Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by arcticbull 1713 days ago
Except it exhibits absolutely monstrous volatility.

[edit] That's a lot like saying you can't beat the "$0 commission" at the airport currency exchange - true, but misleading. They wreck you elsewhere (in that case, in exchange rates). The truth is if Nano were "just as good" as sending dollars back and forth except free everyone would be using it. The fact they're not, this many years in, means you're missing something in your analysis.
1 comments
pkulak 1713 days ago
Sure. There's always a downside to everything. OP wanted a solution for small donations, and Nano is still the best option. It's worth it to take on some volatility risk so that the people donating know that all their donation goes directly to you, and anyone in the world can donate any amount with or without a bank account, just by showing a short address on your site's page.

And no, it's not at all like an airport currency exchange. In that case there's a deliberate actor trying to defraud you. Volatility is a property of all assets. Some have far more than others. Just understand that and you'll be fine.

link
arcticbull 1713 days ago
Significant volatility is not a property of any decent currencies. I respectfully disagree with your assertion of the supremacy of nano for small donations on the basis of volatility.

Your statement that understanding of volatility is sufficient is [edit](incomplete IMO). Ask anyone holding Dentacoin haha.

link
pkulak 1713 days ago
Fair enough. I guess it boils down to what's worse: you _will_ lose money on the transaction because someone is taking it from you, or you _may_ lose money after the transaction.

For example, take a $1 donation that PayPal takes their 50-cent fee out of. That's a guaranteed loss of 50%. You'd have to be extremely risk adverse to take a 50% loss to avoid even crypto volatility.

It's all tradeoffs. Volatility sucks. Fees suck. But they suck more or less depending on the situation.

link