It’s a sad that Dfinity does not recognize the importance of having native, mainstream stablecoin integration with ICP. Please, no comments on how it will be solved with CK tokens, since that will never be as seamless as native support.
Is there any other reason ICP lacks native USDC integration besides Dfinity’s unwillingness to implement it? Since USDC integration also requires payment to Circle, if Dfinity is unwilling to fund it, I’m pretty sure the ICP community could raise the necessary funds for it.
I would really like to know the reason for the ‘No’ vote. Maybe I am missing something, and it’s actually better not to have it. I am willing to change my mind if someone has a sound argument.
maybe theres some regulartory issues or something were not seeing being that icp is different than every other project just implementing a stable coin may cause some issues not really sure though just throwing possibilities out there.
I very much agree with the idea of having a native stablecoin in the ICP ecosystem. There may be many specific implementation methods, such as the USDC you mentioned, which is issued by Circle and uses US dollars or dollar-denominated assets as pledge assets.
My point of view is to use mainstream tokens with high consensus and strong liquidity as collateral, and use the US dollar price as the benchmark to issue native stablecoin in the ICP ecosystem.
Compared with using US dollars as collateral and using BTC as collateral, there are pros and cons. The former can quickly gain user recognition, while the latter is more friendly to the future - the “native” we mentioned is not only for the ICP ecosystem, Also targeting the crypto world.
Where I do agree with you is that I doubt people would adopt ckUSDC/ckUSDT right away even if it was integrated on exchanges. I think it would come gradually as people discover the ICP ecosystem and I think having native USDC/USDT support would help with that.
This question has been raised for almost three years, and can I surmise that a large number of the community’s powerful neurons do not want to advance the progress of native stablecoins? Otherwise, why has it been ignored for so long?
This is our personal opinion:
Integrating with stablecoin in an emotional way can slow down the development of the ecosystem.
We have no doubt that the existence of stablecoin can bring a new wave of liquidity, but emotional actions in this regard undoubtedly create danger for the society. We believe that this merger should be done at the right time. This integration should be done in the most correct way. (like ckBTC and ckETH)
After this style of action, ecosystem projects create dollar pools. The wave of demand can cause the price of ICP to grow exponentially… Note, the astronomical prices for ICP will slow down the development of new projects, because the cost of development will be heavy.
Fun fact. In Denver last month I stumbled out of some golf rave bar with a bunch of ICP folks and we walk waaaay to far through the streets of Denver. A few party lines are way too long. We keep walking. Eventually, we give up and I head to my hotel. Deciding I’m not quite done and that there is a bar I went to the year previous just a block from my hotel that has some good fancy cocktails, I decided that since I’ve walked about 8 miles and ridden an electric scooter about 18 miles in the almost freezing weather that day, that it is a treat yourself night and I head to the bar. The place is packed. A few people are waiting for a spot and eventually, they tell me and this random guy to follow them and take us to the bar and sit us right next to each other.
It’s only a bit awkward.
“So…ugh…you here for the conference…” …and low and behold, not only was he here for the conference but he worked in BizDev for Circle. We had a lovely chat and I can guarantee you that no one is sitting around ignoring USDC on the IC. They are excited to see how the bridged USDC works out long-term native integration is a possibility.
It may actually be harder to do on the IC because when you do a native implementation there is a metric fuck ton of regulatory and non-cryptoy stuff that has to be done so that Circle doesn’t run afoul of KYC/AML/OFAC issues. On anon networks you can kind of ignore it, but since the IC runs on mostly known hardware owned by subpoena people it might 13x the amount of work that has to be done.
I support a native stable coin. This may take some time. In the meantime I would prefer a bridge to ETH L2s like Base, Arbitrum or Optimism as Jordan as suggested before. ckUSDC are still going to be expensive to send to and from the IC since the transactions have to touch the ethereum network.
I am highly curious to know why on each point? I myself voted yes for reason being that developers have an additional on ramp for those who are new to the tech but familiar with USDC. Usually, that is the on/off ramp for most. I look forward to Gold being the stable coin, until then, I dont believe it could hurt? Again, I am here to learn.
I support a native stable coin. This may take some time. In the meantime I would prefer a bridge to ETH L2s like Base, Arbitrum or Optimism as Jordan as suggested before.
Without it, I and many other developers need to deposit fiat in CEX (or something like that) first, then exchange it to ICP, and then transfer ICP to other wallets, then convert ICP to cycles or other tokens.
It’s not an enjoyable experience to hold and use ICP tokens, and might block many web2 users to get in.
Therefore, I believe that native stable coin is necessary to ICP ecosystem.
Hi, @Robert_Hon I checked the post you cited and the “Dust On Crust Part Deux” you mentioned in it. It was a very in-depth and professional thinking and discussion. Our team has also continued to compile the interpretation of “Native & stable” and share it with you.
