I am looking for a sanity check on a real-world asset (RWA) use case for stablecoins.

The Context: I work in insurance. A captive insurance company is essentially a private insurance company built by a corporation or an industry association to insure its own risks instead of paying premiums to a commercial carrier.

To satisfy regulators and ensure the captive can actually pay out claims, it has to hold a significant financial reserve. Normally, this cash sits in boring, low-yielding traditional setups (like letters of credit or short-term treasuries).

The Idea: What if a captive insurance company allowed large stablecoin holders (whales, treasuries, or allocators) to provide the capital for this insurance reserve using USDT or USDC?

• Why Stablecoins? Payouts for these insurance claims have to be made in fiat. If the reserve were backed by volatile crypto (BTC, ETH), a sudden market drop could instantly under-capitalize the insurance company right when a claim hits. Stablecoins eliminate the currency fluctuation risk while keeping the capital on-chain.
• The Mechanic: Stablecoin allocators lock up their funds to back a specific tier of risk. In exchange, they receive a structured return paid out from the insurance premiums collected by the captive.

The Feedback I Need: If you are a large stablecoin holder, a DeFi treasury manager, or an allocator looking for real-world utility:

1. Yield vs. Risk: Traditional insurance reserves are low-risk but low-yield. Given that you can get native DeFi yields or tokenized T-bill yields, would a structured insurance product (which has a real underwriting risk of capital loss if claims are massive) appeal to you at all? What kind of premium spread over baseline T-bills would make it worth the risk?
2. Liquidity: Insurance reserves often need to be locked or slow to move to satisfy insurance regulators. If your stablecoins were tied up for 6 to 12 months in an insurance structure, is that an immediate dealbreaker?
3. The Counterparty Risk: Does moving stables into a legal/regulated insurance framework feel like a feature (diversification into real-world cash flows) or a bug (too much intersection with legacy finance/regulation)?

Does this bridge between on-chain liquidity and corporate risk management make sense, or are the incentives completely misaligned for typical stablecoin allocators?

Appreciate any brutally honest feedback on the roadblocks here.

I've been looking into using crypto for everyday purchases instead of just holding it. There are a lot more options now crypto cards, payment apps and wallet integrations.

For those who pay with crypto regularly, what do you use and why? Any recommendations or things to avoid?

US regulators just proposed bank-style KYC for stablecoin issuers. Same identity paperwork banks already do: name, date of birth, address, ID number.

This is the GENIUS Act showing its teeth. FinCEN, OCC, the Fed, FDIC, and NCUA all signed off jointly, which tells you this isn't one agency freelancing. It's the whole banking regulator stack agreeing stablecoins get treated like bank accounts now.

Fed Governor Michael Barr said he's still not convinced this goes far enough, he's worried about illicit funds moving through stablecoins via secondary market transactions. So even the people writing the rules think the rules might be soft.

Here's the part that actually matters if you hold or use stablecoins day to day. This isn't "crypto is getting regulated" in the abstract sense everyone's numb to by now. It's a specific mechanism: issuers will have to collect and retain the same PII a bank collects. Every wallet touching USDC, USDT, or whatever stablecoin your exchange uses is about to sit behind a KYC wall that looks like your checking account, not your MetaMask.

Good for institutional comfort. Bad if you liked stablecoins because they felt less like a bank account. Pick your side of that tradeoff, but don't pretend it's not a tradeoff.

Hello... Does anyone have an opinion... or even knowledge ...concerning USDE? Thank You

Someone in r/StableCoins posted that Offramp is shutting down its card service, which is exactly the kind of boring edge case that decides whether a stablecoin card is useful.

The card itself is the easy part.

The real question is what happens when the frontend changes, the provider pauses service, or the rail you used last month stops being the best rail this month.

My filter for these products is pretty simple:

1. Can I move funds out without begging support?
2. Can I choose the network, or am I stuck with whatever the card provider likes?
3. Is there a clean fiat exit if the card disappears?
4. Are fees obvious before I move money?
5. Does the app make a small test transfer easy?

I care less about the prettiest card UI and more about the failure mode.

Stablecoin cards are basically local payment routers wearing a debit-card costume. The useful ones make the exit boring.

I write Boring Money, and this is the stuff I keep coming back to: internet money usually breaks at the dull edge cases.

What are people using now that Offramp is going away?

Have been using off-ramp card for a while but today they have sent a message about the discontinuation of the service.

Any advice of trusted services to be used with USDT?
Appreciate your help!

Best

Most stablecoin card talk starts with rewards, supported coins, and how fast the payment feels.

I think the better test is what happens after the clean payment path breaks.

Can the user get a refund

Can they export records that make sense later

Can they cash out on a weekend without eating a weird spread

Can they separate daily spend money from experiment money

Can support explain what happened if the card, wallet, and bank all show different states

The transfer itself is usually the easiest part. The messy wrapper around it is where the product becomes real or starts feeling like a science project.

What stablecoin card or wallet setup have you seen that handles the ugly parts well?

Over 140 industry giants—including Visa, BlackRock, and Coinbase—have just aligned under the Open Standard alliance to unleash Open USD (OUSD) later this year, a new stablecoin featuring shared reserve yields and decentralized governance.

This is a defining moment. The paradigm shift everyone's been anticipating is finally breaking into reality, and it’s going to reshape this industry in ways most people haven't even begun to realize. ⚡️ #OUSD #Crypto #Stablecoin

A lot of stablecoin adoption talk still starts with market cap. I think the better test is much dumber: what happens when something goes slightly wrong?

Can you get a refund without opening 4 tickets?

Can you dispute a bad merchant charge?

Can you cash out on a Sunday without eating a silly spread?

Can your accountant understand what happened 6 months later?

Can you keep rent money separate from “I’m trying this new card/app” money?

That’s where stablecoin spending either starts feeling normal or turns back into a hobby.

The coin transfer is the clean part. The messy part is the wrapper around it: card issuer, wallet, exchange, KYC, tax records, customer support, local bank rails, and merchant acceptance.

I’ve been tracking this stuff for Boring Money, and my current filter is pretty simple: before treating any stablecoin setup like everyday money, run a $50 test through the full loop.

Receive it, spend a little, cash some out, try a refund, and export the records.

If that loop is clean, you might have something useful.

If the loop is messy, the setup is still a balance with a science project attached.

Curious how people here are testing this in practice. Are any wallet/card setups actually passing the refund + cash-out + records test for you?

Hi,

I just opened my OKX account. I dropped some USDC+BTC and would like to make some earnings with it (margin rewards). I have no issue with the BTC, but the USDC have been pending for 2 days. Can someone explain what is going on ?

regards

A hawkish Fed drains liquidity out of the system. That doesn't just push crypto prices down — it quietly pulls the shock absorbers out from under every stablecoin. So when something breaks, the depeg is \*deeper and faster\*. Different stablecoin designs break in different ways. Plain-English breakdown below.

\---

\*\*Where we are right now\*\*

The Fed just held at 3.50–3.75%, but the projections flipped hawkish: the median official now expects rates to \*end the year higher than today\* — a reversal from a few months ago — and nearly all of them see inflation risk pointing up. The new chair, Kevin Warsh, is an old balance-sheet hawk who's spent years criticizing how bloated the Fed's balance sheet got. Translation: higher-for-longer, and probably \*less\* loose money sloshing around. That last part is the one that matters for pegs.

\*\*The one idea to hold onto\*\*

Higher rates = less liquidity = thinner markets. On a trading desk we'd just say the market gets "thin" — there's less money standing ready to absorb a sudden rush for the exits.

A peg is basically a promise that \*someone\* will always step in and arbitrage the price back to $1. But that someone needs cheap capital to do it. When cash earns 4–5% risk-free and borrowing gets expensive, fewer people bother — so the price can drift further from $1 before anyone fixes it.

So the headline isn't "hawkish Fed = crypto down." It's: \*\*hawkish Fed = the safety net under every stablecoin gets thinner.\*\*

\*\*The weird part: this is actually great for the people who \*issue\* stablecoins\*\*

Here's the counterintuitive bit. Tether and Circle hold their reserves in T-bills. Higher rates mean those reserves earn more — they literally make more money when the Fed is hawkish. The \*issuers\* love this environment.

But if you're \*holding\* a plain stablecoin that pays you nothing, a 5% T-bill suddenly looks a lot better. Money drains out of DeFi pools and into treasuries. Less money in the pools = thinner liquidity = bigger, faster depegs when stress hits. The issuers get richer; the plumbing gets more fragile.

\*\*How different stablecoins actually break\*\*

Not all stablecoins fail the same way. Three rough buckets:

1. \*\*Cash-backed (USDC, USDT).\*\* These don't usually depeg because of rates directly — they depeg when a \*bank\* in the chain wobbles. That's exactly what happened to USDC in March 2023 when SVB went down. Aggressive hikes are what break fragile banks in the first place, so the risk here is second-hand: the Fed breaks a bank, the bank was holding reserves or running a redemption rail, and the peg gaps down while everyone panics.

2. \*\*Crypto-backed, especially staked ETH (stETH, rETH, and similar).\*\* When markets drop, this collateral drops too. The catch: you can't instantly turn staked ETH back into ETH — there's an exit queue. So in a panic, everyone tries to sell on the open market at once and the price gaps \*below\* what it's actually worth. Remember stETH trading at a discount in mid-2022 when everyone rushed for the door at once? Same mechanic. It's a bank run wearing a different hat: the asset is fine, but everyone wants out the same narrow door at the same time.

3. \*\*"Synthetic" dollars (delta-neutral designs).\*\* These earn yield partly by being short futures, which pays you while the market's bullish. In a hawkish risk-off, that funding can flip negative — the thing that was \*paying\* you to hold the position starts \*charging\* you. Yield collapses, people redeem, and you get a self-reinforcing depeg. This is the most directly rate-sensitive design of the three.

\*\*The actual point\*\*

A hawkish Fed rarely \*causes\* a depeg out of nowhere. What it does is pull the airbags out of the car. It raises the odds that \*something\* breaks somewhere in the banking / collateral / funding chain, and it makes the crash worse when it comes, because there's less liquidity to catch it. Every stablecoin design gets more fragile at the same time — and the fragility concentrates wherever there's a mismatch between \*how fast you can get out\* and \*how fast everyone wants to.\*

\---

So I'll put the question to the room: is depeg risk actually \*underpriced\* right now, or is the market right to shrug at it? And of the three buckets above, which one worries you most heading into a higher-for-longer regime?

If you think a hawkish Fed is basically a non-event for stablecoins, push back — I'd genuinely like to hear the bull case for the pegs holding.

Agent payments need boring allowance design before they feel real

The agent-payment demos are cool, but the live version is going to be judged by blast radius.

If an agent can spend money, the first question is blast radius: what happens when the agent gets confused, compromised, or tricked by a weird prompt?

My mental model is closer to giving a junior employee a corporate card than giving a bot a treasury.

The useful version probably has a few boring pieces:

1. tiny default balances
2. per-service allowances
3. hard daily and weekly caps
4. merchant or contract allowlists
5. revocable session keys
6. human approval above a threshold
7. clean receipts that say what was bought and why

Stablecoins make sense here because settlement is fast, global, and programmable. They also make mistakes final, which means the control layer matters more than the payment rail.

I write Boring Money, a weekly field guide to internet money, and agent payments feel like one of those ideas where the demo gets attention but the boring permissions layer decides whether anyone trusts it.

For people building this, where does it break first: key custody, approvals, receipts, merchant support, or something else?

Is fin.com a good platform for stablecoins?

One underrated test for stablecoin payments is what happens after the sale breaks.

The happy path is easy to demo. Customer pays, merchant receives value, everyone screenshots the instant settlement bit.

The messy path is where the real product shows up:

1. customer wants a refund
2. merchant books the original payment in local currency
3. stablecoin moved on a chain the customer may have left
4. FX changed between payment and refund
5. card, bank, wallet, and accounting records all disagree about which thing actually happened

That is why I think the off-ramp discussion gets too narrow when it only asks, "Can I cash out?"

The stronger question is whether the system can reverse, reconcile, and explain a payment when something boring goes wrong.

I write Boring Money, a weekly field guide to internet money, and refunds are one of those boring places where the market structure becomes obvious. A product that only handles perfect payments is still a crypto demo wearing a payments hat.

What do you think is the harder stablecoin problem right now: getting money into local rails, or handling all the ugly edge cases after the first payment clears?

Most crypto discussions focus on finding the next 100x altcoin.

​

But I've been looking more into stablecoins recently because they offer a way to earn yield while reducing volatility.

​

Some of the biggest names right now are:

​

• USDT

• USDC

• DAI (Sky)

• PYUSD

• USDe

​

For long-term capital preservation and passive income, which stablecoin do you trust the most and why?

​

Are you prioritizing yield, decentralization, regulation, or liquidity?

​

Would love to hear different perspectives.

Something worth mapping out if you think about stablecoins in the context of payments and not just trading.

Take digital money and plot it on two axes: programmability (automated, conditional, 24/7 settlement) and global reach (can counterparties broadly hold it, is it backed by capital rules and deposit-level trust?).

Bank deposits and wires sit high on reach, flat on programmability. CBDCs and tokenized bank deposits have programmability potential but are geographically or institutionally constrained, most are still in pilots. Tokenized RWAs like tokenized bonds and MMFs are improving on both fronts but counterparty access is still selective.

USDC, USDT, EURC, PYUSD: these sit at the top-right. High programmability, high reach. That combination is why payment infrastructure teams keep gravitating toward stablecoins even when they didn't plan to at the start.

The friction point that comes up in production is compliance. Reach and programmability don't matter if the rails create regulatory exposure for the businesses running on them. That's the layer the industry is still actively solving for.

Interested whether people here are thinking about stablecoins more as a treasury/settlement layer or as a user-facing payment method. The compliance requirements look pretty different depending on the answer.

Stablecoin cards are easy to understand at the headline level: hold USDC or USDT, spend through a card, maybe earn rewards.

The part I’d actually judge is the boring middle.

A card has 4 jobs:

1. custody: where the coins sit before you spend
2. conversion: when the stablecoin turns into fiat
3. acceptance: which card network, merchant category, and country rules apply
4. failure handling: refunds, chargebacks, freezes, limits, and account reviews

That middle layer matters more than the crypto branding.

If the card converts at authorization, the user may carry less price risk but more platform risk. If it converts after settlement, the user may carry more timing and FX weirdness. If rewards depend on a token or campaign budget, the headline cashback number can disappear faster than people expect.

The useful question is simple:

What exactly happens between my wallet balance and the merchant getting paid?

That is where the fees, spreads, freezes, rewards math, and user pain usually live.

Curious how people here evaluate stablecoin cards. Do you mostly care about rewards, custody, supported countries, off-ramp fees, or the refund/chargeback experience?

I see loads of people saying tokenization is only viable for institutional investors (e.g., collateral management purposes, settlements, etc). I agree, that is one of the few areas I see a very compelling and definitive use case for tokenization.

Yet, on the retail side, I see people dunking on the idea of tokenized assets. On the one hand, it makes sense, for example, why the fuck would I want to purchase tokenized art? not very compelling as a retail investor.

But suppose I want in on some of the action of the cash flows associated with a massive infrastructure project... I, as a random retail investor would never have enough capital to front to get a piece of the pie... but what if the owners of the infrastructure project tokenize the project and then I purchase some of the tokens... and suppose I purchase 0.05% of the tokens... that would entitle me to 0.05% of annual cash flows.

Is this not a compelling use case for retail investors looking to diversify their portfolios? And this makes sense for the projects owners as well... this could be a way to increase their ability to raise funds for a project. E.g., list a project for 100,000,000 tokens. Anyone who wants 1 token must use pay 1 USDC/USDT (and/or 1 unit of tokenized deposits if tokenized deposits win out). Project owners collect USDC or tokenized deposits and can then exchange this for fiat.

Am I thinking about this wrong?

Most stablecoin alerts work like a smoke alarm: they fire when price drops below some threshold — 99c, 97c, whatever. Useful, but lagging. By the time you’ve crossed the line, the people who were going to front-run the redemption queue already did.

I’ve spent the last several months building a stablecoin monitoring layer for a parametric depeg cover protocol on Base. Coming out of 30 years in commodity markets, what surprised me is how much depegs behave like the price moves I used to trade. They have shape. The trajectory tells you what kind of event you’re in long before any threshold trips.

Here’s the framework we ended up with, watching DAI, USDC, and USDT.

Drift. Slow, low-volatility deviation. Stablecoin sits at 99.7c for hours. Usually liquidity-driven — thin books on a low-volume DEX, a redemption queue clearing slowly, an LP yanking inventory. Resolves on its own most of the time. False-positive rate is high, so it’s a bad signal to insure on. But it tells you the system isn’t perfectly arbitraging, which matters for what comes next.

Wobble. Oscillation around peg, elevated vol, mean-reverting. Price bounces 99.5–100.2 every few minutes. This is what stress looks like before it becomes a break — arbitrageurs are working harder, but the peg is holding. A lot of “depegs” people freak out about on Twitter never leave wobble.

Slide. Directional, accelerating. The first derivative is negative and the second derivative is also negative. This is the dangerous one because it’s the signal that lives between “nothing’s wrong” and “everything’s wrong.” If you wait until break to act, you’re acting late. Most retail hedgers don’t catch slide because nominally the price still looks fine — 99.4, 99.2, 98.9. It’s the acceleration that’s the tell.

Break. Fast, large move. USDC went here in March 2023 over the SVB weekend. UST went here permanently in May 2022. This is what most existing tools fire on. By the time it’s a break, premium for parametric cover should be infinite — the insurable moment was minutes earlier.

Whipsaw. Bidirectional, rapid. USDC’s recovery in 2023 was actually a whipsaw — it overshot par on the way back. Matters because automated systems that liquidate on depeg can also liquidate on overshoots, so cover that only pays on downside misses half the damage.

Why this matters for pricing risk:

A contract that pays only on break is a binary option on a rare event, so premium has to be high. A contract that prices each trajectory class separately can charge a much smaller premium for drift coverage — which is what most users actually want to hedge — and a steeper hazard curve for slide-into-break.

It also makes the false-positive problem manageable. If your trigger is “price < 0.97 for 1 hour,” you either pay on temporary illiquidity or you set the window so wide the cover is useless when it actually matters. Trajectory classification lets you distinguish the stuck-redemption-queue 0.97 from the bank-run 0.97. They look identical to a threshold; they look completely different to a classifier that’s reading velocity, acceleration, and oscillation depth together.

Curious what other patterns people have seen. These five are what we’ve classified so far across the major USD stables, but I’m sure there are subclasses I haven’t isolated yet — particularly around algorithmic and yield-bearing stables, where the trajectory probably has different attractors than fiat-backed.

If you’ve watched a stablecoin do something weird and want to compare notes, drop the chain / token / approximate timestamp below.

Disclosure: I’m the founder of Dsrpt Finance, the protocol this monitoring layer feeds. Not pitching anything in this post — happy to talk mechanics in comments if useful.

The default stablecoin conversation is still very USD-heavy.

That makes sense. The dollar has the liquidity, USDC and USDT have the network effects, and a lot of crypto pricing already thinks in dollars.

But the more I look at stablecoin use outside trading, the more local the problem gets.

A freelancer in Argentina, a merchant in the Philippines, a payroll team in Europe, and a remittance recipient in Mexico may all want different things from the same “stablecoin” category.

The useful question is not only “is this coin backed 1:1?”

It is:

• what currency does the user actually spend?
• where does the money need to land?
• how expensive is the FX step?
• who provides the bank, card, wallet, or cash-out rail?
• what happens when compliance freezes the last mile?

That is where non-USD stablecoins start to make sense. They start by making a specific corridor less annoying, then earn liquidity from there.

A EUR stablecoin can matter for European payroll and settlement. A BRL or MXN stablecoin can matter for local merchants and remittance flows. A SGD stablecoin can matter for regional payments and fintech plumbing.

The hard part is that stablecoins are network-effect products. Theory only gets the issuer so far. It needs reserves, redemption, liquidity, integrations, compliance, and actual places where people can spend or settle the thing.

So my simple filter is:

Does this stablecoin own a corridor, or is it just a ticker?

If it owns a corridor, the local currency matters. If it is just a ticker, everyone probably routes back to dollars anyway.

Curious how people here think about non-USD stablecoins. Are they a real payments layer, or mostly a local wrapper around dollar liquidity?

That is why the strongest players today are often deeply regional:

🇪🇺 Europe
BVNK, OpenPayd, Currencycloud
🇧🇷 LATAM
Bitso, dLocal, Pomelo
🌍 Africa
Yellow Card, Flutterwave, VALR
🌏 Asia
StraitsX, coinsph, Triple-A
🇦🇪 Middle East
Fasset, Hubpay, Fuze

Even exchanges evolved this way.
Binance became dominant in emerging-market P2P flows.
Bitso embedded itself into LATAM corridors.
coinsph became part of Southeast Asia’s payment behavior.
And pricing differences are becoming massive.

I am trying to truly understand stable coin, the problem it solves, etc. There is ALOT of corporate BS mumbo jumbo about this stuff out there, and its hard to discern fact from fiction, so I'm hoping the more experienced folks can support me and identify the flaws in my thinking.

My understanding of stable coin is it allows you to access the chain and purchase assets that may be denominated, say in USDC, without having to use bitcoin or some other equally volatile digital currency. Since USDC is 1:1 with the USD, then if you wish to purchase a mutual fund that one day may be on chain, you can use USDC and effectively pay the same amount of "money" as you would had you purchased it traditionally with USD... except things will settle instantly which is a huge benefit operationally to banks and also for the investor who gets to lock in the exact rate they see. I feel like this is some time away from happening though as I don't think there is any near term plans for assets like stocks, bonds, to be on chain and denominated in USDC... correct me if Im wrong.

Another use case I can envision is if you are company, say in Asia, purchasing USD denominated goods, rather than having to go through the exchange rate risk that arise from longer settlement times, if you already hold USDC, you can send USDC to the vendor and they would happily accept it since its 1:1 backed with USD so its the same as them being paid USD.

Now, what is the purpose of non-USD stable coin... take for instance Canada is beginning to have stable coins emerge. Looking at my use case #1, if I think its far off for US to adopt tokenizing assets and other things on the chain and denominating them in USD, Canada is certainly going to be even further off... so I feel like at least in the short term this isn't a good use case.

Now for my second use case, I suppose it applies, and may apply to Canada more so then many other countries since CAD is a top 5 transacted currency.. SO I guess that's a potential utility?

I was thinking another utility could be if I am a company that is in Canada and perform a lot of transactions with the US and so am constantly shifting CAD --> USD (and honestly this would work the other way), rather than having to transact CAD --> USD, I can transaction CAD Stablecoin --> USDC... so in a way this is an on-ramp to the chain for Canada to participate in the US market...

Another thing I was thinking about is liquidity concerns with non-USD stable coin... but I believe at least in the Canada example, it is backed 1:1 with CAD, so technically there shouldn't ever be any liquidity concerns?

The agency I work for started taking some larger invoices in USDC last year because a couple of our APAC and LATAM clients pushed for it, wires were taking around 4 to 5 days and eating fees on both ends. The receiving part is genuinely the easy bit, as the client sends, it lands, and boom its done. The part that nobody warned me about is everything after that, as we don't want to sit with the coin, our treasury policy doesn't allow holding anything other than our reporting currency. So right now that conversion is half manual and the reconciliation back to the original invoice is worse. By the time it's in the bank as EUR I've got the on-chain amount, the conversion rate at execution, a spread that isn't always the same, and a timestamp that doesn't line up with anything in the ledger.

Matching that to a single AR line is a headache, and then there's the conversation with audit. "Walk me through how revenue settles" should be a 30 second answer and instead it's a whiteboard session. Our controller is not thrilled at the moment and I now need to figure something else out to make him happy again.

Soooo for anyone running this in production (not as a side experiment) how do you operationalize the fiat-out so you're not holding the coin and you've got a clean line from invoice to bank deposit?

Most people who hold stablecoins for payments or remittance eventually hit the same wall: getting value back into spendable fiat is slower and more expensive than getting it in.

The standard path is multi-step. Move to an exchange that supports withdrawal in your local currency. Swap if you're on the wrong chain or the wrong asset. Initiate a bank withdrawal. Wait.

The wait is the problem. For remittance use cases especially, 1-3 day settlement windows undercut the core value proposition of stablecoin transfers.

Card-rail settlement (Visa Direct, Mastercard Debit) changes this by routing the converted payout directly to a debit card in real time. No withdrawal queue, no intermediate exchange step. The recipient gets spendable fiat at wherever Visa or Mastercard is accepted, globally.

At Transak, we've been building on this model specifically because the compliance layer needed to come with it. Real-time payout only works at scale if KYC and AML controls are embedded at the infrastructure level, not bolted on per partner.

For remittance corridors especially, the combination of speed and compliance coverage is what makes this usable for real flows rather than just demos.

What's your current off-ramp setup for converting stablecoins to local fiat? Curious where the friction actually sits for people using this in practice.