coarguere possit? Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Quid iudicant sensus? Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Collige omnia, quae soletis: Praesidium amicorum. Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum.
Quid, si reviviscant Platonis illi et deinceps qui eorum auditores fuerunt, et tecum ita loquantur? Luxuriam non reprehendit, modo sit vacua infinita cupiditate et timore. Tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis; Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. At ego quem huic anteponam non audeo dicere;
Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Minime id quidem, inquam, alienum, multumque ad ea, quae quaerimus, explicatio tua ista profecerit. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Bonum incolumis acies: misera caecitas. Te enim iudicem aequum puto, modo quae dicat ille bene noris. Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Deque his rebus satis multa in nostris de re publica libris sunt dicta a Laelio. Nos cum te, M.
Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. Commentarios quosdam, inquam, Aristotelios, quos hic sciebam esse, veni ut auferrem, quos legerem, dum essem otiosus; Ad quorum et cognitionem et usum iam corroborati natura ipsa praeeunte deducimur.
Etenim si delectamur, cum scribimus, quis est tam invidus, qui ab eo nos abducat? Theophrastus mediocriterne delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractatos? Non enim ipsa genuit hominem, sed accepit a natura inchoatum. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Aliis esse maiora, illud dubium, ad id, quod summum bonum dicitis, ecquaenam possit fieri accessio.
Atqui pugnantibus et contrariis studiis consiliisque semper utens nihil quieti videre, nihil tranquilli potest. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere.
