[gervase]

The way I see it, most existing financial transactions are trust-based. Many cryptocurrencies aim to be trustless. I see this as a compromise, with the visibility and implementability of cryptocurrencies, while still being trust-backed.

This way, if there is a problem with a transaction, or the currency, etc. there is someone left holding the bag, which is a better fit with the existing legal infrastructures that are already in place.

I'm actually pretty surprised that this is coming from a corporation, and not a national government. SWIFT can be an absolute bear, and providing a programmable currency interface à la Stripe, but with lower fees and the full backing of a government could be a killer app for international trade facilitation.

[nwah1]

One of the main benefits of trust is to be able to rollback transactions. A warm fuzzy feeling of trust is not what is needed.

This provides the fuzzy feeling without any tangible benefit, and all the of the downsides of trustlessness.

[duxup]

You raise an interesting idea.

One of the issues with concurrency is the assumption that the transaction is between two non trusting parties (obviously it doesn't have to be that way). Most business don't want to / don't do business if they don't trust each other... and if they do trust then there are other ways to do business.

Not sure if this JPM coin addresses that exactly, but it is kind of interesting.

[bduerst]

That just makes it redundant though, right? A trustless coin from a trusted vendor isn't going to be used because it's trustless, and it's introducing extra complexity.

Also, any international benefit is just temporary arbitrage. The increased costs associated with international transactions comes from the high risk, which will inevitably catch up to any system that becomes popular.