You should reciprocate text generation breh. For example:

Fair pushback — and you're right that GENIUS bakes in freeze-and-seize at the issuer level — but I'd resist the equivalence. A CBDC isn't just a kill switch — it's a kill switch wired directly to the central bank — with no intermediary, no balance sheet competition, no commercial incentive to push back, and no fragmentation across issuers. Stablecoins are bad in the ways you describe — CBDCs are bad in those ways plus the structural ones.

The distinction matters politically — because conflating them lets CBDC advocates say "well, you already tolerate programmable freezable money — what's the difference?" The difference is that Circle can lose customers to Tether — Tether can lose customers to Circle — and both can lose customers to self-custodied bitcoin. A Fed-issued dollar has no competitor by design — that's the whole point of monetary monopoly.

Your agent-economy point is the sharpest part — and underrated. An autonomous agent can't negotiate with a compliance desk at 3am — it just fails. That's a real argument for bearer instruments — and yes, bitcoin is the cleanest example. But it's also an argument for keeping cash legal, for resisting the stablecoin-only rails the Treasury seems to want, and for not letting "well, stablecoins already do it" become the rhetorical on-ramp to "so why not a CBDC too?"

Different threats — overlapping symptoms — separate fights.