Hot off the press: a new blog post co-authored with @LowBeta_ on the question of how stablecoins impact the singleness of money. Organizations like the BIS (and skeptical academics) now argue that stablecoins are dangerous because they might break the hard-fought convertibility at par of the banking system. Zack and I argue otherwise. Here's the TLDR: First, singleness in banking is more of an academic ideal than practical reality. ATM machines have fees (so people don't get back exactly what they withdraw) and every single card swipe leads to a merchant getting less than 100 cents on the dollar. Second, where singleness is maintained in banking, it comes at an extraordinary cost, financially and politically. That cost ran into the tens of billions in the regional banking crisis, and far more (in terms of bailouts) during Covid and in 2008. Most importantly, payment stablecoins (as regulated by Genius) are going to be highly homogenous in their reserves. This means their liabilities (AKA da coins) are far more likely to organically trade at par then those of levered institutions (AKA bank deposits). This fallacy is yet another example of the false projection of the flaws of banking unto stablecoins. So get educated and fight the FUD! Link to the post below. I've followed the cool kids (or at least @nic__carter) and moved from Medium to Substack.