[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?