POLL: NATIVE USDC on ICP

Wow, that’s interesting, I appreciate the response!

Here are some thoughts regarding this topic:
Here’s Bitcoin Suisse’s CHF Stablecoin👇
https://www.bitcoinsuisse.com/cryptofranc
So, as the foundation is in Switzerland, how about considering bringing a CHF stablecoin like Bitcoin Suisse has?
I am really not aware on what are the barriers and so on, but I think this is also another good approach to fixing this issue.
As we all know, CHF has a good reputation, so this can also facilitate bringing mass adoption into the IC.
I hope to hear comments from others as well in this regard.
Thanks.

1 Like

Similar to USDT, XCHF is also a stablecoin anchored to fiat currency, which is mainstream at the current market stage. This is also a realistic choice, and there is no problem in the short to medium term.

1 Like

I am here due to having lost confidence in Cardano. And the lack of a worthwhile stablecoin was something that influenced my decision. The long-time understanding was that Charles Hoskinson didn’t want native usdc because he didn’t want to yield that much control over to a third party. So then I learn more about icp and, in particular, ckbtc and cketh. Then to learn that usdc may be implemented via the same method. And this sounds like the best of both worlds. They’re going to have usdc but not lose control of their blockchain and/or defi. No other blockchain has this because no other blockchain can. I’m impressed so far. How is native usdc that much more of an advantage?

3 Likes

I wasn’t aware that ckusdc would be that impractical for overall use. Hopefully they make a decision that works for everyone.

1 Like

The business path of ckusdc on ICP is too long and cannot achieve effective inter-chain risk isolation.
This is the reason why we are not optimistic about token mapping of infrastructure types other than public chain gas.

2 Likes

Please elaborate, I like this way of thinking

1 Like

The main advantage is that it is issued by an official provider and does not depend on any other chain. What happens if there is the most liquidity in ckUSDC and something goes terribly wrong with Ethereum? It’s not likely, but it can happen.

The fact is that among stablecoins, USDC is considered the most regulated one. If so many chains have a native implementation, it’s a major disadvantage for ICP not to have it. How many developers are also choosing chains based on the stablecoin implementations they support? In my opinion, this should have been done 2 years ago.

1 Like

“Does not depend on any other chain”

Haven’t people raised similar issues about having native Bitcoin instead of ckBTC? Like this point, for example…

And that point was responded to by Timo here:

Saying to want to hold Bitcoin “directly, not ckBTC” does not make sense. It it isn’t possible. Bitcoin will be held by a canister and all we can have is a key that controls the entire canister or at least some assets in the canister. Because of this indirection we call them “ckBTC” and not “BTC”. But the indirection will always be there.

What would matter most is that ckUSDC is exactly as USDC in terms of value while leveraging the benefits of the ICP’s infrastructure (faster transactions, cheaper, etc). Although, maybe it would look better and less confusing (unless you read up on it, which perhaps lots won’t do) to the general public to get rid of the “ck” where it shows your token balances in the NNS.

1 Like

Just found an updated post from that same poster regarding ckUSDC…now not a good idea…

And Timo now says…

1 Like

Ever notice how “circle” and “cycle” sound similar?

Well, “cycle” is already a native, stable currency on the ICP.

I voted No because adding some unnecessary organizational relationship is quite antithetical to the idea of decentralization here.

(As a bonus, unlike USD, which will be forever loosing value because of, well, the powers that be, “cycles” will have a well-defined utility, forever. Now that’s a stable coin!)

2 Likes

My views differ notably. For instance, a vast number of cycles are currently in circulation, often available at significant discounts. This makes them a poor choice for maintaining peg value. The primary reason is the foundation’s practice of distributing cycles for free to developers; a situation expected to shift once most circulating cycles are consumed by dApps.

Before even considering anything else related to cycles, it’s crucial to implement tracking on the dashboard for clear visibility of their circulation.

Regarding USDC, the ICP protocol should support any type of enterprise adoption. Ultimately, the decision to use it rests with users. The absence of a globally recognized stablecoin, natively integrated across top blockchains, is a significant strategic misstep.

Talking about ‘unnecessary organizational relationships’ is somewhat moot in the context of ICP, since the main point is to ensure compliance with whatever comes next. The blockchain space is about to change drastically over the next few (months) years due to various new rules and regulations. Chains that are unable to comply will likely fade away.

1 Like

The points that @skilesare raises at the end of his story seem like the best reasons to stop considering this seriously.

More philosophically (my additional point, to add to the better points already raised above by @skilesare):

We are comparing two ways to store value and circulate it:
ICP cycles and the US dollar.

Whatever complaints you have about cycles being printed “for free” or not otherwise having enough accounting for it to be “stable” applies even more so to the US dollar. The US dollar is among the worst choices for “maintaining peg value” when you actually consider the value of assets, not just “money”.

Cycles will always be a valuable asset. If that were not true, the entire ICP system would fall down and fail, and it isn’t doing that.

Watch the US dollar fall down and fail. It’s already happening as we write.

1 Like

Don’t get me wrong the free cycles were (and still are) necessary to bootstrap new developers, and many of these cycles are in circulation, available at significant discounts. Therefore, they are currently not a good choice if being pegged is important. Once the ecosystem has matured to the point where there is no need to subsidize new developers with free cycles, it could serve as the best solution for stable coin, maintaining the peg built into the protocol itself.

Would I prefer a decentralized, algorithmic, globally accepted stablecoin over USDC? Definitely, and we can switch as soon as one is available. Until then, not having a native USDC stablecoin that is available on other chains is not a viable path if global adoption is something the ecosystem cares about.

Here are two options, which I found after thorough research, which seems quite viable:
1)There is a project named Ondo Finance who has enabled native USD at SUI, Mantle and many other projects, which is known as USDY.
Maybe utilize this approach for the time being should be good, IMO.

Already have 200milish TVL so liquidity should not be a problem.

  1. First Digital Labs, hosting FDUSD, which is now the stablecoin used by Binance, after Paxos left the initial partnership.
    Maybe reaching out to them should also be a good resolution.
    https://firstdigitallabs.com/

Share your thoughts as well.

As the main person that refills the faucet I can confidently say that the faucet does not mint that many cycles. Best guess (but still only a guess): Back when 1 ICP converted to less than 3 trillion cycles the faucet probably had an impact, although even back then I would have argued that it wasn’t responsible for more than a few percent of the cycles surplus. And now with the recent increase in conversion rate the faucet did not hand out even remotely enough cycles to keep the discount on DEXes (compared to minting) this stable.

1 Like

Federal Reserve Board - Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).