[gigatexal]

Oh cool a blockchain crypto thing that will actually be compliant and do KYC and such and not take forever to settle things.

If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that.

Maybe sane officials will let the US Federal Reserve launch a digital dollar and finally fix all the middle men sucking no-value-added rents out of the financial system

[delusional]

The problem with a good "blockchain crypto thing" is that if they were going to be good anyway, there are much better/cheaper technologies for doing banking.

Blockchain technology is not just a scam industry by happenstance. The technology is so bad at what it usefully does that it necessitates being a scam industry. If it was to compete with mainline banking, it would lose 10 times out of 10.

[OutOfHere]

While Visa and MasterCard want 3%, using USDT lets me send an amount for a penny or two. Nick checks out.

[gigatexal]

Exactly. But is USDT doing KYC?

[OutOfHere]

No, and the user never asked for KYC. It is an encumbrance to everyone, and the self-custody crypto world does away with it.

[gigatexal]

> If your money replacement involves dismanteling the little protection we have against money laundering and banking AlQueda (amonst others). I'm going to put you in the "Bad Blockchain" bucket. I am sure you can make a more efficient banking system if you don't do any checks at all. That's not an interesting observation.

Yup. Most crypto maximalists are unknowingly (knowingly?) aligned with terrorists and other criminals looking for anonymity online skirting existing banking rules.

[OutOfHere]

That's complete nonsense, although they do reasonably believe that money transmission is a fundamental human right. In contrast, bad people like you would charge them for oxygen if they could.

[delusional]

If your money replacement involves dismanteling the little protection we have against money laundering and banking AlQueda (amonst others). I'm going to put you in the "Bad Blockchain" bucket.

I am sure you can make a more efficient banking system if you don't do any checks at all. That's not an interesting observation.

[OutOfHere]

Money laundering is an ill-defined made-up concept. Anyone can get accused of it without evidence and suffer disastrous consequences, without the actions. If is a discriminatory act used by fascists to deny people their rights. Who are you to tell anyone how they can spend their money. You are so full of hate that you think other people must do as you say and be servile to you, even if it means taking their liberties away without cause. Well they won't.

[ceejayoz]

Visa and Mastercard will give me my money back when the vendor turns out to be shit, though.

[OutOfHere]

It is true, but with major caveats.

Firstly, one has to submit strong evidence, call them repeatedly, and wait for many months. It is not a pleasant experience.

Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service. This is a substantially worse outcome for the user.

[ceejayoz]

> Firstly, one has to submit strong evidence, call them repeatedly, and wait for many months.

You should get an Amex. (I've had little issue with various Visa/MC issuing banks, though. Quick and easy.)

> Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service.

In most cases, shady vendors are a one-off concern. If I'm charging back, I'm probably not buying from them again.

[OutOfHere]

I don't order from shady vendors.

[yunohn]

This is provably untrue. I’ve disputed charges on Visa/Mastercard numerous times and had refunds and fraud claims honored every single time with minimal effort.

[miki123211]

There must be a reason why those fees exist, otherwise there would be a business opportunity for another greedy company to demand lower fees and take all the profit.

I strongly suspect the reason is the regulations themselves. KYC implementations cost money, and so do fraud disputes. Traditional crypto provides neither, so the fees ther are much lower.

[OutOfHere]

Fraud disputes are literally the only reason the fees were historically justified. These days however, various large companies strictly prohibit a user from engaging in any dispute, causing the user's account to be frozen if a dispute is initiated. This means there rarely any fraud dispute anymore, so paying a premium for it is typically a waste.

[yunohn]

I mean, this whole Forex fee horse has been beaten to death by crypto evangelists for the past decade, and yet, it seems “unsolvable”?

Wise used to be almost completely free (excl spread), but they also introduced small % based fees over 1-2 yrs ago. They have had and continue to have many competitors, all of whom are experimenting with pricing models all the time.

If crypto could solve this, or if a trad-fi competitor could disrupt this, they would have. But that is not a very satisfying story, so here we are…

[OutOfHere]

Your comment shows how little you know about stablecoins, the legislation that passed this year, and what's coming with the planned introduction of stablecoins by major retailers. Your extreme ignorance does not give you the right to preach nonsense.

[yunohn]

Your response would be well served with a link to an article/blog that explains why I am so obviously wrong about forex fee disruption? Maybe even a short summary of how exactly the hand waving you’re doing correlates to the opinion I posted?

[OutOfHere]

The simplest way in which crypto solves forex, at least in a narrow sense, is by the vendor accepting payment in a stablecoin, such as in one that matches the price of USD or EUR 1:1. Examples are USDT and DEUR. The transaction fees are very low, and there are no pumps and dumps. Swap fees between different stablecoins also are a lot lower than what a bank would charge as a forex fee.

One is of course always free to use real cryptocurrency too, e.g. BTC and XMR, although they are subject to pumps and dumps, although the price rises over time.

[yunohn]

It’s very unclear to me if you actually understood the discussion about forex fees.

One does not “solve” forex by trading in a common shared currency, that is already possible without stablecoins - it’s just that vendors often want their local currency and therein lies the problem.

Even if everyone moved to stable coins or Monopoly money, once you need to cash out in IRL, you encounter forex fees.

A sort-of example is Trump’s insistence on oil being traded purely in USD for the USA’s hegemonic benefit - but other nations are waking up and opposing this status quo actively.

[troupo]

Ah yes. A "blockchain" that checks notes isn't a blockchain (uses their own implementation of a DAG) and checks notes is running on a single product by a single company.

The actual disruptor here is Google Spanner which actually handles all the ACID required.

> If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that

Strange how this amazing ripe-for-the-taking idea has been said about crypto for 20 years now. And somehow it's always "too early, it's coming in the future"

[gigatexal]

Because most of crypto is run by grifters and charlatans pumping and dumping.