[apinstein]

Here's the play. It's very simple, and it's quite good.

Stripe processes a LOT of money. The customers that get that money need to move it around. Often to banks. Stripe makes no money on that.

Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc).

Stablecoin providers make money on their float -- selling stablecoins means you get free deposits, and risk-free rates are presently around 4%. For every $1M in stablecoins your customers hold, you can make $40k/year. Stablecoin providers like Circle pay about half of that back out to partners that sell the tokens.

Stripe is huge, and well-trusted by customers for handling payments. By adoption stablecoin infrastructure to control financial flows into stablecoins, they can amass huge amounts of stablecoin sales.

If even ~3% of their transaction volume gets held in Stablecoins, and they make 1% a year on that, it's about $1B a year in bottom line.

~$10e9 (daily avg vol) * 365 * 3% (converted to stablecoins) * 1% (net income) = ~$1B

[j2kun]

> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc).

For avoiding regulation.

[ralfhn]

My online bank doesn’t support international wire transfers. I had to wire money to a local bank then go to the branch in person, twice, to wire money to my own brother in Europe. He then had to schedule an appointment with his own bank, go in person, and justify why he received such a big transfer, mind you, it was 8k…

So yeah, it’s not about regulation. If crypto can help streamline all this, it’s a net positive

[mynameisash]

I wired approximately that much money internationally years ago with Wise (then known as TransferWise). Wasn't a hassle at all, didn't require any rigamarole, and importantly, didn't require crypto. What's the problem with using Wise?

[abustamam]

It may differ depending on countries, but I tried sending $8k USD to Malaysia and it took some time. Can't remember if it was weeks or days but point being it wasn't as instant as crypto can be.

Also, I think you're neglecting to point out the rigmarole involved with making a Wise account — connecting your bank accounts etc. And the recipient might also need a Wise account for instant transfers (but I believe Wise becomes a custodian for your funds in that case).

Crypto wallets can be generated by the click of a button. I think I taught my mom how to make a crypto wallet at some point. She didn't understand how to keep her crypto safe, which is its own issue, but wallet creation is easy.

I'm far from a crypto maximalist, but nigh-instant transfers with very little fee is a very attractive benefit of crypto.

[sanswork]

Creating a crypto wallet to receive is just the first step though. If your mom needs her local currency then the same as with wise she needs to create an account on some form of exchange or pay an extortionate rate to use a crypto ATM.

If she doesn't need that then wise without a linked account or PayPal or etc is the exact same outcome without the crypto wallet security risk.

[abustamam]

That's a fair point, but creating an account on an exchange isn't too bothersome.

I personally use a Ledger device for my crypto. It was super easy to set up (though I wouldn't advise it to my mom, because she tends to misplace things). I linked my crypto wallet to my bank account fairly easily. So we can still get nigh-instant crypto transfers and fast selling of crypto into local currency (Speaking from US here, I think it usually just takes up to one business day). It's still faster than bank-to-bank transfer for large sums, which again, can take weeks for whatever reason they decide.

> wise without a linked account or PayPal or etc is the exact same outcome

PayPal without a linked account is actually pretty terrible. I did a Google search of PayPal frozen funds and this was the first result.

https://www.reddit.com/r/smallbusiness/comments/1kq14uk/payp...

Wise may have similar issues, I haven't really dealt with them outside of the occasional transfer, but I never let money sit in my wise account.

If you have custody of your own crypto wallet (IE not coinbase), no one can freeze your funds.

Again, I have my qualms with crypto, but the existing shitty state of ways to transfer money makes crypto very attractive. I have trouble even transferring money between my wife and my joint bank account and my personal account (held at two different institutions).

[DrammBA]

> What's the problem with using Wise?

On march 16th 2022 I sent $500 to my cousin in the USA, the transaction was completed on may 2nd 2022 after 9 back and forth emails with support. The first email on march 16th was asking me to confirm some information which I did same day, the other 8 back and forth emails was me asking when was my transaction going to be completed... at that time I had been an active wise user for 3 years...

[devoutsalsa]

I'm a Wise user. Transfers are mostly fine for currencies they support. The transfer is usually pretty fast. I tried paying for a guided Hike in Tbilisi, Georgia a few years ago, and the transfer took almost a week, so it's slow in some cases. For currencies Wise doesn't support, you need to look at other options, such as Western Union or crypto.

[Zpalmtree]

What's the problem with using crypto?

[cco]

Everything you mentioned that you and your brother had to do is because of regulation?

[epolanski]

No it's not.

The limitations you're describing are only in place because the countries that are subject to these bank limitations present significant issues (money laundering, terrorism, etc).

[flakeoil]

Using Wise within Europe, also between non-Euro currencies/countries takes less than 4-8 hours most of the time.

[eximius]

_Your_ transaction wasn't about regulation.

What is the breakdown of transaction volumes?

[_zoltan_]

screw regulation when a bank transfer isn't instant and the bank can do all kinds of checks and hold your money hostage for days or weeks.

[rebolek]

In EU, regulations are heavy and the result is I can send money instantly for free. That’s actually what the regulations are for. To protect free trade from bad actors.

[lacy_tinpot]

Protection and control are indistinguishable. And secondly what if the State is a bad actor?

"Protecting" free trade from "bad actors" is just an extension of the state to control what "free trade" is from what it considers "bad actors".

Bad behavior does exist, but current technology far exceeds the capacity of bureaucracy to implement free trade, protection from bad actors, and most importantly Trust. The state itself becoming a bad actor is an increasing risk, which technology helps to hedge against.

I think it's important to remember that the Government IS PEOPLE. How are the people in Government any different from "normal" people.

They're not.

And so the people in government will be just as misguided, corrupt, fallible as any other organization of people. Technology helps us hedge against those failures.

[consp]

> And secondly what if the State is a bad actor?

That's ad hominem. You can make that argument for any player (stripe, any intermediary, the customer etc).

Personally I trust the state (at least mine) more than any corporation. But that's just me.

[argiopetech]

Depends. For the Founders of the US, it was a base assumption that the state was a bad actor. It's usually a good bet (i.e., it pays off more times than not), IMHO.

[dragonwriter]

> Personally I trust the state (at least mine) more than any corporation.

I trust the state in aggregate no more than the least-trusted corporation, because corporations are, as creatures of law rather than nature, manifestations and exercises of state power.

[lacy_tinpot]

The State = People. The government are People. They are both as fallible as people are fallible. It's not magic.

Technology helps to mitigate the fallibility of people.

[dgb23]

The country I live in is democratic.

I can elect representatives and I have a direct vote multiple times a year to shape national policy.

The banks and corporations are not. I trust them purely based on their reputation and trust in following the rules that we have put in place.

[grey-area]

If the state is a bad actor good luck with using cryptocurrencies to avoid that. You will be retrospectively controlled if necessary.

The state as a bad actor is controlled by democracy, not technology.

Aside from that, in payments the bad actors you need to actually worry about are malicious vendors and customers and hackers stealing your details and your money. None of which Cryptocurrencies make better, mostly they make that worse, because they were designed as digital cash.

[sunshine-o]

> In EU, regulations are heavy and the result is I can send money instantly for free.

I can assure the cost of those regulations is enormous for the banks. They were forced to make the SEPA transfers free but you ended up paying for it everywhere else.

[_zoltan_]

you guys are talking about free SEPA transfers, but I just checked a couple of banks in Hungary, Austria and Germany, and I don't see this.

[sunshine-o]

N26 has free SEPA transfers in Germany I believe.

[_zoltan_]

yeah, I checked a couple countries and I don't see this instant transfer for free. certainly not for every EU country.

and then let's not even talk about the instantly part, that is just simply not true.

[logicchains]

Try sending money to a supplier in Iran or Russia and tell me how helpful those EU regulations are.

[wpm]

Why would they need to send money to a supplier in a country that couldn't ship goods to them anyways?

[ponector]

Or try to buy something from Hamas, or send money to a cocaine supplier from Colombia.

[mrzool]

Don’t get suppliers in Iran or Russia. Easy.

[9dev]

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

[lacy_tinpot]

Just don't trade. Easy. We're actually supporting free trade by restricting free trade. Because when the government controls what you trade that's what free trade actually is.

What an amazingly blatant example of Orwellianism.

[spookie]

I wonder why...

[_zoltan_]

check out the revolut sub on Reddit and you'll see random people getting a ridiculous amount of KYC for even a couple hundred or low thousands of euro.

[flumpcakes]

"I want to avoid sanctions illegally"

[_zoltan_]

no, this has nothing to do with anything illegal.

[wiredpancake]

I should be able to transact with anyone, anywhere in the world, near instantly with little or no fees.

This isn't some radical, cyberpunk extremist, this is just pure trade. We have technology to facilitate this but we've been held back for decades by greed and legislation.

[zarzavat]

I once wanted to send money to someone with an extremely common Arabic name, think "John Smith" in Arabic. My bank took issue with this and wanted a copy of their ID etc. One can speculate about why they wanted this, but ultimately I think it shows that the regulations are racist.

[kriops]

Obviously not true, as explained by other replies.

But if it was true, then so what?

[notatoad]

i'm still unclear what the crypto really adds to this play. stripe customers need to move their money around, and they need a trusted source to hold money. stripe could just do that. why add crypto into the mix?

[mondrian]

The GENIUS act enables tech companies to become reserve holders -- buy US Treasuries with customers' money. Stripe offers a "transactional ecosystem" to the customer in stablecoins, the customer gives USD to Stripe in exchange for stablecoins, Stripe buys short-term Treasuries and makes a shitload of money on interest.

Part of the very high level play is the US Govt seeks to diversify away from depending on nation states for borrowing, and to promote tech companies to the status of reserve holders.

This doesn't add much to the consumer however. I think in fact we are looking at a "fragmented currency" future where you hold like 36 different stablecoins in your wallet because certain platforms accept certain stablecoins. The GENIUS act doesn't offer strict guarantees for getting out of a stablecoin into USD, so I predict dark patterns and "incentives" to make it hard to get out of a stablecoin.

[onesociety2022]

That only makes sense if Stripe issues their own stablecoins? If they let their customers hold USDC on the Tempo chain, then any revenue from holding short-term treasuries goes to Circle. Are you suggesting Stripe would force Circle to share some of their revenue with them or they launch their own stablecoin to compete with USDC?

[mondrian]

Good point. In the scenario I described, I'm assuming Stripe will launch their own stablecoin. I tend to think all major tech companies are incentivized to launch stablecoins and give you discounts and perks when you transact using their stablecoin in their own ecosystem. The more of their stablecoin they issue out, the more money they make on interest.

[sej1]

Stripe already has their own stablecoin: https://www.bridge.xyz/news/usdb

[boringg]

So then by using this product you are de facto buying short term US debt lowering the debt costs in a way? Is that what you are describing? And Stripe makes money on that short term carry.

[asats]

Still doesn't answer why you would need any crypto here. Why can't the USD transferred to stripe just be a record in an SQL database saying customer X has N USD in the account, and transferring that around could be done instantly at zero cost by changing an sql row.

[ENGNR]

There are all sorts of protections around who can be a custodian of someone’s money (for good reason)

However there are use cases like running a marketplace, where the platform would like to be able to direct the flow, maybe hold things temporarily in case there are multiple transactions or to split a transaction up between different clients, before paying it out daily or weekly as a lump sum. Often it’s just to avoid fees, because the marketplace operator charges their fees in a different way (like a flat monthly invoice) and they want to assist with money logic as a service, but not be the custodian of the money.

Even just knowing that money has moved at all can be useful, without any ability to touch it, and it’s difficult to get permissions from conservative financial institutions, whereas permissionless ledgers make it easy.

Crypto can help add that nuance. It’s still your money, but you can give a third party the ability to do some things to assist you, without giving the ability to transfer it all to themself and run away with it.

[grey-area]

So, we're just going to pretend those regulations don't exist for cryptocurrencies too?

[Ekaros]

That sounds like banking or payment processing. Albeit with later Paypal has proven that you do not always need to return funds, but still there is regulatory history on that...

Stable coins are new enough and have not catastrophically crashed yet so there is less oversight.

[DrBrock]

The Terra-Luna stablecoin crash wiped out $50 billion of notional value https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15446...

It's also a very open secret that the largest Tether stablecoin is not actually 1:1 backed with USD, as they very often claim https://paymentexpert.com/2025/07/24/tether-stablecoin-regul...

[notatoad]

so the short answer to the question of "why crypto" is just to work around regulation, to be able to act as a bank without the regulations that apply to banks?

[boringg]

Stable coins are new enough .... and it's in their name... Stable! :)

[mondrian]

Yeah. Stablecoins create demand for Treasuries which drives the price of Treasuries up and interest rate down. So this pressure lowers debt servicing cost for the US government, and Stripe is the holder of those Treasuries and gets paid interest.

This would also serve to counter the drop in global Treasury demand due to recent tariff stuff where presumably our traditional debt holders are losing appetite for US debt...

It also creates a kind of strange situation where stablecoins are basically spendable "Treasury tokens". So you give 1 USD to Uncle Sam (via a middle man like Stripe), get back 1 stablecoin. Then you go and spend the stablecoin, and Uncle Sam goes and spends the USD. It's like a weird double spend situation. Prior to stablecoins, you buy a treasury bill with USD, you hold this unspendable treasury bill while Uncle Sam gets USD to spend.

[boringg]

If the analogy you say is correct -- I think it makes sense in that its stripe that is actually the individual who is holding the treasury (short term debt) and the stablecoin user can spend it on something, and the US treasury can use the debt. At the end of the day stripe is holding the risk.

[alchemist1e9]

So many of the crypto skeptic comments on this story are massively out of touch with the products and sophistication of the crypto industry. For those of us who aren’t, the question has basically been flipped to “what does a bank add to this situation?” .

I’m typing this shortly after buying my groceries with a visa debit card that was funded 30 seconds before the transaction over Lightning Network with Bitcoin that was sold at a 0.1% fee for USD and immediately then transacted on Visa debit payment network.

The reason banks are lobbying so hard recently to close “loopholes” in latest US legislation is because with stablecoins you even need them less and less to hold dollar exposure.

The days of traditional banks are likely numbered and the crypto skeptics commenting on HN have their world models upside down. At least that is my view currently.

[cco]

> I’m typing this shortly after buying my groceries with a visa debit card that was funded 30 seconds before the transaction over Lightning Network with Bitcoin that was sold at a 0.1% fee for USD and immediately then transacted on Visa debit payment network.

I think I'm confused. You paid 0.1% on this transaction, but if you'd done it with just a Visa debit card tied to a traditional bank account you would have paid 0.0%.

Am I missing something?

[sundbry]

He gets the benefit of just-in-time conversion to fiat; so his exposure to inflation purchasing power loss is nil.

[hdjrudni]

What rate is he getting on his crypto? I get ~4% on my fiat.

Some cryptos are doing better than that, so it's certainly possible to beat, but I wouldn't chance the volatility. Unless it's doing better than that.. then I think inflation is eating the crypto, not the other way around?

Edit: I see, because Bitcoin isn't adding additional coins, it's "non-inflationary". I think this is moot when you ultimately have to transact through fiat, so the only thing that matters is BTC-USD conversion rate.

[threetonesun]

Unless I read this wrong there were likely two "traditional" banks in this process you just described? At the very least it sounds at least twice as complicated as how I pay for groceries with no obvious benefit.

[alchemist1e9]

What banks are those?

The debit card issuer is a non-bank issuer on the Visa payment network.

LN coins are self custody origin coins.

No banks I see, except the grocery store’s on the other side of me. But soon they will accept LN directly in a few years or less.

[anthem2025]

Why would they ever bother?

To serve a tiny percentage of their customer base that just ends up finding an already supported method anyway?

Where exactly is the value for them?

[alchemist1e9]

You are obviously completely unaware of the popularity of Paypal, CashApp, Venmo within the general US population and of Square for POS by vendors.

The value proposition for everyone, consumer and vendors is both lower fees and ability to easily diversify their income/assets into non depreciating digital assets.

Somewhere there is a Steak n Shake presentation that explains their investment into accepting Bitcoin (via LN) has already paid for itself in fees.

[hdjrudni]

So you paid a 0.1% fee for a less convenient way to pay? I just tap my credit card or phone, and then the CC company debits my bank account automatically a month later, essentially giving me a free small loan plus 2% cash back.

[alchemist1e9]

When I wrote that it seems I needed to give more context for those who don’t understand the benefits of self custody Bitcoin.

0.1% is fee to convert to USD and in context of converting anything to USD, like stocks or anything one would hold in an investment account it’s a low fee. This means I keep my liquid capital in Bitcoin which has a strong tendency to increase in value and yet whenever I need to spend it, it’s instantly spendable in multiple ways, literally instantly and for a very very low conversion fee.

I can also use a CC company and I agree there is a 2% cash back. There are multiple companies that are crypto focused and have issued CC and Paypal issues CC and I can settle the monthly balance using Bitcoin also.

What I predict is coming soon, maybe next year or so, if POS support in the US to offer that 2% cash back directly to the consumer from the merchant should they settle in alternative currencies, like Bitcoin, like USD stable coins.

The combined issue of interest payments on stable coin balances (custodial) and legal settlement rebates is what has the banks literally freaking out and starting to try and spread FUD about USD stable coins. They know their business models in the payments space is eroding and soon the money markets space is under pressure.

[sunshine-o]

I am curious about the Lightning Network, 10 years in it is still perceived as a failure.

What is blocking its adoption?

One I can think about is it is hard to accept that if I pay $20 for a pizza today, 6 months later that pizza might have cost me $40. It is a bit irrational but it will prevent most people from using it.

This is where the stablecoin thing is genius, one can decide/optimise when get in and out of crypto.

[wbnns]

> What is blocking its adoption?

There's no native web experience that makes it easy to use Lightning in a browser; this forces everyone to step outside the box to figure out a way to (e.g. install extension or download an app)

There's also not much of an app ecosystem for it providing enough utility for people to use it each week/day

[sunshine-o]

Interesting, so this is I believe the same problem as all the Ethereum type stuff: you need to have it lives with your keys in the most horrific place in a computer, meaning a browser extension. Or put the web browser in the wallet. Either way, something like Metamask is really slow and scary.

The core Ethereum stuff is pretty elegant but once you want to build an UI you get trapped in hell to plug it to the "web".

Maybe the biggest problem of "Web3" is it was built on Web2.

[boringg]

What does a bank do? Many things that crypto can't but probably the number 1 thing compared to crypto ... the bank (via the FDIC) provides assurances for each account for up to $225,000 USD.

I wouldn't write off banks that quickly.

[derangedHorse]

It's important to note that FDIC doesn't kick in for instances of scams or other unauthorized transfers. It only gives assurances to deposit holders. Stablecoins under the GENIUS Act requires 100% backing and is more stringent than banks since reserve requirements are still 0%[1]. I think it's also useful to focus on stablecoins in a conversation like this rather than crypto at large.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

[kiitos]

i don't know why this fence is here or who named it chesterton but i'm DAMN sure it needs to go!!

[liotier]

> “what does a bank add to this situation ?”

In developed states (so, not the USA), regulation that protects the consumer.

[anthem2025]

That sounds like a needless pile of complicity and expense that offers literally zero value in return.

Crypto isn’t going to take over anything.

[alchemist1e9]

What is complicated? It takes seconds on my phone, must less complicated than writing a comment on HN!

The processing fees are lower for vendors than credit card fees if they accept LN Bitcoin. For me the “savings” account is completely self custody held in a non-inflationary non-depreciating currency called Bitcoin.

Massive value for everyone by cutting out the legacy banks. As I said earlier, unless you actually do it, and use it, you won’t understand how rapidly crypto is embedding itself and likely will take over in next decade for sure.

[kiitos]

it turns out that legal regulations are Actually Good and Really Important

[alchemist1e9]

And how did you come to that conclusion? From all the money laundering done by the traditional banks for the cartels once they bribe the right AML personnel?

[monkeywork]

The first thing that came to mind to me - and maybe I'm a million miles off here - but all the recent drama around visa / mastercard / etc pressuring sites like Steam to modify their terms of use... maybe Stripe is thinking they can come in and be an alternative by doing it via crypto and hoping their name brings enough trust to cause users to jump on board.

[brendanfinan]

Some of the customer's money is already crypto though

[anthonypasq]

total shot in the dark, but im assuming there is much lower regulatory burden to holding lots of crypto than trying to be a bank

[smoovb]

Said another way, much lower legacy technical debt than trying to be a bank.

[TechDebtDevin]

There's over 75 billion in daily tether turnover... do the math. Not everyone is a boomer..

[kemotep]

There’s an estimated 7,500 billion dollar turnover of fiat currency in forex markets daily.

[kiitos]

wash trades go in, wash trades go out, you can't explain that!

[udev4096]

Bullshit. The biggest stable coin, Tether, is pure scam. They are essentially creating money out of nowhere. They were found guilty of massive fraud and were fined $18M [1]. They refuse to get audited by a third-party [2]. The ones that do audit them are just as sketchy as them [3]. I would recommend watching this video to grasp the scope of their fraud [4]

[1] - https://coingeek.com/tether-bitfinex-prohibited-from-operati...

[2] - https://ecoinimist.com/2024/09/20/concern-over-tether-audits...

[3] - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-fines-tether-former-audit...

[4] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-whuXHSL1Pg

[smoovb]

Counterpoint. Tether has grown into one of the most profitable, well funded companies on the planet. Their past growing pains are irrelevant to where they are now. They make $30-50 million per day with just 200 employees. They are the 18th largest holder of US debt, ahead of UAE and Germany. Last year, Tether achieved $14 billion in profit, surpassing Pfizer, Tesla, and BlackRock. https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604740855

[taberiand]

The pinnacle of fake it till you make it. Still a scam.

[LMYahooTFY]

How exactly is it a scam now? Did they somehow fake treasury purchases? Can you describe something scam like about their business which doesn't also apply to JP Morgan?

[udev4096]

If you wouldn't be so goddamn lazy, you would know, after searching for a minute that there is NO dollar backing. It's all just words. They have been caught with their pants down numerous times. Either you are a paid tether shill or you are actually that dumb

[LMYahooTFY]

So they own fake treasuries?

[smoovb]

Ad hominem is as ad hominem does.

[FridgeSeal]

Your argument is “ah yes, it’s a scam, but look how much money it makes”

That doesn’t make it…less of a scam. I bet drug kingpins make bank too, doesn’t make them any more valid.

[smoovb]

define scam.

[udev4096]

Aren't you the definition of delusion. The past matters for a reason, it's the indication of how they started their fake scam. Sure, hard to touch them now but once a crook always a crook and taking pride in that shows your immoral nature in this late stage capitalistic era where money negates all the bad things you did in the past

[fergie]

> They make $30-50 million per day with just 200 employees

Right, but isn't this... bad? Like so bad that it could bring down the entire capitalist system if it is allowed to grow unchecked?

[smitop]

There are other stablecoins that aren't scams though, like USDC. I think Stripe would probably either create their own USD stable or partner with Circle.

[irusensei]

Isn't coingeek big SV shills? The whole thing is a fraud starting with its creator Craig Wright.

[jml7c5]

Even if they were a fraud, at this point they've made enough money that they could be well capitalized. I'd love to know if they were a fraud (and I suspect they were), but I suspect they got past the "fake it until you make it" hurdle.

[smoovb]

Tether had a big chunk of funds seized by a government/bank making them less then whole. They did the needful to get past that and now a distant memory. Scam allegations are made by old curmudgeons who drank the bitfinexed cool-aid.

[koolba]

> Stablecoin providers make money on their float -- selling stablecoins means you get free deposits, and risk-free rates are presently around 4%. For every $1M in stablecoins your customers hold, you can make $40k/year. Stablecoin providers like Circle pay about half of that back out to partners that sell the tokens.

These numbers only work while short term rates are high (relative to recent history) and the share percentage is low. The lower the rates and the tighter the margins, and it drops like a rock.

Nobody with a sizable balance is going to accept the risk of a system like this without being paid a premium over traditional bank deposits. If my bank gives me 4% I’m not going to give stripe half of that in exchange for losing FDIC protections.

[knorker]

> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc).

Huh?

In the western world this is nonsense. I move 6-7 digits regularly, internationally, even between continents, for free. Convenience of cryptocurrency? Lol. Maybe if I want to send money to Nigeria or North Korea.

Cryptocurrency was never more convenient. It's cheaper than Western Union when that's the only alternative, but boy is that a low bar and an edge case.

Traditional banking is getting faster and cheaper by the year, so your claim is getting less true every day, not more,

[soared]

How are you doing it for free, how long does it take, and what happens if something goes wrong?

These are the things companies want. With current methods you must take on risk to move money cheaper, faster, or without chargebacks/etc.

[knorker]

> How are you doing it for free

How do you mean? Some banks and bank accounts don't charge.

> how long does it take

It depends. Some transfer types are bank opening hours only, though then it's seconds. Some are batch overnight ones. For some use cases you can do an "internal" transfer internationally instantly, with an international bank. And then on both sides it's domestic instant. With others you don't need that trick, and it's just instant by default.

While this has greatly improved (part of what I meant by stablecoin supposedly being more relevant in the last few years being nonsense), yes the overnight thing is something that's not perfected yet.

Compare this to stock sales. We're down to T+1 settlement now, depending on the market. Imagine someone saying we need to replace the whole idea of money in order to reduce from T+5. We don't.

> without chargebacks

Cryptocurrency advocates talk about chargebacks as if it's a law of nature they managed to find a loophole in.

What exact use case are you thinking of? Customer payments to a business? If you want to reduce (though not eliminate) chargebacks and risk, those businesses are already declining CC, and only accept debit card and bank transfers as payment?

There's a reason most companies don't want to do that, because there's a good reason customers choose to just go elsewhere if they do.

Chargebacks were not an accident, just like "being stuck in KYC" was a deliberate design choice.

"If we do this then we can't get stuck in KYC" is not clever, it's just indistinguishible from crime, and quite possibly is crime. (structuring)

[knorker]

I should add, before anyone tries to "correct" me: Yes, non-CC transactions can also be reversed, of sorts. But again this is not a technical limitation. If you want to avoid counterparty risk due to a deliberate technical and contractual implementation, then contractual solutions exist for that.

It's not a glitch. It's by design.

[knorker]

Sorry, forgot to reply to this part:

> and what happens if something goes wrong?

If something goes wrong I have a chance to get my money back. Unlike with cryptocurrency, where it's just gone forever.

If fact things have gone wrong with fiat, and it's always been fixable.

Are you being sarcastic? That's literally the most broken thing about cryptocurrency.

[hippo77]

You literally describe the problem in your comment: banking works in the western world. It doesn't work for the rest of the world (which is a lot of people) but maybe you don't care about them.

[knorker]

I literally did, yes. That was not by accident. I spent two sentences on that. That's not a "gotcha".

Does this mean that you agree with me that when sending money within the developed world and its functioning banking system, cryptocurrency makes no sense?

I ask this because many times when people say "but what about sending money to the unbanked, or developing world without modern banking?", they don't actually mean it. They just want to drop that there, and then use that as a reason to try to convince you that cryptocurrency is awesome for sending money from New York to San Francisco.

> maybe you don't care about them.

Cryptocurrency people absolutely do not care about them. Not at all. I do. I don't want them poisoned with that terrible burden. It's incredibly condescending to say that modern banking is good enough for us in the west, but poor countries should just be given garbage instead.

So: Are you highlighting that part of what I said honestly? And we can then talk about the unbanked without implying that developed banking, where it exists, is anything but superior?

If yes, then the solution is clearly to bring modern banking to the unbanked, not to give them second class status with cryptocurrencies. At least in the long run.

If no, well then I don't see how you highlighting this use case is honest. And I see many cryptocurrency advocates being dishonest on this issue.

I'll assume that you're being honest, and replied yes.

So what do we do about sending money to Nigeria or North Korea? I'll admit to not knowing first hand the practicalities of that, not having actually done it. Have you? US sanctions still allow up to $5000 per year to family or friends in DPRK.

A quick Googling from other countries to DPRK quotes me ~0.7%, with no transaction fee. Western Union seems to charge 4% (actually I expected worse). If 0.7% is accurate and includes currency exchange, then that's actually not that bad. Credit cards here can have worse foreign transaction fees.

But OK, let's say the choice is WU or cryptocurrency, nothing else being available. If you're unbanked, do you have a computer, and the skill to manage a cryptocurrency wallet? If not, then I guess you'll need to find a middleman.

WU seems to charge 6% to Nigeria. I don't have data about what an agent / middleman would charge, but chatgpt says it'll be about 5-15%.

And even if it were 5%, would you trust one of these agents as much as you would trust Western Union? For this 1% discount? Can you trust them not to screw you, and trust them to not get hacked? For 1%?

I'd be happy to hear better data on this, if you have it.

So again, what is the solution for Nigeria? Is it to go cryptocurrency with its enormous complexities, costs, and trust issues, or is it to bring them modern banking?

Again:

> stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money

lol.

What do you think the unbanked would like more: A cryptocurrency wallet to manage directly, a guy in the village with a computer he's "pretty good with", or modern banking with FDIC deposit insurance?

[vagab0nd]

That doesn't make sense. You are basically making money on the interest of "in-flight" fund. What does it have to do with stablecoins?

[chinathrow]

> Stripe makes no money on that.

They do if you charge in a foreign currency, e.g. in USD and transfer it to the bank account abroad, e.g in CHF.

[bigyabai]

> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money

Moving money, sure. Holding money, only for chumps. The oldest grift in the cryptocurrency book is "unpegged no-audit stablecoin" and vanishingly few tokens actually put their money where their mouth is. Anyone can spin up money out of nowhere, but only a few businesses can survive a true bank-run scenario.

This seems like a threat to put pressure on CBDC to be pro-business or else the private sector will take over part of their job for them. A rational administration would probably want to put a stop to this, letting the private sector print it's own money will invariably end in heartbreak.

[dmbche]

Beautiful - clean and clear. Thank you.

I'm not in that space, but how stable is that 4%? What is it correlated to?

[CamelCaseName]

Interest rates. Their returns are dependent on what they invest in, which is usually US treasuries (since the token is pegged to USD)