[HN Gopher] An Update on USDC and Silicon Valley Bank
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       An Update on USDC and Silicon Valley Bank
        
       Author : VagueMag
       Score  : 95 points
       Date   : 2023-03-11 20:27 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.circle.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.circle.com)
        
       | paulpauper wrote:
       | _In such a case, Circle, as required by law under stored-value
       | money transmission regulation, will stand behind USDC and cover
       | any shortfall using corporate resources, involving external
       | capital if necessary._
       | 
       | I don't get it..the money is gone. Is there something I am
       | missing here? You cannot just magically fix a shortfall.
        
         | rvnx wrote:
         | It can, because they are investing the funds on t-bills or
         | similar instruments with a 5% yield, and they don't pay any
         | interest to the USDC holders.
        
       | danaos wrote:
       | I have always kept away from circle after they were caught
       | manipulating reviews.
       | 
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ms1zc/after_being...
        
         | capableweb wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure that's against Apple's App Store T&C and the
         | application would be banned by flooding fake 5 star reviews. It
         | would also be pretty easy to detect.
         | 
         | Was the app ever banned or everything proceeded as normal? Is
         | Apple in Circle's pocket somehow?
        
       | yieldcrv wrote:
       | Anybody arbing this with their MEV bots?
       | 
       | A couple MEV trackers on twitter are showing people making a shit
       | ton of money through various onchain protocols goofing.
       | 
       | (this has nothing to do with the USDC redemption mechanism,
       | nobody is doing that while banks are closed and Coinbase is
       | disabled)
        
       | O__________O wrote:
       | Anyone have any idea based on trading price and volume roughly
       | how much was lost below 1:1 peg in past 24-hours?
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | optimalsolver wrote:
       | >Moreover, SVB has a strong franchise that is at the center of
       | American entrepreneurship and technology industry growth.
       | 
       | Tl:Dr: Save us, Big Government.
        
         | rekttrader wrote:
         | That's a cheap shot, does roku deserve a 470+m haircut?
        
           | rekttrader wrote:
           | Also they are 95% solvent as a bank... this too will pass.
        
           | paulddraper wrote:
           | > deserve
           | 
           | IDK what that word means, in a financial context.
           | 
           | Can you get paid based on this "deserve"?
           | 
           | ---
           | 
           | But in reality, no, no one will lose 100%.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _does roku deserve a 470+m haircut_
           | 
           | Yes. Public company CFOs should not have this level of non-
           | AAA counterparty risk concentration. (SVB were A1 and Baa1
           | [1] / A+ and BBB+ [2].)
           | 
           | [1] https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2023-03-
           | 10/...
           | 
           | [2] https://wolfstreet.com/credit-rating-scales-by-moodys-sp-
           | and...
        
             | VagueMag wrote:
             | I would like to know how I can get the $400K/year corporate
             | treasurer job that's just "park all the money in a single
             | bank account with no insurance."
        
         | throw03172019 wrote:
         | Mmmm no. That's not what is going on here.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | malermeister wrote:
         | Yeah, it is pretty ironic having this come from all the same
         | people that were oh-so-libertarian when it wasn't affecting
         | them.
        
         | darcys22 wrote:
         | They deposited 3B with this bank for the specific purpose of it
         | being a safe place.
         | 
         | Their 10B in cash was spread over 6 banks to diversify the bank
         | risk.
         | 
         | They have plenty of higher risk investments in their treasury,
         | but these ones were the safe ones intentionally put into banks
         | with insurance. If the government protection wasn't there the
         | investment would't have been there in the first place
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _10B in cash was spread over 6 banks to diversify the bank
           | risk_
           | 
           | This is nonsense Treasury management. Fidelity spreads
           | checking account deposits across twenty-six banks to reach
           | $3mm FDIC coverage [1]. Beyond sweep, Circle's assets should
           | be in short-term, on-the-run Treasuries, repos and commercial
           | paper.
           | 
           | [1] https://accountopening.fidelity.com/ftgw/aong/aongapp/fdi
           | cBa...
        
             | darcys22 wrote:
             | They do hold 32B in short term treasury bills though
             | 
             | https://www.blackrock.com/cash/en-us/products/329365/
             | 
             | These funds appear to be specifically for short term
             | redemptions, if they turn over 3B in redemption's every 7
             | days then how are they meant to keep less then that in the
             | banks
        
           | benatkin wrote:
           | But the insurance doesn't apply to the full amount.
        
             | oldgradstudent wrote:
             | The insurance is negligible for them.
        
               | benatkin wrote:
               | Hence the government protection should be partial. Mostly
               | just making sure SVB's assets are used to lessen the
               | impact of the closure. If that results in Circle getting
               | pennies on the dollar then so be it.
        
               | oldgradstudent wrote:
               | > Mostly just making sure SVB's assets are used to lessen
               | the impact of the closure
               | 
               | That's standard practice.
               | 
               | Money from liquidation goes first to insured deposits,
               | then what remains goes to uninsured deposits, then to pay
               | other debts, and finally if anything is left, to
               | shareholders.
               | 
               | Looks like here it will only cover insured deposits and
               | substantial fraction of uninsured deposits.
        
               | benatkin wrote:
               | Yeah, some think that _substantial fraction_ will be
               | 100%. We 'll see!
               | 
               | I don't want to give Circle one cent of bailout money,
               | though. And their post is saying that they are owed a
               | full bailout because they participated in the bank run on
               | the day of the bank run, and also begging for a full
               | bailout. Pretty pathetic.
        
         | jfengel wrote:
         | They don't even need a bailout. Ordinary big government
         | regulation is solving this.
        
       | bb88 wrote:
       | After the fall of Terra, it's clear that stablecoins can only go
       | down in value. There's also no FDIC to step in to take over the
       | failing stablecoin. You're trusting USDC and by extension
       | BlackRock to do the right thing here.
       | 
       | If it's not a security than it's not regulated.
        
         | mnaei wrote:
         | Over the last 24 hours USDC had a low of $0.85 at 3 AM EST to a
         | high of $0.98 at 3 PM EST.
         | 
         | I wonder how many startups would take a 2% - 15% cut to
         | withdraw their money for short term expenses.
         | 
         | Is there a secondary market for deposits at banks? Like a
         | Silicon Valley Bank Stable Coin (Probably would have been
         | called a Silicon Valley Dollar before 1913)
        
         | joosters wrote:
         | ... _it 's clear that stablecoins can only go down in value_
         | 
         | That's just a truism, regardless of the stablecoin or the state
         | that it's in. No-one should ever expect a $1 stablecoin to
         | trade significantly higher than $1, since the creators of the
         | coin can easily arb the difference to pocket some free money.
        
         | bhaak wrote:
         | Terra was no stablecoin and it has been constantly pointed out
         | that it wasn't.
         | 
         | USDC is backed 1 USDC for 1 USD. What you're actually seeing
         | here is that the traditional finance system has lead to a crash
         | in crypto. That's almost refreshing. Usually crypto fucks up by
         | itself (see FTX and Terra for the most recent ones).
        
           | whimsicalism wrote:
           | 1 USD worth of treasuries or bank deposits, not a USD
           | directly.
        
           | bb88 wrote:
           | What's their balance sheet at the moment assuming 8% of cash
           | is missing? Is it still 1:1 or 1:.94?
           | 
           | Also coindesk says TerraUSD is a stablecoin.
           | 
           | https://www.coindesk.com/price/terrausd/
           | 
           | Washington Post too:
           | 
           | https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-are-
           | stablecoins...
           | 
           | Also Gemini says it as well:
           | 
           | https://www.gemini.com/en-us/prices/terrausd-ethereum
        
             | bhaak wrote:
             | Their balance sheet is still 1:1 as the 8% at SBV has not
             | yet been written off.
             | 
             | The market reacts faster of course but the market has no
             | crystal ball. It can't predict what's going to happen.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _USDC is backed 1 USDC for 1 USD_
           | 
           | It's at least 87C/ and 23C/ of priority unsecured claims on a
           | bank in receivership.
        
             | chejazi wrote:
             | I assume you're deriving the 23C/ from the 23% they have
             | banked, but I would like to note that of that 23%, roughly
             | a third (3.3bn of 9.7bn) was with SVB. The rest was with
             | other banks not facing the same issue.
        
         | incrudible wrote:
         | Terra was collateralized by crypto. USDT is collateralized
         | by... something, maybe. Given that USDT always regained its peg
         | regardless, the depeg of USDC seems like an overreaction.
        
           | Lionga wrote:
           | USDT always regained its peg until one day it doesn't
        
             | incrudible wrote:
             | That is not the point. USDT repegged from far worse news.
             | It is a hot potato, but the market used to price that risk
             | at almost zero for 99.9% of the time.
        
             | bb88 wrote:
             | Terra regained it's peg until it didn't.
        
               | incrudible wrote:
               | Terra is not even in theory backed by real dollars, it
               | had a known failure case, which did in fact occur. Again,
               | the market priced that risk at virtually zero until the
               | failure case was tangible.
        
             | l-lousy wrote:
             | That day will be when they finally release an audit
        
               | baq wrote:
               | This will never happen, it'll have to be when redemptions
               | stop working.
        
               | incrudible wrote:
               | They may well be 100% collateralized in bad collateral.
               | Same for USDC really, except the collateral is not as
               | bad.
        
       | braingenious wrote:
       | I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic, so I have a legit
       | question about all of this:
       | 
       | How is pausing withdrawals not blatant currency manipulation? If
       | I had USDC and lost all faith in it yesterday, shouldn't I be
       | allowed to cash out today?
       | 
       | Also, if they've got many billions in cash, why would losing
       | access to a sliver of it justify shutting down withdrawals?
       | 
       | "Trust us, it's worth a dollar! Or don't trust us! It doesn't
       | matter because you don't have any choice but to hold USDC until
       | we deem it advantageous to us to allow you to exchange them for
       | real money!"
        
         | 323 wrote:
         | They didn't pause anything. The US banks did, by not working in
         | the weekend (for large sums).
         | 
         | If you had 1 billion USD with your favorite US bank, that would
         | be paused too right now.
        
           | braingenious wrote:
           | I'm hearing that you can't even use USDC to exchange for
           | bitcoin/ETH on Coinbase right now. What does converting
           | between types of crypto have to do with banks? Those
           | transactions should in theory have nothing to do with a
           | banking transaction.
           | 
           | It seems like they're simply forcing people to hold USDC,
           | full stop, and are blaming banks for their decision to do so.
        
             | capableweb wrote:
             | USDC is supposedly backed by USD. If Cirle/Centre doesn't
             | have access to enough USD, they cannot maintain the peg of
             | USDC.
        
         | nikanj wrote:
         | Because crypto is not currency. It's more like the fake money
         | at Habbo Hotel
        
           | samstr wrote:
           | [dead]
        
         | capableweb wrote:
         | Imagine that you use a currency made by a specific company,
         | lets say it's called PaypalCoin. Part of the value of the
         | currency is that the company manages it, part of the risk is
         | that a company manages it. So you'll only be able to exchange
         | it for X as long as Paypal say you can exchange it for X. This
         | is part of what PaypalCoin is, so if you use it, you should be
         | aware of this.
         | 
         | This is basically what USDC is, and Circle is the organization
         | that controls it. It is not a decentralized currency, it's a
         | centralized digital currency. If Circle blacklists you and your
         | funds, you won't be able to trade it for USD in the traditional
         | exchanges, you'd only be able to do it P2P. This has happened
         | already, with Tornado Cash, so it has precedent, not something
         | I'm making up.
         | 
         | > USDC is issued and redeemed in accordance with Centre
         | policies including the Centre Blacklisting Policy. Centre
         | reserves the right to block the transfer of USDC to and from an
         | address on chain as permitted under the Centre Blacklisting
         | Policy.
         | 
         | https://www.circle.com/en/legal/usdc-terms &
         | https://www.centre.io/hubfs/PDF/Centre_Blacklisting_Policy_2...
         | 
         | If Circle says you cannot exchange your USDC for USD, then
         | that's the rule. If you don't want that possibility, you
         | wouldn't use USDC in the first place.
        
         | nevi-me wrote:
         | One could ask whether halting trading of a stock is
         | manipulation or not.
         | 
         | Some risks arise mostly out of urgency, and not having
         | countermeasures could have catastrophic results which otherwise
         | would have been avoided by pausing the process. If Circle were
         | operating as a fractional reserve bank where it borrowed from
         | you by virtue of a positive bank balance, lent me 80% of that,
         | and only kept 20%; pausing honouring withdrawals would likely
         | be illegal.
         | 
         | My view of this is that it's unrealistic to expect a company to
         | store 100% of its assets in immediately avaialable deposits
         | whereas international regulations that apply to banks require
         | ~30 days of liquid supply.
         | 
         | In this case, the legal contract between Circle and its
         | depositors (holders of USDC) is that it'll exchange 1:1.
         | 
         | intrinsically, Circle seems to demonstrate that this contract
         | isn't yet broken, but they can't continue to honour that
         | agreement over a weekend when there's uncertainty of which
         | avenue those funds will come from.
         | 
         | The selling pressure is purely from the secondary market where
         | you're selling me USDC and I'm giving you 0.95 USD.
         | 
         | > Also, if they've got many billions in cash, why would losing
         | access to a sliver of it justify shutting down withdrawals?
         | 
         | Because those billions are in T-bills that have to first be
         | sold. And the "cash on hand" is ultimately with banks that are
         | holding a fraction of it.
         | 
         | > "Trust us, it's worth a dollar! Or don't trust us! It doesn't
         | matter because you don't have any choice but to hold USDC until
         | we deem it advantageous to us to allow you to exchange them for
         | real money!"
         | 
         | Well, "we're enabling redemption on Monday" doesn't equate to
         | the above.
         | 
         | If my pastry shop runs out of already baked goods during the AM
         | peak, I can only ask my customers to wait for me to finish
         | baking more. If there was a pastry regulation, its review would
         | say that I should start baking more pastries in future.
        
           | braingenious wrote:
           | >If my pastry shop runs out of already baked goods during the
           | AM peak
           | 
           | If your pastry shop had 40 billion donuts, and you claim that
           | 10 billion of those donuts are available for sale
           | immediately, do you close your shop when you lose 3.3 billion
           | of them, leaving you with only 6.7 billion donuts that are
           | still sitting there?
        
       | tekla wrote:
       | What they don't bring up. The peg is a lie, hit $0.87.
       | 
       | https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/11/stablecoin-usdc-breaks-dolla...
        
         | toomim wrote:
         | But currently $0.96.
         | 
         | https://www.livecoinwatch.com/price/USDCoin-USDC
        
         | bhaak wrote:
         | The peg is held up by the belief that you can always get 1 USD
         | for 1 USDC.
         | 
         | Obviously the market had some doubts about this today and then
         | liquidity issues drove the price down. I'm somewhat surprised
         | that it climbed back up this fast which means that the panic
         | seems to be over (for the moment).
        
           | ed25519FUUU wrote:
           | For something that's supposed to be a 1:1 peg, running at 4%
           | below dollar value is significant.
        
           | mdasen wrote:
           | That means it's not really a peg. If you have a peg, it means
           | that the currency issuer is willing to buy their currency for
           | a set amount. Right now, Circle isn't willing to buy USDC for
           | $1 USD - therefore, there is no peg.
           | 
           | Or maybe what we're talking about is a broken peg. Circle was
           | willing to pay $1 USD for a USDC, but they're no longer
           | willing to pay that (at least temporarily). Maybe countries
           | have seen their pegs broken because they couldn't actually
           | defend their peg. They'd promise "we'll give you $1 USD for
           | every 2 PegCurrency" and then someone would come along with a
           | ton of PegCurrency and ask for dollars and they wouldn't have
           | enough dollars to give them. A peg only lasts as long as you
           | have the currency to keep paying at that rate.
           | 
           | We'll have to see on Monday and Tuesday whether they will go
           | back to defending their peg. Unlike many foreign currency
           | pegs, they should have the cash to defend their peg to the
           | last dollar (with the exception of losses incurred due to SVB
           | going under). However, it still might mean a huge loss of
           | confidence in USDC. If they're unable to offer liquidity when
           | people want it, that's potentially a big problem for the
           | product they're offering (but it also might not be: maybe
           | people don't care about 24/7 liquidity and are ok with
           | waiting several days for liquidity).
        
             | Macha wrote:
             | As far as I can tell, Circle is still willing to buy 1 USDC
             | for 1 USD during business hours, which has always been
             | Circle's policy.
             | 
             | What has changed is that third parties no longer have
             | sufficient faith in that to extend the offer to 24/7. e.g.
             | before Coinbase would give you USD for your USDC on
             | Saturday morning because they were happy enough that they
             | could turn the USDC back into USD on Monday morning and
             | that they had sufficient USD for the amount of people who
             | were actually going to take them up on that.
             | 
             | Now because of either the worry about SVB contagion or the
             | amount of withdrawals vs coinbase's usd reserves, coinbase
             | is no longer willing to give you an advance on that action,
             | and is making you wait until they can immediately exchange
             | the usdc you give them for usd from circle. Coinbase was
             | never the one under the obligation to give you USD for USDC
             | anyway.
             | 
             | Obviously this is a little more complicated by Coinbase's
             | 50% stake in Circle, but that's only relevant if a
             | bankruptcy courts found misdeeds and a judge ruled Coinbase
             | had to make up the shortfall due to said misdeeds, it's not
             | a reason to be able to enforce Circle's liabilities on
             | Coinbase as a day to day business matter.
        
           | z3c0 wrote:
           | I guess this was one of those "be greedy when everyone is
           | being fearful" moments. An easy ~10% return.
        
         | everybodyknows wrote:
         | What if anything does this mean then? FTA:
         | 
         | >As a regulated payment token, USDC will remain redeemable 1
         | for 1 with the U.S. Dollar.
        
           | tekla wrote:
           | Its "lying". In the same way that SVB was solvent as long as
           | there wasn't a run.
        
           | wmf wrote:
           | As the article says, it's redeemable within banking hours not
           | on the weekend.
        
         | bb88 wrote:
         | Pausing USDC->USD over the weekend isn't going to help
         | confidence either.
        
           | charcircuit wrote:
           | USDC -> USD always only ever worked during banking hours.
           | Exchanges offering USDC <-> USD at any time have had to
           | account for this and have enough reserves of USD and USDC
           | themselves.
        
       | obblekk wrote:
       | 23% of the reserve, or $9.7B is held in cash.
       | 
       | I think on Thursday, SVB saw cash outflow requests over $40b in
       | one day. USDC peg is so far below 1 right now there will
       | definitely be a lot of par arbitrage Monday trying to withdraw.
       | 
       | Hopefully it doesn't take longer than a day for them to settle
       | treasury trades, and maybe some people have lost the keys to
       | their crypto. They could also possibly have a line of credit with
       | instant settlement assuming they're truly solvent with marketable
       | securities at market prices.
        
         | dragontamer wrote:
         | 3 month (or less) Treasury Bills are damn close to cash. I
         | don't believe they lose value in practice, not even in the
         | rapidly raising interest rate environment of the last year.
         | 
         | The problem at Silvergate and Silicon Valley Banks is that they
         | bought 10 year or 30 year bonds, not 3 month bills. Its a
         | completely different composition, with completely different
         | properties.
        
         | bb88 wrote:
         | Can one short USDC with leverage?
        
           | WalterSear wrote:
           | Short? I can't see this not returning to it's peg by the next
           | news cycle. It's free money.
           | 
           | SVB went bankrupt - as a business: it can't pay its bills.
           | People are reacting to this as if the deposits have vanished
           | entirely.
           | 
           | If you think USDC is a shorting opportunity, short anything
           | crypto. USDC is literally the second largest domino.
        
             | dfadsadsf wrote:
             | There is good chance that ~30% of deposits above 250k
             | vanished. SVB really screwed up on trades. With equity at
             | zero or close to zero, there is no backstop. Net present
             | value of 2% securities that SVB loaded on is way below par.
        
               | WalterSear wrote:
               | Ah, that's different. I understood it to be ~$2 billion
               | out of ~$200+ billion, not $60+ billion in losses.
        
           | rewtraw wrote:
           | Yes, primarily on Bybit.
           | 
           | It's a terrible trade to make now though.
        
           | 323 wrote:
           | Yes, by creating a synthetic - you short BTC/USDC and long
           | BTC/USD. This will create a USDC/USD synthetic. Both BTC/USDC
           | and BTC/USD can offer up to 100x leverage, so the synthetic
           | USDC will also be up to 100x.
        
           | 0x53 wrote:
           | Not easily that I know of, the best way would be to use a
           | defi application like compound.finance. You can deposit usdc
           | and take a loan against it in another currency. Then you
           | repay the loan later. However, that is just a normal short.
           | The only real way to lever this is to keep depositing the
           | loan money, and taking out more loans which is expensive in
           | terms of fees.
        
             | rabf wrote:
             | You can trade it with leverage here:
             | 
             | https://www.bybit.com/trade/usdt/USDCUSDT
        
           | SilasX wrote:
           | Yes, and I have been, by accident! I borrowed USDC on
           | Compound.finance a while ago, using wrapped bitcoin as
           | collateral and the loan remains open. I was intending to just
           | extract some equity from my BTC without selling it, not
           | profit from crashes, but that effectively gives me a short
           | position since I benefit from USDC being easier to buy and
           | thus settle my debt.
           | 
           | Last night I bought at a ~6% discount on Gemini.
        
           | nscalf wrote:
           | Yep, get a loan denominated in USDC. You can lever up in USDC
           | and buy USDT with it.
        
         | echelon wrote:
         | The creators of USDC could destroy their own coins to restore
         | the 1:1 reserve peg. I doubt they'd do it, but it would
         | immediately restore confidence.
         | 
         | Send them to a null address or commit to burning them in
         | software. If they can restore the reserve, they could remint
         | them.
         | 
         | I'm a crypto bear (with modest crypto holdings for
         | diversification), and I think this is an opportunity for these
         | folks to step up to the plate and show they can meet these
         | sorts of challenges. If you can successfully navigate a bank
         | collapse, then maybe you deserve a seat at the table. I'm not
         | holding out my hopes for USDC though.
        
           | bhaak wrote:
           | > The creators of USDC could destroy their own coins to
           | restore the 1:1 reserve peg. I doubt they'd do it, but it
           | would immediately restore confidence.
           | 
           | Why should they? USDC is not an algorithmic stablecoin. For
           | once, it's actually not a failure in crypto that lead to this
           | depeg.
           | 
           | I'm not even sure they are allowed to do it by their own
           | contracts with their clients as long as it is not clear that
           | the USD at SBV is really lost.
        
           | phphphphp wrote:
           | I'm not sure I follow. Circle don't hold tens of billions of
           | USDC: USDC is minted when they receive USD at a one-to-one
           | ratio. What coins are you proposing they burn? If there's
           | $10bn USD missing they'd need to burn $10bn USDC.
        
           | WalterSear wrote:
           | IMHO, they are justifiably confident that this will all blow
           | over in a few days, and that their deposits will be available
           | to them soon after, albeit with a few percent missing.
           | 
           | But I concur - they are showing their true colors by not
           | defending the peg.
        
         | tempsy wrote:
         | how is it "so far below"
         | 
         | it's recovered to less than a 4% discount
        
           | charcircuit wrote:
           | There is no fee to covert USDC to USD. So as long as you
           | buying USDC and depositing it into Circle is less than $1 per
           | USDC you make profit. As long as you make profit it makes
           | sense to arbitrage as much as you can.
        
             | tempsy wrote:
             | that's if you have a Circle account which effectively no
             | individual has access to. if you convert USDC to USD on
             | Coinbase or another exchange you're paying the market rate
        
               | charcircuit wrote:
               | The arbitrage the comment was talking about would be done
               | by people with Circle accounts. If you don't have an
               | account it would be in your interest to sell your USDC
               | for as close to $1 possible. This will inflate the value
               | of USDC on the open market until Circle account holders
               | start to fear that they will be holding the bag.
        
               | tempsy wrote:
               | if major usdc holders who have a circle account were
               | primarily concerned with tiny arbitrage plays they
               | wouldn't be holding a stablecoin earning zero yield when
               | t-bills pay 5% to begin with
        
               | saurik wrote:
               | Coinbase actually does it 1:1 by proxy from Circle: you
               | don't have to "trade" USDC-USD. They aren't right now,
               | but they normally go above and beyond by being willing to
               | do it on weekends, while Circle itself only operates on
               | weekdays, and they don't want to stake their own fate
               | towards that, so they said they are pausing doing that
               | until Monday.
        
       | Lionga wrote:
       | Steady Lads
        
         | Yizahi wrote:
         | WHAT
        
       | sbardle wrote:
       | Hey NoCoiners, can you give us some coin?
        
       | JohnTHaller wrote:
       | For context: Stablecoin USDC depegged last night, hitting as low
       | as $0.879. It's currently at $0.959.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-11 23:00 UTC)