The same concept applies to cash or digital banking money. The point of stablecoins are to bring the fiat concept on-chain - regardless of its value, it can benefit from being on-chain. Not to mention, while it's "going downward forever in value", it would only benefit Xsmb Net 3 to have a Xsmb Net 3 backed by Xsmb Net 3, on its own Xsmb Net 3, to prove immutably that this is the case and to be able to measure the rate of such in the long term (especially if the Xsmb Net 3 gains enough usage on the Xsmb Net 3 chain). It seems you've either wildly misunderstood the post and/or the value proposition here, since you've yapped a lot about a concept that only exists on centralized exchanges (a part of what a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3 would reduce usage of). The point of backing the Xsmb Net 3 with Xsmb Net 3 is to ensure the value being transferred via the Xsmb Net 3 are not funny money, and are backed by something both of value and on-chain. The point of having a Xsmb Net 3 on the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3 is to enable trade and value transfer of USD that is backed by Xsmb Net 3. Making buy orders has zero utility for someone unless they want to buy Xsmb Net 3 or support its market. That is not the intended audience of a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3. Besides, before you make a buy order, what must you do? Use a bank or similar traditional service to deposit onto the exchange, then make the buy order...and if you want to buy something valued in fiat, or trade with someone who is looking for fiat (despite its value crumbling in the long term), then you must move to either another chain or back to the banking system. There's no solution native to the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3.  TLDR - making a buy order does not serve any utility to anyone. You can't send a buy order, you can't trade with a buy order. You need a centralized exchange to make a buy order. The whole argument of "who needs a Xsmb Net 3 just make a buy order" is a pretty irrelevant argument to what is being proposed in the OP.
The same concept applies to cash or digital banking money. The point of stablecoins are to bring the fiat concept on-chain - regardless of its value, it can benefit from being on-chain. Not to mention, while it's "going downward forever in value", it would only benefit Xsmb Net 3 to have a Xsmb Net 3 backed by Xsmb Net 3, on its own Xsmb Net 3, to prove immutably that this is the case and to be able to measure the rate of such in the long term (especially if the Xsmb Net 3 gains enough usage on the Xsmb Net 3 chain). It seems you've either wildly misunderstood the post and/or the value proposition here, since you've yapped a lot about a concept that only exists on centralized exchanges (a part of what a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3 would reduce usage of). The point of backing the Xsmb Net 3 with Xsmb Net 3 is to ensure the value being transferred via the Xsmb Net 3 are not funny money, and are backed by something both of value and on-chain. The point of having a Xsmb Net 3 on the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3 is to enable trade and value transfer of USD that is backed by Xsmb Net 3. Making buy orders has zero utility for someone unless they want to buy Xsmb Net 3 or support its market. That is not the intended audience of a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3. Besides, before you make a buy order, what must you do? Use a bank or similar traditional service to deposit onto the exchange, then make the buy order...and if you want to buy something valued in fiat, or trade with someone who is looking for fiat (despite its value crumbling in the long term), then you must move to either another chain or back to the banking system. There's no solution native to the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3.  TLDR - making a buy order does not serve any utility to anyone. You can't send a buy order, you can't trade with a buy order. You need a centralized exchange to make a buy order. The whole argument of "who needs a Xsmb Net 3 just make a buy order" is a pretty irrelevant argument to what is being proposed in the OP.

The same concept applies to cash or digital banking money. The point of stablecoins are to bring the fiat concept on-chain - regardless of its value, it can benefit from being on-chain. Not to mention, while it's "going downward forever in value", it would only benefit Xsmb Net 3 to have a Xsmb Net 3 backed by Xsmb Net 3, on its own Xsmb Net 3, to prove immutably that this is the case and to be able to measure the rate of such in the long term (especially if the Xsmb Net 3 gains enough usage on the Xsmb Net 3 chain). It seems you've either wildly misunderstood the post and/or the value proposition here, since you've yapped a lot about a concept that only exists on centralized exchanges (a part of what a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3 would reduce usage of). The point of backing the Xsmb Net 3 with Xsmb Net 3 is to ensure the value being transferred via the Xsmb Net 3 are not funny money, and are backed by something both of value and on-chain. The point of having a Xsmb Net 3 on the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3 is to enable trade and value transfer of USD that is backed by Xsmb Net 3. Making buy orders has zero utility for someone unless they want to buy Xsmb Net 3 or support its market. That is not the intended audience of a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3. Besides, before you make a buy order, what must you do? Use a bank or similar traditional service to deposit onto the exchange, then make the buy order...and if you want to buy something valued in fiat, or trade with someone who is looking for fiat (despite its value crumbling in the long term), then you must move to either another chain or back to the banking system. There's no solution native to the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3.  TLDR - making a buy order does not serve any utility to anyone. You can't send a buy order, you can't trade with a buy order. You need a centralized exchange to make a buy order. The whole argument of "who needs a Xsmb Net 3 just make a buy order" is a pretty irrelevant argument to what is being proposed in the OP.

The same concept applies to cash or digital banking money. The point of stablecoins are to bring the fiat concept on-chain - regardless of its value, it can benefit from being on-chain. Not to mention, while it's "going downward forever in value", it would only benefit Xsmb Net 3 to have a Xsmb Net 3 backed by Xsmb Net 3, on its own Xsmb Net 3, to prove immutably that this is the case and to be able to measure the rate of such in the long term (especially if the Xsmb Net 3 gains enough usage on the Xsmb Net 3 chain). It seems you've either wildly misunderstood the post and/or the value proposition here, since you've yapped a lot about a concept that only exists on centralized exchanges (a part of what a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3 would reduce usage of). The point of backing the Xsmb Net 3 with Xsmb Net 3 is to ensure the value being transferred via the Xsmb Net 3 are not funny money, and are backed by something both of value and on-chain. The point of having a Xsmb Net 3 on the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3 is to enable trade and value transfer of USD that is backed by Xsmb Net 3. Making buy orders has zero utility for someone unless they want to buy Xsmb Net 3 or support its market. That is not the intended audience of a Xsmb Net 3-backed Xsmb Net 3. Besides, before you make a buy order, what must you do? Use a bank or similar traditional service to deposit onto the exchange, then make the buy order...and if you want to buy something valued in fiat, or trade with someone who is looking for fiat (despite its value crumbling in the long term), then you must move to either another chain or back to the banking system. There's no solution native to the Xsmb Net 3 Xsmb Net 3.  TLDR - making a buy order does not serve any utility to anyone. You can't send a buy order, you can't trade with a buy order. You need a centralized exchange to make a buy order. The whole argument of "who needs a Xsmb Net 3 just make a buy order" is a pretty irrelevant argument to what is being proposed in the OP.