It’s been discussed before, and @marek has publicly described the obvious differences between stablecoins like UST, for example, and cStables. Nonetheless, legislators don’t have a good track record of understanding important nuance in novel technologies.
See: Amid Terra Luna Fallout, Stablecoin Legislation May Become Law By 2022
What are we doing as a protocol to prepare for any unfavourable legislation getting passed in the US?
Will this only affect US-based entities?
As a global protocol, is Celo even exposed to whatever laws are passed in the US?
Technically the draft says:
…moratorium on endogenously collateralized stablecoins (ECS)
and then explains:
An ECS is currently defined in the draft as a stablecoin “in which its originator has represented will be converted, redeemed, or repurchased for a fixed amount of monetary value and that relies solely on the value of another digital asset created or maintained by the same originator to maintain the fixed price.”
I note that it says relies solely on another digital asset created by the same originator, so technically cStables should be fine given the reserves contain other assets. I wonder if there could be some percentage substantive clause, so in-breach stables don’t just add 1% BTC to their reserves and call it a day?
Anyway, just thought I would reopen this important topic for thoughts.