Yea i don't think a stable coin will ever work in this space until we have something like mass adoption. My theory is that a stable coin will work under metcalfe's law.
So the real trust vector of a stable coin is in a stable and valuable network. The problem in crypto is we either don't have that or don't know if we do. So for stable coins to really work. I mean really work not baloney work.

We need what metcalfe's law states to be in effect. That is the bigger the network the more valuable. You see it doesn't really depend on miners.. voting systems, algorithims all that is secondary compared to the confidence that would exist in that stable coin. If we know the stable coin market is what it implies stable and solvent we don't have that issue mainly because we know the network that's backing the stable coin is valuable and how do we know that? We know that by network size not if you have several dozen whales in control of the entire economy. Otherwise metcalfe's law doesn't work which we know it does. It works everytime.

So most crypto projects can't and never will have that. If you take something like bitcoin myk and the bbd dollar. It works not because of the trade volume or if you can profit. Currencies are medium of exchanges nothing about profit enters into the equation but the bbd works or will work because it's based on a concept that is likely to gain large networks such as ubi which may one day have billions of participants like many freemium service models that do.

The problem is crypto cares more about profit than utility and stability of it's structure. However economies don't work that way. Every measure of the economy is not just me trying to go out and profit from this and profit from that. So the scale this would work on would be so miniscule i doubt it would work. Until you have a scale level project concept like bitcoin myk it's not really going to work because you won't ever gain the stability or the network size.

That is because especially like i kinda look at it like its two networks. One is a membership network the other is a freemium service network. In the membership network what happens? People pay because they believe that makes the network more valuable and so they become members at a cost and so on and so forth. The problem is membership sites that you pay for always but always are finite in their value to a degree you're never going to have many members.

Whereas freemium services you probably will have alot of members, more stability and volume but less in price appreciation. So it's kinda at this juncture a trade off. In bitcoin myk trade off it's wiling to forego short term profits and making people wealthy over system stability .. stablecoins and distributing ubi to everyone because that's our purpose we feel a more important purpose.

The other direction would be like that of hive.. Where it's probably the enticement is get in here make money earn money profit. Nothing wrong with profit but again one will be limiting to the function of a currency which does the best job at spreading economic prosperity more participants.. over systems that are asset driven not currency driven generally stay in a few small amount of hands and often times don't get to become significant projects on scale. So most are impressed with short term gains on their portfolios so they care less about the stability of the space overall which is fine as well but just know that doesn't solve system wide issues. It just makes a few holders richer but that doesn't impact the system.