Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zMiller 3109 days ago
This thread's audience is obviously a 'developed nations' one.

From our perspective yes, Crytpo's use case as currency make absolutely no sense (yet), we tap our Visa card to pay instantly with no fees and no fraud liability, hard to beat.

As a store of value however there is a very strong use case in the western world. Of the top my head, it is estimated that 10% of our GDP is in off shore havens, think about that infamous 1% moving just half of that 10% into Bitcoin ..

I digress..

If you venture your mind a little outside the borders of our empire and think about the 'unbanked' parts of our planet, entire populations whom live under poverty for the sole reason that they do not have access to the equity and efficient markets directly. If you look there, people are DYING for something like Bitcoin and other crypto's. There is absolutely no reason an African farmer to have to sell his Oranges to Europe in Euro then buy it back from there (Sell Euro to local currency) for local use.

Currency is an abstraction, an expression of a market, just like language is.

Here we tap to pay and need everyone to protect us from fraudsters, pornographers, money laundry , <insert your favorite horse man of the apolocyple here>, in other parts of the world , that far out number the western world in population, they don't care to be protected by the above because quite frankly the price they pay for that 'protection' is insanely oppressive governments that use the above to legitimize the oppression.

It is exactly in those markets where you start to see a VERY stong use case as both store of value and currency for crypto and it is exactly that market that will drive the world's demand for good UI for crypto that will eventually usher in mass adoption.

19 comments

The average "unbanked" person in a third world nation couldn't afford a $20 transaction fee for their ordinary transactions. But bitcoin certainly looks like a way for some portion of this group to protect their capital since it's not controlled by states want capital controls.

Of course, there's a reason third world countries want capital controls - a lot of the people seeking to export capital are corrupt non-owning possessors of resources. Just as an example, whatever rank administrators within state oil companies and such who want to take things that actually belong to the nations - because such nations have rather weak administrative classes (not that the US isn't moving closer to "kleptocracy" itself).

So everywhere, bitcoin certainly looks like a device for protecting value - except once all the money that wants to move in has moved, then bitcoin's lack of actual practical use (see $20 fees) will make it not terribly valuable and all that money in it will be at a bit of risk.

Plus, phone-based money systems already are coming/in Africa. They solve the ordinary transaction problem. The problem of "how do you get money out of X currency or resource" isn't a logistics problem, it's a power-struggle. The reason Y person is fighting to get money out of X currency is Z person wants to stop that happening. But overall, remember neither Y nor Z are likely to be less than fully corrupt.

Spot on.

Use as currency for Bitcoin (and other coin networks) is still in it's infancy and cannot scale the way it needs to should it want to replace fiat.

The important distinction I would draw though that stores of value have historically been cumbersome to transport and liquidate, Bitcoin solves that problem in a very good way.

I feel it's important to also address this 20$ bitcoin fee meme that seems to be going around. While based in truth it is not 100% accurate.

You have the capacity to set your own txn fee on the Bitcoin network. If you don't mind waiting a couple of blocks (1-3 hours) to get your transaction confirmed , then the fees fall down to single dollars and even lower. If you're selling a bulk commodity to a distributor in another market , you don't need ecommerce style confirmation times. Same goes for transferring large sums of wealth.

With that said, things like the lightning network will resolve alot of issues with Bitcoin scaling and in my (humble) opinion this is why LTC is pumping. (Atomic swap + Transfer over LTC )

> You have the capacity to set your own txn fee on the Bitcoin network. If you don't mind waiting a couple of blocks (1-3 hours) to get your transaction confirmed , then the fees fall down to single dollars and even lower.

This is infeasible because of insane volatility that BTC is experiencing. You either pay through the nose for a fast confirmation, or you are overpaying, or underpaying your counterparty.

Not to mention that VISA tends to be able to handle a bit more then 3 transactions a second. For some reason, BCH's market cap has not surpassed BTC's crippled protocol... Perhaps it's because nobody is using Bitcoin to transact.

VISA max transactions per seconds around 65000 right now. With daily average 1700 per second and daily high around 25000 transactions per second during holidays and such. I just don't see any cryptocurrency to be able to handle that.
"Single dollars" is still a nosebleed-high fee for a simple electronic value transfer. Consider that pricing on something like an ach transfer is quoted in fractions of a percent (so like 75 cents for $100 USD sent - and caps out entirely at some low value like $5 per transaction regardless of the payment size.
International ACH transfer ? Any international Wire or remittance in general will cost you at least 25$.
And you have to get permission from a bank to perform the transaction.
There are cheaper forms of transfer, yes, but there are also much more expensive forms of transfer. A wire transfer will cost you $25 or more and yet there are still millions of them sent per day.
According to this fee estimator https://estimatefee.com/, 3 hours is an $11 fee currently.
If you choose an arbitrary '3 hours' you can make that fee anything. Any transaction of 50c for a standard fee until one week ago (and they'll clear too) will have been committed to the blockchain.
>The average "unbanked" person in a third world nation couldn't afford a $20 transaction fee for their ordinary transactions.

Someone in a country, who has the equivalent of $800 is life savings, is experiencing hyperinflation (Venezuela let's say). Are you telling me that they're not willing to pay 2.5% (20/800) of their savings to save 97.5% of it? Why do you think someone would be willing to let hyperinflation destroy 100% of their life savings when there's an alternative?

If it were that simple to deal with hyperinflation, why won't they just buy USD?

Because the government will forbid it? They can forbid the purchase of BTC, or the exchange of it for goods, too.

Oh, in-person off-the-books transactions will solve the problem? Well, you don't need BTC for that, you can do in-person transactions of bolivars for USD, too.

Because there's a shortage of USD on that market, they buy it at a premium and also gov't crack down. So they are esentially forced to diversify: they buy BTC expecting to change it for USD at a later date.
There's also a shortage of people who want to exchange BTC for worthless Bolivars.
Dont buy bitcoin then. Buy any of the nearly zero transaction fee digital assets out there
Africa is actually more sophisticated than the US in many ways regarding fintech

Anyway, this is a straw man. Who is saying cryptos are useless? People are saying that they are a bubble, that the valuations are irrational.

Totally Kenya's mobile payment system evolution from SMSing minute refill codes, to an actual legally recognized form of payment is the original Blockchain in my mind :) But that is exactly my point, in that market , there is demand and need for innovation that means crypto (while inflated right now) is here to stay. People who call Bitcoin a 'Ponzi scheme' , type of plant or apply whatever reduction on a very complex and innovative product are just mind boggling to me.
M-Pesa is a centralized service run by Vodafone, quite the opposite of blockchain. It only resembles blockchain in that it involves electronics and it's recent, but by that standard, we'd call credit cards or PayPal "the original Blockchain".

And as far as I know, it's denominated in Kenyan shillings, not in its own currency (i.e., hype about M-Pesa does not result in something with Bitcoin's to-the-moon valuation relative to the prevailing currency in the land).

I suspect that most Bitcoin detractors, whether those who call it a Ponzi scheme or simply those who oppose proof of work, will be absolutely thrilled with the growth of more centralized electronic money transfer systems that are denominated in existing fiat currency. I know that I've been personally happy to use Square Cash, Apple Pay, EMV cards, etc. in the US. No mining, no or low fees, high security, quick, and suitable for small transfers.

And the fact that this is how M-Pesa works is an extremely strong existence proof that Bitcoin is not needed by the "African farmer".

I think you misunderstood him.

What he said is that others countries that doesn't have a solid electronic transaction system are actively trying new stuff. In that case, M-Pesa won that race but the fact that it was centralized isn't why it won, it won because it was needed.

Now does Bitcoin is needed for another country? No idea, but I would have said the same for M-Pesa.

But he specifically used the word "blockchain." I'm making two claims: first, that blockchain-based systems (for most people's definitions of "blockchain" other than a meaningless buzzword) are worse for people in situations like that of the "African farmer" than centralized systems, and second, that the vast majority of Bitcoin detractors dislike it specifically because of things related (directly or indirectly) to it being a blockchain-based system.

For instance, "Bitcoin is a bubble" only makes sense if it's its own unit of currency. "M-Pesa is a bubble," "Square Cash is a bubble," etc. aren't meaningful statements to make; they just support transmission of the underlying currency. ("Kenyan shillings are a bubble" is a meaningful statement, but I've never heard anyone claim that you should use cryptocurrencies to insulate yourself from hyperdeflation of a fiat currency.)

"Bitcoin is environmentally dangerous" only matters if proof-of-work is relevant; in a centralized system, you don't have the problems that lead to you wanting to even consider proof-of-work.

"ICOs are a scam" doesn't make sense in a centralized system. "The transaction rate is too low" isn't a complaint anyone has about a centralized system (the usual complaint about the US markets is that the transaction rate is too high, and HFT should be throttled). And so on and so forth.

"bubble": stocks have been said to be in "bubbles". If a person claims "M-Pesa is [in] a bubble" he would be talking about the market cap of the company, in the same way that "Bitcoin is [in] a bubble" speaks to the market cap of Bitcoin on some exchanges. Quite meaningful, actually.

"environment": Proof of work systems ensure that the ledger is secure and worthy of trust. Proof of Authority systems require trust, where the ledger is secure "because we say so." Isn't this the major reason why people are fleeing from legal tender? People can't trust the issuers, the processors, or the banks because they're colluding with politicians who provide bailouts using taxpayer dollars?

"ICO scam": absolutely makes sense in a centralized system. Are you actually claiming that people don't create scam companies with centralized currencies? Because why? Even legitimate companies can be slandered for the same reasons that people call ICOs "scams". The Franklin Mint, for example, produces coins which are sold on late-night infomercials that have little-to-no intrinsic value, but people buy for speculative reasons. Are they a scam? The reasoning is identical.

"slow/expensive transactions": One of Bitcoins main value propositions is aiding in international transfers. The centralized systems were too slow and expensive, so a better alternative was developed. Saying that speed and expense aren't complaints that people have made about existing centralized systems is simply wrong.

And so on and so forth.

I've seen a lot of people on HN take a middle ground - that blockchain and crypto have real use cases, but that crypto is currently way overhyped. I think the key is that people can have a negative outlook on the financial characteristics of BTC, while still believing in the underlying technology. Certainly I can agree with you that cryptos can solve real problems, while you say that they are currently inflated - we're essentially in agreement, it seems.
> People who call Bitcoin a 'Ponzi scheme' , type of plant or apply whatever reduction on a very complex and innovative product are just mind boggling to me.

You are mind-boggled because you have created a strawman; a caricature of what the "bitcoin non-believer" looks like.

Your mind would be less boggled if you accepted that there are valid points on both sides in this case. People who question bitcoin's current valuation or utility often have valid points, but if you immediately interpret their points to be as extreme as possible, of course they're mind boggling.

Similarly, people who are bullish on bitcoin often have good points and sound reasoning, but it's quite easy to also paint them with a brush which makes their positions and points mind boggling as well.

It's good to have some empathy and to actually listen, especially when it's about subjects that are so divisive. The most divisive things are the things that should least be divided further by constantly misrepresenting each side's points.

You are absolutely right. Again my comment was directed at : > People who call Bitcoin a 'Ponzi scheme' , type of plant or apply whatever reduction on a very complex and innovative product.

Not at the one's who are raising very valid red flags on valuation and how hot the market is becoming. In my personal opinion it is absolutely 'bubble' like behavior right now.

And i believe we both echo the same sentiment.

> a very complex and innovative product.

The main point here is that there's absolutely nothing innovative about BTC anymore, if anything it's way behind. Which is why the valuation is so suspect; it's totally disconnected from the utility BTC provides compared to alts. Anything BTC does, alts do better, except for marketing.

And universal acceptance, valuation and infrastructure support. Thats a big exception.
And has by far the biggest hashrate, and is therefore most secure
> The main point here is that there's absolutely nothing innovative about BTC anymore

That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes bitcoin valuable, and what separates it from all other competitors. Bitcoin node decentralization is what keeps it censorship resistant, and in bitcoin node decentralization, it is ahead of any and all competitors. It likely has more fully validating nodes than all other cryptos combined, and by some margin.

There are a lot of people that want to sell you on a great new thing. Until they can get 150,000+ fully validating nodes to support their technology, they will be nothing more than a mildly distributed inefficient database. What is innovative about bitcoin is that it is the only real cryptocurrency, because it is the only one that isn't controlled directly by its creators, and also maintains its decentralization. The only ones that are even close are ethereum and litecoin, and ethereum is beholden to a single person who dictates changes to the network. Litecoin is simply a clone of bitcoin with minor changes to its implementation, but has a fraction of the fully validating nodes.

People who call Bitcoin a 'Ponzi scheme' , type of plant or apply whatever reduction on a very complex and innovative product are just mind boggling to me.

Plenty of things that were eventually successful products went into extreme bubble and correct mode before they were successful.

Blockchains may or may not be part of the finance of the future. But that doesn't mean that 99% of the price of a given blockchain product today isn't bubble based bunk to be avoided just as many 1800s railroad stocks and 90s dotcom stocks had value only from bubble-dynamics despite railroads and the Internet being technologies that went on the succeed massively.

There is no evidence that bitcoin is or isn't in a bubble. It is a conjecture either way.
There's lots of evidence it's overvalued (e.g. price vs. utility), and some evidence as well that it's undervalued (most the argument for future value as more people use it). It's not a matter of lack of evidence, it's an issue of which evidence you choose to give more credence.
It is a textbook speculative bubble. The whole idea of hodl is literally speculation.
Sure, blockchain eventually might have some use. Currently, Bitcoin doesn't.

And while we were kind of unsure whether it's a pyramid or a Ponzi, actually it _is_ something new: a Nakamoto scheme. https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/

The valuation is what it is, and eventually it will become more clear what the "real" value is - way higher, way lower, or about the same. Until then, everyone is making stuff up.
Straw man for what? The "article" is just a link to a coinbase status page. I have heard several people, technical people, say that crypto is all around worthless.
It's divided the technology space, in particular HN. One of the reasons is due to its connection to profit and gain at the core and this does not follow the purist mantra of long time software engineering culture. Source: Me, software engineer for 30 years.
I believe bllguo was referring to his own comment.
Why is it a bubble?
No it’s not. There are pockets, but virtually all of the innovation in Africa is happening in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa. That’s a small slice of an enormous continent.
I don't know anything about fintech in Africa, but the countries you listed have a total population of 318 million people. That's about 26% of the total population in Africa, a pretty large slice isn't it?
Yes, but even the innovation in those countries is concentrated in a few key cities. Akkra, Nairobi, j'burg, etc. There are huge disconnected swaths of people in all of those countries.

It's nuts to imagine that Africa as a continent compares to the West in terms of fintech. We like to imagine Africa as a monolith; it's a terrible mistake.

Sure, I will concede that. Africa as a whole is not ahead. But there is financial innovation there to a degree that surprises a lot of people in the West - just meant to spread awareness of this
> we tap our Visa card to pay instantly with no fees

I hope you mean realize that merchants eat the fee and are contractually not allowed to offer discounts for cash payments. And many of them are not happy about this situation.

It's an economic compromise. They don't have to be happy about it, just sign the agreement. Or don't and forgo those customers who will only pay that way.

I doubt cypto currency is going to help that setup at all, and most likely it will just offer more avenues to do the same.

The solution to this is way easier than blockchain: Just regulate them. Personal credit card fees in the EU are capped at 0.3% and everybody is better off.
I think the necessity for regulation shows that unregulated payment processors leads to market failure (due to the nature of that market under current non-blockchain tech). Regulatuon fixes this market failure, but I see regulation as a last resort due to its being a high overhead solution (you rely on courts to interpret the regulations or check the statutory agencies, on the agencies to do their work, on lawmakers to keep the laws up to date). Of course, it is an open question as to whether blockchain tech can lead to the payment processor market not to suffer from market failure if unregulated.
> The solution to this is way easier than blockchain: Just regulate them.

Regulation is not easier. I & my merchant can use blockchain today, without any permission or buy-in from a regulatory body.

This is an example of automation taking a job. As an engineer and small(er, more efficient, more effective, more fair, more predictable) government enthusiast, it thrills me to see that we're automating away the jobs of bankers and regulators around the world.

Yup, and that liability consumers are protected from? Merchants pay that back in chargebacks and chargeback fees.
> Crytpo's use case as currency make absolutely no sense

Note that calling cryptocurrencies "crypto" doesn't make much sense either.

But wouldn't transaction fees, which are already really rough for people making a first-world salary, be even more unsustainable if that fee is a whole day's wage (or more) in the places you're describing? And how would those areas of the world have that level of connectivity?

e: for making a huge sale of crops or something to another nation, then 1 transaction fee is not bad compared converting at a %, but you'd still need to convert from Bitcoin to a local currency to actually use the money you made.

> Of the top my head, it is estimated that 10% of our GDP is in off shore havens, think about that infamous 1% moving just half of that 10% into Bitcoin ..

The IRS would crack down on this as with any other tax avoidance scheme. Offshore havens are probably safer since many rely on loopholes.

More so that argument relies on magic thinking. Unless there's good reason to believe that bitcoin will be the goto for tax avoidance it's just wishful thinking.

If just 0.000000001% of all astroids made of solid platinum land in my back yard I'll be a gazillionaire!

We have information disclosure treaties with all of the offshore havens, re FATCA. They were actually the first targets and they acquiesced almost immediately.

If you're trying to hide assets, the U.S. is the place to be, as none of our treaties actually require us to share information back with the rest of the world.

> "we tap our Visa card to pay instantly with no fees"

That's just not true, these fees are baked into the prices, since the seller pays them.

That's one of the reason cryptocurrencies are advantageous in the long run, they can eventually provide the transaction fees close to what they cost in electricity and infrastructure amortization - pretty much sub-penny to transfer any amount.

No fees? Visa and MasterCard are making off like bandits as we move from cash to card.
Credit cards aren't an apples-to-apples comparison because of the risk to banks of default. An apples to apples comparison is ACH, which is free, and now same-day service is available.
Interchange fees are restricted to 0.2% (debit cards) and 0.3% (credit cards) in Europe now.
haha, depends on the card you agree to sign off to :)
No, it does not depend on which card you're using. Everything costs a few percentage points more because of fees for the merchant. You pay this no matter what card you're using. They don't offer you a different price for using a specific card, though a handful do for using cash (gasoline comes to mind).
Sure, but merchants can generally get fees that are only slightly higher than what you get in cash back. Square charges a 2.75% fee (and some of that goes to Square, presumably), and there are 2% cash back cards with no annual fee easily available (I use the Citi Double Cash one). So even if your store is raising prices by 2.75%, you're effective price only goes up by about .7%.

If you want to get upset, get upset at how if you have poor credit, you're not eligible for these cards, so really this is credit card companies stealing from poor people.

So what you're saying is I'm getting 0% cash back and paying .7% more for everything. Still doesn't sound like a win to me, and it still doesn't matter what card you get because no card is giving you more back than they're making off your use of it. That's not how money works.
You're paying 0.7% primarily for the ability to pay, and also for the ability to pay on credit, to get a chargeback if needed, to cover fraudulent use of your physical payment device including loss, etc.

This is a) a good deal on its own and b) a much better deal than Bitcoin, which provides only the first of those things, and only reaches 0.7% if your transaction is over about 3000 USD.

If you think this is a bad deal, I'm curious what you think is a better deal and who's offering it.

the merchant is paying 3-5% plus transaction fees for each transaction. It's hidden from you, but you're paying for it.
Try selling something on ebay and see how much money you get back.
Now try sending some of that money to a third world country and see how much they get between the fees they pay western union and the thugs waiting outside to 'tax' you. From sale to end point .. where'd my money go ? lol
> we tap our Visa card to pay instantly with no fees

I guess it's businesses, who pay high enough fees on your transactions.

The current Bitcoin transaction fee is $20+. Credit card processors charge you under 3%. If you're doing transactions of under about $700 USD, credit card fees are cheaper than Bitcoin fees.
Credit card processors also pay the user of the CC a cashback on a significant portion of that fee... And are also liable for fraud.

Who do I chargeback when an online merchant takes my BTC, and doesn't ship the goods I bought? BitPay will tell me to pound sand. VISA will process a chargeback, no questions asked.

Good problems to solve in this space.
By creating an off-chain payment processor called BISA, and we're back to charging merchants fees for cashback + fraud losses, except now we're for some stupid reason doing it on a blockchain.
I moved $1800 worth of LTC (Litecoin, one of the subjects of this thread) last night. The Tx fee was $0.01 and the funds were received in less than 1 minute. No more processing, no waiting for the next business day (or 3)... For 1 cent and 1 minute later the receiver can do whatever they want with it immediately.

That is cheaper than CC, faster than Venmo, or whatever.

Why are Litecoin's transaction fees multiple orders of magnitude smaller than Bitcoin's? Is this a result of genuinely better technical decisions than in Litecoin (mining is cheaper because it's less hardware-friendly, blocks are generated more quickly) or just lower transaction volume / demand for transactions because it's less well-known? That is, if Bitcoin somehow implodes tomorrow and everyone moves to Litecoin, would you still expect similarly low Litecoin fees?

Was this an on-chain transaction or a Lightning transaction?

Bitcoin's pretty broken at the moment due to some bad decisions by the development team. All other cryptocurrencies have very low fees.
As I continue to learn about the broader cryptocurrency scene and the emerging ecosystem, I have been looking at Bitcoin more and more as the Model T of crypto and less like the BMW i8...
The price of bitcoin disagrees with your assessment.
partially its the 4x increase in transaction throughput, but also a lot less people use litecoin than bitcoin
> Why are Litecoin's transaction fees multiple orders of magnitude smaller than Bitcoin's?

Supply and demand. People pay more to transact in bitcoin, because it is more secure, because it is more decentralized.

> think about that infamous 1% moving just half of that 10% into Bitcoin ..

Please remember "that infamous 1%" is actually the 0.001% or much less. The top 1% income actually includes dentists, successful software engineers, etc. Normal successful people. An amount of wealth that can actually be attained regardless where you came from, given luck, talent, luck and in some cases, hard work[0].

The phrase "the 1%" was originally introduced to draw a line between people with such a ridiculous amount of wealth that it doesn't make sense and is really only attainable by being born in it, or being born with very rich family and learning the shibboleth over your lifetime. Becoming insanely wealthy by an insane stroke of luck is possibly but it only gets you in contact with this elite, not "in", but if you play your cards right your children might.

[0] don't be mistaken that "hard work" is any kind of predictor for wealth. just look around you. hard work may be considered virtuous, but that's it. it's not like "being a good person" gets you rich, either.

> From our perspective yes, Crytpo's use case as currency make absolutely no sense (yet), we tap our Visa card to pay instantly with no fees and no fraud liability, hard to beat.

Fees that are absorbed by the merchant, so not an entirely fair comparison. Still, I agree that the fees make the use cases for cryptocurrenies very limited personally. Right now, I can pay a fee to a third-party (CC fees in the form of slightly higher priced goods) BUT that third-party takes on a significant part of the liability (e.g. for goods not provided), and I can transfer money to a trusted (or untrusted providing I am OK with the risk) party in the same country for ZERO fees via my bank. For those use cases, using most cryptocurrenies would be strictly worse (I either give up the fraud protection or I am paying an unnecessary fee).

The only case where it makes sense is for international transfers, which typically do have higher bank fees, but personally they are so rare (I've used it once in the past decade) that they are barely worth considering for my personal use cases.

It seems to me like bitcoin is more comparable to a wire transfer than to the other forms . Like a wire transfer, but unlike nearly every other form of digital payment (credit card, debit card, ACH), it is irrevocable. It's fees are also competitive with the $20+ that sending a wire transfer will cost.

That would make it something of a niche form of payment compared to say credit cards. You aren't going to use it to pay for a cup of coffee, but there still are trillions of dollars worth of wire transfers per day. That is roughly one thousand times the amount currently transacted per day in bitcoin at the current valuation so even taking over a tiny portion of the wire transfer market would justify bitcoin's current valuation.

Kenya is the global leader in mobile money adoption for the same reasons you've stated. Smart money should be preaching the crypto gospel in Somalia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela etc. The average citizen from such countries is way more in tune with the need for alternative currencies
Clearly a "first-worlder" view. People in (most) oppressive regimes are not looking to move off their currencies, and nobody is looking for a decentralized solution for banking. M-pesa, Vodafone money, mobile wallets work great for people. There's no reason for costly decentralization that Bitcoin offers.

Maybe a case could be made for Venezuela where bolivars are useless, but USD is a far better candidate for their currency needs that Bitcoin, given how volatile Bitcoin is.

Visa has charge fees of 1.5%-2.5%...
BTC is used in Zimbawe, which would hardly classify as a developed nation.
Visa actually has charge fees of 1.5%-2.5%....
Well said.
Yup, that's why Dash coin has partnered with KuvaCash to help fight inflation and provide easier access to funds in Zimbabwe - https://www.dash.org/2017/11/23/KuvaCash.html

It'll be an interesting test case for the value cryptocurrencies can provide in third world countries.