[eimrine]

> Even when we look at the crypto donated, most of it was dollar denominated [1].

Have you at least read your source? 120 of 225M were BTC + ETH.

> Crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine.

Crypto is there barely since the Second Maydan, of course Ukrainians managed to survive without cryptocurrencies.

If you look closely on your arguments, you will find just a rejection without any arguments. Didn't you observe the recent news about Xenia Havana who donated $50 from her American bank account being in Russia and therefore went into jail?

[JumpCrisscross]

> 120 of 225M were BTC + ETH

Sorry, meant to say half. Corrected. Thank you.

> Xenia Havana who donated $50 from her American bank account being in Russia and therefore went into jail?

$50 is not meaningful.

[VMG]

> $50 is not meaningful.

for her it is, in many ways

[JumpCrisscross]

> for her it is, in many ways

Sure. I never said crypto is useless. But something being randomly meaningful to one person doesn't make it "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

[eimrine]

> $50

A human went to jail because of using obsoleted money transaction technologies and you are really judging the fact by the amount of her donation - just to protect your misjudgement about cryptocurrencies? Are you even Ukrainian?

> Sorry, meant to say half. Corrected. Thank you.

Even if it would be 99%, so what? Why are using this as an argument?

[JumpCrisscross]

> judging the fact by the amount of her donation

I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

> Even if it would be 99%, so what?

It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. It's a derivative financial system, and one completely subject to U.S. law, surveillance and sanctions.

The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.

[eimrine]

> I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

Your saying isn't reasonable because you are talking about tangential things to cryptocurrency. Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful. Amount of donated funds by Ukrainian anti-Russian adventure is not.

> It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.

It is as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful

Sure. Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

> as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?

No, it absolutely isn't. The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value. A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.

[eimrine]

> Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

I don't say an opposite. An entire counter-claim about "donations to Ukraine was only 217M" is not an argument against Bitcoin, despite your efforts to present it so.

> The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value.

LOL the crypto is one of established commodities perfectly fitting for inter-government trade.

> A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.

I don't understand why it is important. A couple of thugs believes they can call "money laudering" anything they don't like, and what? Their presence is clearly diminishes because they have no ways to control cryptocurrencies.