I think anything is possible, but I doubt he actually is able to eliminate the FED even if he wanted to.
I am not an expert in this at all, but I think a US stablecoin would be fiat. It would just be digital fiat.
A US stablecoin backed by gold would revert to the pre-1971 gold standard. I think that's what Ron Paul wanted. And there was less inflation with this because the government couldn't just print money.
I think widespread adoption of just straight vanilla bitcoin would be better than a "stablecoin" because it would avoid government manipulation. But I only have a very superficial understanding of all this.
There simply isn’t enough gold to provide the liquidity the global financial system needs. A gold-backed system would struggle to expand credit, keep up with economic growth, and remain stable.
Stablecoins, on the other hand, will exist across many blockchains. Most are currently on Ethereum and Tron, but over time they’ll scale across multiple networks.
Bitcoin’s development has largely ossified because its value has risen and many feel, “Why fix what isn’t broken?” But that also means it hasn’t scaled like Ethereum. You can’t issue stablecoins on Bitcoin, and it maxes out at around 6–7 transactions per second. Miner rewards halve roughly every four years, so unless BTC’s average price more than doubles to offset the reduced rewards and dollar devaluation, miners will gradually be squeezed. The plan is for transaction fees to cover the difference, but even after 16 years, fees still make up less than 1% of miner revenue. For me, this raises serious questions about Bitcoin’s long-term security model.