As an extreme libertarian (voluntaryist), I agree with this article, and I am actually confused by this comment:

Contrary to the consensus libertarian view, stablecoins should welcome regulation

Coins linked to fiat should be expected to be regulated by the masters of the fiat currency, I can’t imagine a scenario where that wouldn’t be expected, even desired.

What the libertarians are squealing about is the bizzarre, byzantine and immoral regulation of other coins and tokens. There is no excuse for Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Divi to be regulated in anyway. No excuse for trying to excise taxes from a coin to coin exchange that doesnt even happen in the country. This is where libertarians are (rightly) balking.

I agree on another point too. Blockchain isn’t a thing until it is invisible. So either it becomes invisible or it is only used in places where the visibilty of the coin is irrelevant (like supply chain management). I mentioned Divi before, because as far as I can tell, they are the only project that I know of that s actually using their blockchain to lower the hurdles for people who need to bank. Blockchain as a currency isn’t for Americans and Europeans (yet). Venmo, paypal and ApplePay all work perfectly well, and they are pretty cheap. But for someone in Zimbabwe (where the private market has introduced an SMS based cash system), banking is a way to lose your money through fees, shutdowns, and outright theft by the govenrment. To help, Divi bought a bank, to give them rights to hold and move money in any country on the planet (I think North Korea and Iran may be out). Banking, real banking (not loans though), where you need to move actual money to people, to exchange money, to store money will now be available to anyone on the planet, and you can choose to use Divi as the currency, or bitcoin, or fiat, seamlessly. This is how Grandma and Grandpa are going to be using blockchain, where it is underneath the banking system and not controlled by it.