In
recent
times,
we’ve
witnessed
real-world
scenarios
where
stablecoins
like
Tether’s
USDT
and
Circle’s
USDC
have
become
crucial
monetary
tools.
In
Turkey,
for
instance,
where
high
inflation
has
spurred
citizens
to
embrace
these
digital
assets
as
a
hedge
against
an
unstable
national
currency.
Stablecoins
promise
liberation
from
the
traditional
financial
systems’
constraints,
but
how
well
they
actually
deliver
on
this
promise
depends
on
how
one
defines
freedom.
If
we
measure
stablecoins
against
various
definitions
of
freedom
as
they
appear
in
political
science
literature,
this
new
form
of
money
falls
short.
Burak
Tamaç
is
an
adjunct
professor
at
Montclair
State
University.
To
understand
why
stablecoins
fail
when
it
comes
to
personal
liberty
—
and
why
bitcoin
(BTC)
succeeds
—
it’s
helpful
to
take
a
tour
of
a
few
political
philosophers,
and
how
they
define
freedom.
Lets’
begin
with
the
Anglo-Russian
political
theorist
Isaiah
Berlin,
and
his
seminal
essay
“Two
Concepts
of
Liberty”
which
says
freedom
can
primarily
be
understood
in
two
ways:
negative
and
positive.
Negative
freedom,
often
termed
“liberal
freedom,”
refers
to
the
absence
of
interference
or
barriers.
Being
left
alone,
in
other
words.
In
contrast,
positive
freedom
focuses
on
the
active
exercise
of
freedom
to
realize
a
goal
or
potential.
There
is
also
a
third
alternative,
the
“republican”
or
“neo-Roman”
conception
of
freedom,
which
draws
on
both
of
these
interpretations
to
raise
questions
about
governance.
Irish
philosopher
Phillip
Pettit
was
a
pioneer
in
this
field,
and
stressed
a
view
of
republican
freedom
as
an
absence
of
domination,
while
later
British
intellectual
historian
Quentin
Skinner
emphasized
freedom
from
dependance.
For
both,
the
mere
presence
of
an
arbitrary
power
that
can
interfere
in
one’s
life
does
not
make
one
free.
Before
turning
back
to
crypto,
let’s
look
at
freedom
another
way
—
using
an
analogy
of
a
door.
Imagine
negative
freedom
as
having
a
choice
of
many
doors,
and
positive
freedom
as
walking
through
your
selected
door.
Republican
freedom
brings
another
layer
—
it’s
like
having
a
bunch
of
doors
without
a
gatekeeper.
In
this
sense,
you’re
free
as
long
as
no
one
interferes.
This
is
similar
to
a
the
liberal
conception
of
freedom
mentioned
above,
but
from
the
republican
viewpoint
the
mere
potential
of
interference
already
limits
your
freedom.
In
other
words,
to
manage
this
gatekeeper,
we
need
positive
freedom
solely
to
secure
our
negative
freedom.
Whether
the
power
is
held
by
a
government
or
a
company,
the
problem
of
arbitrary
power
remains
With
this
lens,
the
issue
with
stablecoins
becomes
clear.
Stablecoins
could
be
said
to
offer
negative
freedom,
in
that
there
are
few
barriers
to
using
these
financial
systems
as
long
as
the
system
runs
smoothly.
However,
they
miss
the
mark
on
republican
freedom,
or
freedom
without
domination.
Here’s
the
problem:
these
assets
are
created
and
managed
by
centralized
organizations.
The
stability
and
accessibility
of
stablecoins,
along
with
their
users,
are
tied
to
these
companies’
decisions.
You’re
free
until
someone
interferes.
But
crucially,
that
freedom
is
at
the
issuers’
mercy.
See
also:
Why
Care
About
Bitcoin?
Here’s
One
Philosopher’s
Take
|
Opinion
(2021)
Look
at
the
recent
situation
in
my
native
Turkey.
With
a
national
banking
system
crisis
and
inflation,
many
Turkish
citizens
are
using
stablecoins,
specifically
USDT
on
Tron,
to
protect
their
wealth.
It
sounds
attractive
at
first:
Instead
of
relying
on
the
government
to
oversee
banks,
trust
foreign
companies.
But
from
a
certain
standpoint,
this
just
replaces
one
boss
with
another.
Whether
the
power
is
held
by
a
government
or
a
company,
the
problem
of
arbitrary
power
remains
—
and
that
is
the
lesson
of
republican
freedom.
You
may
still
be
under
external
control,
unable
to
significantly
influence
the
processes
that
govern
your
economic
activities.
Bitcoin,
however,
offers
a
truly
decentralized
option,
getting
us
closer
to
freedom
as
non-domination.
Bitcoin’s
decentralized
nature
prevents
the
type
of
domination
that
comes
with
the
centralized
structures
of
stablecoins
or
traditional
finance.
Each
participant
can
impact
the
network’s
decisions,
reducing
the
risk
of
arbitrary
power,
and
thus
fostering
a
more
republican
view
of
freedom.
In
conclusion,
stablecoins
might
seem
like
a
lifeline
in
unstable
financial
landscapes.
But
their
intrinsic
reliance
on
centralized
issuers
compromises
freedom
as
non-domination.
It
is
not
enough
to
swap
one
master
for
another,
be
it
a
government
or
a
corporation.
Real
financial
independence
comes
not
from
trading
chains,
but
from
eliminating
or
controlling
them.