⚔️ LexNews+ ⚖️

Share this post

STABLE Act - A Legal Engineer's Perspective

lexdao.substack.com

Discover more from ⚔️ LexNews+ ⚖️

This is the blog/newsletter for LexDAO. Stick around for thoughts, opinions, and other goodies from LexDAO. Want to Join the DAO. Jump into Discord at lexdao.chat or join a call
Over 1,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

STABLE Act - A Legal Engineer's Perspective

STABLE can do well to recognize smart contracts protect consumers too.

Ross Campbell
Dec 5, 2020
3
Share this post

STABLE Act - A Legal Engineer's Perspective

lexdao.substack.com
Share

Legal engineering smart contracts is coding within practical legal context. The nature of “should” and totality o’ liabilities lie in the long arm o’ law.

Twitter avatar for @lex_node
_gabrielShapir0 @lex_node
for the last time, smart contracts perform legal contracts--they aren't substitutes for them or expressions of them
Twitter avatar for @maurelian_
maurelian @maurelian_
This document is awesome. https://t.co/gCIxWRzQW5 https://t.co/d7C80bmTPY
4:06 PM ∙ Dec 3, 2020
42Likes2Retweets

Therefore, for legal engineers at least, it’s always good practice to consider new legislation that might affect how smart contracts get used and deployed.

Twitter avatar for @rohangrey
Rohan Grey @rohangrey
I'm thrilled to share the announcement of @RashidaTlaib's new "Stablecoin Tethering & Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act", (#STABLEAct) cosponsored by @ChuyForCongress & Chair of the House Financial Services Committee's Fintech Task Force, @RepLynch.
tlaib.house.govTlaib, García and Lynch Introduce Legislation Protecting Consumers from Cryptocurrency-Related Financial ThreatsWASHINGTON—This week, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), along with Congressmen Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) and Chairman of Task Force on Financial Technology Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-08), introduced the Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act, which would protect consumers …
10:10 PM ∙ Dec 2, 2020
385Likes109Retweets

Occasionally, members of the U.S. Congress weigh smart contracted economic activity against rules-on-books for consumer financial protections—in this case, the issuance of “stablecoins” on blockchain networks with value pegged to fiat (1:1) so users can shelter from crypto volatility and engage in normal business transactions. The nature of this peg and related `guarantees` feel like crux of the moment. (This author merely hopes to illustrate that vending machines and banks are different threat actors.)

A copy of a proposed bill, the "Stablecoin Tethering & Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act" can be reviewed here. It basically musters new requirements for “stablecoin issuers” to obtain a banking license and meet various reporting and solvency measures.

In brief, stablecoins are defined here as “crypto [that is] … denominated … or pegged to [fiat] …” and regardless of issuance intent, creates reasonable belief in a “fixed” redemption value.

This would seem to hit stablecoins issued on someone’s promise of fiat AND stablecoins issued by users themselves from smart contracts (e.g., DAI). These should present different threats to consumers and market order. A “one size fits all” approach to stablecoins to prevent harms in one case should not smother financial innovations that aim to remedy our “trust issues” with money.

To this end: It feels important to dig more into this salient distinction between centralized (“trust us”) stablecoins and decentralized issuances (“verify code”) to help Congress study this topic and consider costs and benefits more evenly to the U.S. economy.


STABLECOINS - CENTRA. v. DECENT.

Image
source.

If you purchase USDC, why do you think it’s worth $1? Trust and promises.

You can’t burn USDC and redeem against a smart contract*. Similar to Tether (USDt) and Gemini (GUSD) offerings, you need to establish a web2 account and talk to a person. (This of course involves doxing.) That person then must talk to a bank to release collateral in the form of USD. This USD hopefully finds its way into your bank account. So much can go wrong in this process, that yeah, legal agreements do much of the heavy lifting here to maintain market confidence in a 1:1 peg (i.e., placing liabilities on Circle and their partners for not meeting their redemption promises).

Where STABLE and similar seek to bolster these agreements with standardized obligations (regulations) over USD deposits represented by USDC, it seems reasonable in market fairness terms, as other trust-based financial services shoulder such legal burdens.

Also, for consumers, perception of risk matters, and one might reasonably assume that anything bearing a relation to paper USD is “regulated” to protect their interests. A clear menu of choices in the market between familiar $ and ($) tokenized, with all the various regulation *enhancements or *bugs, feels like a good way to ease the public into smart contracts.


Image for post
source.

If you mint DAI by locking collateral into a smart contract, why do you think it’s worth $1? Math and dash of hope.

You can burn and redeem DAI for digital assets like ETH, a crypto-commodity, which has a volatile but established market for its value. Though there are certainly imperfections in this system, such as murky technical and governance risks, the DAI experiment has demonstrated that users can *themselves* create less-volatile digital assets in order to transact business on Ethereum without the need to trust a person’s promise over un-auditable fiat.

In terms of consumer protections: These smart contracts cannot discriminate and exclude access; anyone can verify how much collateral is locked at any given time in this system; and furthermore, users can be reasonably certain that after an Ethereum transaction confirms, they will receive funds.**


CONCLUDING 📕

The language of STABLE encompasses both centralized and decentralized stablecoin issuance. The risks posed to consumers in terms of redemption are very different, as one involves trust-based threats that normally invite regulation, and the other, technical risks that seem slight to the emergent consumer benefits of stable assets to transact peer-peer on blockchains like Ethereum.

To reiterate, STABLE is reasonable to the purposes of financial regulation where it protects the public from the inherent risks associated with centralized stablecoins. After all, these are admin-keyed instruments being tracked on blockchains and only have value based on the promise of redemption and “money in the bank” (which can’t be seen on block explorers like etherscan…). The powers of Congress do well to flex on bad actors backing tokens with fairy dust promises—if you say something is backed by fiat, it better be.

HOWEVER, stablecoins that aim for a fiat peg but are managed entirely with smart contracts present novel consumer protections, and extending STABLE’s definition of “stablecoin issuer” to this format feels misplaced in light of innovations on settlement without cost of third-parties. This time it’s different?

In terms of how STABLE can be better clarified to delineate these different kind of “issuers” as well as make its application fair (e.g., the 6 month notice for issuance feels like it may favor current players too much…), this will be the good work of the next few weeks. Many crypto attorneys are rapidly adding excellent comments:

Twitter avatar for @valkenburgh
Peter Van Valkenburgh @valkenburgh
The STABLE Act appears inconsistent in achieving stated objective (why cover a stablecoin but not a typical money transmitter?) & utterly indifferent to collateral human rights and rule of law damage inherent in trying to shut down a decentralized network.
coincenter.orgThe Unintended(?) Consequences of the STABLE Act - Coin CenterOn purpose or not, the bill could turn even node operators into criminals…
7:46 PM ∙ Dec 3, 2020
151Likes36Retweets
Twitter avatar for @bramanathan
Reuben Bramanathan @bramanathan
The #STABLEAct is a confused attempt at regulating perceived harms that are not actually caused by the technology, but are, ironically, inherent in the existing financial system that cryptocurrencies are designed to replace 👇🏽
6:33 AM ∙ Dec 3, 2020
635Likes106Retweets

Further, follow the LexDAO annotation of STABLE here if you have our community token, LEX ✍️.


*Ok, so you can swap USDC for DAI, tUSD, etc., peer-peer and on a decentralized exchange, like Uniswap. But, if the dollars backing USDC waver, good luck getting a good price.

**Blockchain networks like Ethereum still need to prove themselves over a longer period of time as a totally “consumer grade” platform for finance. (Decentralized stablecoins should probably see a discount from peg for this risk against premium for access and opportunities in DeFi?) Anyways, most consumers are not familiar with the risk of blockchain forks or the breaking impact upgrades might have on smart contracts. This risk is separate and apart, however, from the counterparty threat of someone holding money in a bank.

3
Share this post

STABLE Act - A Legal Engineer's Perspective

lexdao.substack.com
Share
Comments
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 LexDAO
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing