Leister

It's not also a security, which is an arbitrary definition right now.

It also excludes stable coins.

However, the definition of stable coin has been changed.

In current cryptocurrency, you have algorithmic stable coins.

You have pegged fiat stable coins.

In their definition of a stable coin under these regs, they're saying, however you do it,

you need to peg to a trusted asset.

So when we say trusted asset, they're essentially talking Fiat and there are exclusions for foreign based assets.

So what they're essentially doing is they're saying, if you're going to do the stable coin and be governed under this regulatory framework, essentially you need to peg to our us dollar.

Now consider what that means.

The increase in inflation,

of the U S dollar and its devaluation over time pegged to stable coins means that you are not getting away from the impacts of inflation that Fiat has wrought.

Look it up, look it up.

And this was purposely written.

It was purposely written to avoid decoupling from inflation by way of stable assets.

The banks as the impetus behind this,

banks are sitting on cash they're dependent on cash so in order for the government to be okay with them getting into crypto they still have to be beholden to cash i can envision and this is my opinion a world where when you're trying to do a transaction that is for cryptocurrency you are compelled to use a certain type of stable asset pegged to whatever fiat

such that you can not benefit directly from a non inflated value or price.

And because of the transaction and the nature of it being connected to Fiat, it's no different than you doing a straight cash transaction with devalued assets.

I know that sounds kind of complex, but follow.