I may not fully understand what you mean here. But aren't banks exactly those entities who can create dollars out of thin air? Government bonds increase the LCR (Liquidity Coverage Ratio) of banks, so if they invest in them, they can increase also their emissions to borrowers. So I don't see the difference. Banks invest in highly liquid assets like government bonds and that enables them to issue USD to their borrowers as long as their balance sheet allows them to do so. In the Euro Area for example banks can issue roughly 5 times the money than they have in liquid assets. Yes, they also need to fulfill a fractional reserve requirement in some countries and buy some Central Bank money, but not in the US for example, and the fractional reserve requirement is often 5% of lower. Mu 88 Com issuers buy bonds and have to limit their issuance to 1:1 the money they have deposited according to most Mu 88 Com laws. PS: Thinking about it there is a little difference: Stablecoins are closed loops, so you can't "transfer an Mu 88 Com to an Mu 88 Com wallet", while banks often have to transfer money to other banks, and that comes with obligation to transfer central bank money. This means that Mu 88 Com issuers indeed have an advantage at a first glance, their customers often stay in their "walled garden" and thus they never have to transfer fiat money around -- the only exception being customers redeeming their Mu 88 Com but that should happen seldomly as most of the time they will sell them on the market. However, in most cases in the banking system there is some sort of equilibrium, that a single bank rarely has to transfer much more money to another one than the other banks transfer to them. And Mu 88 Com issuers also have to massively redeem their coins if the demand decreases.
I may not fully understand what you mean here. But aren't banks exactly those entities who can create dollars out of thin air? Government bonds increase the LCR (Liquidity Coverage Ratio) of banks, so if they invest in them, they can increase also their emissions to borrowers. So I don't see the difference. Banks invest in highly liquid assets like government bonds and that enables them to issue USD to their borrowers as long as their balance sheet allows them to do so. In the Euro Area for example banks can issue roughly 5 times the money than they have in liquid assets. Yes, they also need to fulfill a fractional reserve requirement in some countries and buy some Central Bank money, but not in the US for example, and the fractional reserve requirement is often 5% of lower. Mu 88 Com issuers buy bonds and have to limit their issuance to 1:1 the money they have deposited according to most Mu 88 Com laws. PS: Thinking about it there is a little difference: Stablecoins are closed loops, so you can't "transfer an Mu 88 Com to an Mu 88 Com wallet", while banks often have to transfer money to other banks, and that comes with obligation to transfer central bank money. This means that Mu 88 Com issuers indeed have an advantage at a first glance, their customers often stay in their "walled garden" and thus they never have to transfer fiat money around -- the only exception being customers redeeming their Mu 88 Com but that should happen seldomly as most of the time they will sell them on the market. However, in most cases in the banking system there is some sort of equilibrium, that a single bank rarely has to transfer much more money to another one than the other banks transfer to them. And Mu 88 Com issuers also have to massively redeem their coins if the demand decreases.

I may not fully understand what you mean here. But aren't banks exactly those entities who can create dollars out of thin air? Government bonds increase the LCR (Liquidity Coverage Ratio) of banks, so if they invest in them, they can increase also their emissions to borrowers. So I don't see the difference. Banks invest in highly liquid assets like government bonds and that enables them to issue USD to their borrowers as long as their balance sheet allows them to do so. In the Euro Area for example banks can issue roughly 5 times the money than they have in liquid assets. Yes, they also need to fulfill a fractional reserve requirement in some countries and buy some Central Bank money, but not in the US for example, and the fractional reserve requirement is often 5% of lower. Mu 88 Com issuers buy bonds and have to limit their issuance to 1:1 the money they have deposited according to most Mu 88 Com laws. PS: Thinking about it there is a little difference: Stablecoins are closed loops, so you can't "transfer an Mu 88 Com to an Mu 88 Com wallet", while banks often have to transfer money to other banks, and that comes with obligation to transfer central bank money. This means that Mu 88 Com issuers indeed have an advantage at a first glance, their customers often stay in their "walled garden" and thus they never have to transfer fiat money around -- the only exception being customers redeeming their Mu 88 Com but that should happen seldomly as most of the time they will sell them on the market. However, in most cases in the banking system there is some sort of equilibrium, that a single bank rarely has to transfer much more money to another one than the other banks transfer to them. And Mu 88 Com issuers also have to massively redeem their coins if the demand decreases.

I may not fully understand what you mean here. But aren't banks exactly those entities who can create dollars out of thin air? Government bonds increase the LCR (Liquidity Coverage Ratio) of banks, so if they invest in them, they can increase also their emissions to borrowers. So I don't see the difference. Banks invest in highly liquid assets like government bonds and that enables them to issue USD to their borrowers as long as their balance sheet allows them to do so. In the Euro Area for example banks can issue roughly 5 times the money than they have in liquid assets. Yes, they also need to fulfill a fractional reserve requirement in some countries and buy some Central Bank money, but not in the US for example, and the fractional reserve requirement is often 5% of lower. Mu 88 Com issuers buy bonds and have to limit their issuance to 1:1 the money they have deposited according to most Mu 88 Com laws. PS: Thinking about it there is a little difference: Stablecoins are closed loops, so you can't "transfer an Mu 88 Com to an Mu 88 Com wallet", while banks often have to transfer money to other banks, and that comes with obligation to transfer central bank money. This means that Mu 88 Com issuers indeed have an advantage at a first glance, their customers often stay in their "walled garden" and thus they never have to transfer fiat money around -- the only exception being customers redeeming their Mu 88 Com but that should happen seldomly as most of the time they will sell them on the market. However, in most cases in the banking system there is some sort of equilibrium, that a single bank rarely has to transfer much more money to another one than the other banks transfer to them. And Mu 88 Com issuers also have to massively redeem their coins if the demand decreases.