Altcoins Aren’t in Trouble—They’re Just Getting Exposed
A listener named Jay from Oklahoma asked whether stablecoins taking center stage—especially under the Genius Act—will destabilize or destroy altcoins. The fear is that if stablecoins become the dominant form of crypto utility, they’ll make altcoins look volatile, risky, and pointless.
Let’s unpack that.
First, “altcoin” is a catch-all term that includes everything that isn’t Bitcoin. That means meme coins, utility tokens, L1s like Solana or Avalanche, L2s like Arbitrum, and even gold-backed digital currencies. To treat them all the same is like lumping penny stocks in with Apple and Amazon.
Now, stablecoins—like USDC or Tether—are not investments. You’re not holding a stablecoin hoping for a moonshot. You're holding it because you want to not moon or crash. It’s a parking spot. A medium of exchange. A tool for DeFi, cross-border payments, or trading efficiency.
So no—stablecoins aren’t killing altcoins. Altcoins are killing themselves by lacking utility, lacking a market, or being outright scams. Some might still fail even with great teams and honest intentions. As Jean-Luc Picard said: "You can do everything right and still fail. That’s not weakness—that’s life."
Stablecoins aren't the threat. The real threat to altcoins? Lack of relevance, shady founders, no users, and zero use case. The Genius Act didn’t cause that.
Circle, USDC, and My IPO Regret
Let me just say it: I screwed up.
I waited years—years—for Circle to go public. I kept saying, “Stablecoins are going to be the rails of the global financial system,” and Circle would be the company laying those rails. I even talked about how, once regulation came, it’d be Circle—not Bitcoin, not Ethereum—that got institutional adoption first.
Then the IPO finally comes... and I didn’t buy.
Why? Because I’d been burned. Bad. Coinbase was supposed to be the golden child. I bought at $240, thinking I was catching a rocket. It crashed. Hard. Watched it go all the way down to like $30. I spent years dollar-cost averaging just to feel like less of an idiot.
I still believe everything I said. USDC isn’t some random altcoin—it’s becoming core financial infrastructure. Circle has compliance, bank partnerships, regulators on speed dial. This wasn’t some Hail Mary tech IPO. It was the culmination of everything I’ve been talking about since 2019.
And yet—I let the fear of another Coinbase situation stop me.
It’s a lesson. Not just in conviction, but in pattern recognition. I trusted my past losses more than I trusted my research. I didn’t follow my own thesis. I blinked. And now I’m watching a company I’ve been bullish on forever trade like a junk SPAC, knowing damn well I’ll be back in later at a higher price.
Don’t be me.
If you believe the thesis, if you’ve said it out loud 50 times, if you’ve got the receipts—own it. Buy it. Don’t let your past stop you from stepping into what you already know is the future.
Circle was the trade. I just didn’t take it.
Quantum Computing: When (Not If) It Breaks Everything
Joshy B asked whether staked crypto is safer or more vulnerable to quantum computing.
Let me be crystal clear: nothing is safe from quantum computing. If quantum breaks cryptography, it’s over. Doesn’t matter if your crypto is staked or not. Your private keys? Gone. Your wallet? Compromised. Your encrypted messages, passwords, bank accounts, Tinder DMs? All exposed.
And yes, I went there. If you’ve got secret urges and you’re hiding them online—quantum doesn’t care. It’ll find them.
Now, staked crypto might actually be less safe in the meantime—not because of quantum, but because of custody risk. When you stake, especially through an exchange like Coinbase, Kraken, or Binance, you’re handing over your keys. That’s not your crypto anymore. That’s a trust issue.
We say “don’t trust, verify” in this space—but staking often means trusting someone else. Bugs happen. Hacks happen. Exploits happen. The bigger the target, the greater the risk. And a staking pool with 10,000 ETH? That’s a target.
So no—quantum isn’t here yet. But trust issues already are.
Tony Sung-Shin’s Stablecoin Criticism Is 5 Years Too Late
Another listener asked about recent comments from Tony Sung-Shin, a BIS economist, who slammed stablecoins as dangerous, unregulated, and a risk to financial stability.
Sound familiar?
Everything he’s criticizing—no KYC, no AML, risk of illicit finance—is exactly what the Genius Act is trying to fix. Under that legislation, stablecoin issuers must be licensed, follow banking rules, and adhere to traditional financial oversight.
So his complaints might have been relevant in 2019—but now? It sounds like he hasn’t read the bill.
But here’s the kicker: even if the Genius Act fixes some risks, it creates others. Because we’re handing monetary rails over to private companies. And unlike governments, they’re not bound by constitutional rights.
What happens when Circle gets a call to freeze the funds of protestors?
Or geofences 50 square miles around a demonstration?
Or blocks you from using USDC on “problematic” websites?
That’s programmable money in private hands. That’s terrifying. We’ve seen this before—company towns, scrip money, you name it. Now it’s coming back in blockchain form.
And no, I don’t trust either party not to abuse that power.
Prediction Markets Are More Than Bets—They’re Real-Time Truth Engines
Here’s the thing nobody wants to admit: we don’t know what’s real anymore.
Headlines lie. Polls are manipulated. Experts flip-flop based on who’s paying them or who’s watching. Half of the “facts” we consume are just pre-chewed narratives wrapped in confidence.
So what do we trust?
Money.
Or more specifically—incentivized truth.
That’s why prediction markets matter.
When someone puts their money on the line and says, “Yeah, I believe Trump wins this,” or “No, the CPI numbers will come in lower,” that bet carries weight. They’re risking something. They’re not just talking—they’re exposing themselves to consequence. That’s rare in today’s world.
Look at Polymarket, Manifold, Kalshi—hell, even Betfair when it dabbles in politics. They’re messy, yes. Prone to manipulation, sure. But you know what? They course-correct. They adjust. Because every player is trying to get ahead of the truth. And that pressure—millions of dollars, real-time consensus, asymmetric information flowing into a single price—is powerful.
These aren’t just bets.
They’re sentiment signals.
They’re narrative detectors.
They’re the closest thing we have to a decentralized truth oracle.
And the closer you get to the actual event—an election, an indictment, a debate performance—the harder they are to manipulate. Because no one wants to lose money lying to themselves.
Now take this one step further. Kevin brought this up, and I love it:
What if we extended this model to people?
What if you could stake on reputation?
Imagine you could bet on whether a journalist is telling the truth.
You listen to a clip from Joe Rogan or Rachel Maddow or whoever, and instead of yelling at the TV, you stake cryptobased on whether you think they’re right or wrong. You’re not just tweeting your opinion—you’re financially backing your belief.
If they’re right, you win. If they’re wrong, you lose. Multiply that by thousands of people across the political spectrum doing the same thing, and suddenly you’ve got a real-time credibility score. Not one dictated by social media algorithms or blue checkmarks, but by economic consensus.
We’ve gamified likes. We’ve gamified attention. Why not gamify truth?
That’s what prediction markets could evolve into—not just a place to bet on elections or inflation, but a live, dynamic accountability system. And sure, there are risks. People can game anything. But you know what you can’t game forever? Losses.
If your grift doesn’t pay, it dies.
That’s what excites me. Not the Trump vs. Harris odds, not who’s winning the debate polls, but the idea that we might finally build something where honesty pays and BS gets punished. That’s bigger than crypto. That’s civilization-level infrastructure.
And in a world where everything feels rigged?
That’s worth building.
On-Chain Transparency Shows Us the Corruption We’ve Always Had
Take TrumpCoin. People freaked out when Trump’s team launched a memecoin that gave access to special dinners and events.
Let me ask you this—how is that any different than a $500,000 donation to a Super PAC?
The difference is now you can see it.
On-chain records show exactly who holds how much, and when. Before, it was private fundraisers, personal checks, and dark money. Now? Same game, just finally visible.
That’s not new corruption. That’s old corruption with a spotlight on it.
Same with prediction markets. If a billionaire dumps $10 million into PollyMarket to skew the odds, you see it. You can track the wallet. You can call out the manipulation. You can challenge the narrative.
Free Markets, EV Mandates, and Porsche’s Identity Crisis
Let’s pivot to something close to my heart: Porsche Boxsters.
I love my Boxster. It's light, balanced, analog. But the EU’s emissions mandates are pushing Porsche to electrify the 718 line. And no one asked for that. I don’t want an electric Boxster. The market doesn’t want an electric Boxster.
We’re seeing governments dictate supply instead of responding to demand. That’s how you get bad products and bad outcomes. You get mandates instead of market competition.
Tesla didn’t succeed because of regulation. It succeeded because it made EVs cool. Porsche should be allowed to do the same—but not forced into it.
Same goes for grocery stores, rent caps, or student loans. The more the government interferes, the more distorted the incentives get. You get overpriced degrees with no market demand, rent that doesn't match housing supply, and EVs that no one wants.
My Take
The real fight in crypto isn't stablecoins vs. altcoins. It's freedom vs. control.
The Genius Act closes some regulatory gaps—but it opens the door to censorship by corporations. Prediction markets give us transparency—but we need to build reputation protocols on top of them. Porsche is being nudged into electric because of regulation, not demand—and that’s exactly what’s wrong with the broader system.
Markets work. The people usually get it right—if you let them.
Let prediction markets flourish. Let consumers pick the Boxster they want. Let crypto stay decentralized. And let’s stop pretending that regulation automatically means protection.
Final Thoughts
Stablecoins won’t kill altcoins. But bad products will.
Quantum is coming—and nothing’s safe.
Private companies controlling programmable money? That’s the scariest risk of all.
Prediction markets and staking truth could give us the tools to fight back.
And the Boxster? It better stay loud and gas-powered.
Happy HODLing, everyone.
Share this post