cypherpunk.kas

Thank you for this tweet, @KaspaSilver. I am going to address your concerns, piece by piece. Concern 1 & 2: "Missing whitepaper, and no R&D" I understand your point about the missing whitepaper. This is still in progress as it needs to be written in a certain way and have the necessary proofs, statements in order to bring the value that a whitepaper does. It is totally acceptable to be wary of donating before you see a concrete spec. The reasoning behind opening the fundraiser before those are finished is primarily for brand awareness, the fundraiser progress so far has exceeded my expectations. It is not the case that no R&D has been done earlier, in fact I have been working on the stablecoin initiative for the last 6 months already, where primarily focus has been on communicating with centralized issuers. Unfortunately, centralized issuers are resistant to deploying on Kaspa for primarily two reasons: 1. because of the lack of anticipated volume. 2. because the needed infrastructure is missing. I, of course disagree with this statement as there can be no volume without DeFi, hence it is a chicken and egg problem. The implementation of @KaspaDollar, would therefore not be "just a stablecoin from scratch" but a: 1. fully decentralized stablecoin 2. build the needed infrastructure that centralized issuers need in order to operate 3. bring the first needed volume in order to validate Kaspa's DeFi potential that is needed for issuers to bring their assets. Therefore, @KaspaDollar is indirectly an effort to bring USDC/USDT onchain. Concern 3: "Decentralized stablecoins are problematic." Decentralized stablecoins utilize a decentralized asset as collateral, this means they are backed by whatever the collateral is most usually traded against, which for now is the U.S dollar. When it comes to regulation the situation is complex, however we can break it down: 1. Looking at EU, MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114), Recital 22 it is stated that: "where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner without any intermediary, they should not fall within the scope of this Regulation" and "where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer, they should not fall within the scope of Title II, III or IV". 2. Looking at, US, GENIUS Act (signed July 18 2025), Sec. 2 defines a "payment stablecoin" as a digital asset whose issuer is obligated to convert or redeem it for a fixed amount of monetary value. In our case, @KaspaDollar has no identifiable issuer. 3. The freeze/blacklist requirement you are referring to is Sec. 4(a)(6) of the same act, and it applies to "permitted payment stablecoin issuers", i.e. centralized issuers like USDT and USDC. 4. Freeze and blacklist functions exist because a company holds USD in a bank and is a regulated entity. There is neither a bank account behind @KaspaDollar nor a company behind it. There will be no developer fees and no upgradability. This will also apply to the oracle itself. Concern 4: "Decentralized stablecoins are hard to list on exchanges" The current market situation says the contrary: 1. DAI/USDS is listed on Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Bybit, MEXC, Kraken etc. and has no freeze functionality. Now it is true that they have the possibility to enable this, but at its current stage it is still unfreezable yet listed on most major CEX's. But more importantly, a CEX listing is not the goal for @KaspaDollar and having this expectation, misses the point what it is for. DAI was not built to be traded on Binance, it existed so that Ethereum DeFi had a stable value of account that lived onchain. Following its creation, everything else was built on top of it. On Kaspa, we have the same gap today: 1. there is no dollar on L1, 2. no stable pair for a DEX, 3. no stable asset to lend or borrow against, 4. no way to take profit without leaving the chain, 5. no reason for anyone to build any of that. Every DeFi primitive starts with a stable unit of account, and there is not going to be one from a centralized issuer without having seen some kind of evidence that sufficient volume is to be expected. Therefore, @KaspaDollar is the first one to take on that risk. So the order that I believe in is not: "get USDT, then DeFi". It is "create a decentralized native stablecoin, build the DeFi, show the volume, and then the issuers come".