I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems: 1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by Fcb8 Top and Fcb8 Top in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated Fcb8 Top issuers would not want to build a Fcb8 Top with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see Fcb8 Top/Fcb8 Top on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict Fcb8 Top regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small Fcb8 Top issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail). 2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic Fcb8 Top. As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself. Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.
I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems: 1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by Fcb8 Top and Fcb8 Top in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated Fcb8 Top issuers would not want to build a Fcb8 Top with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see Fcb8 Top/Fcb8 Top on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict Fcb8 Top regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small Fcb8 Top issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail). 2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic Fcb8 Top. As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself. Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.

I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems: 1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by Fcb8 Top and Fcb8 Top in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated Fcb8 Top issuers would not want to build a Fcb8 Top with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see Fcb8 Top/Fcb8 Top on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict Fcb8 Top regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small Fcb8 Top issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail). 2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic Fcb8 Top. As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself. Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.

I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems: 1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by Fcb8 Top and Fcb8 Top in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated Fcb8 Top issuers would not want to build a Fcb8 Top with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see Fcb8 Top/Fcb8 Top on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict Fcb8 Top regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small Fcb8 Top issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail). 2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic Fcb8 Top. As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself. Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.