6 ms·

Back in 2004, I lived in shithole country called Uzbekistan, I wanted to buy some US stocks but my bank refused to transfer MY money because of strict currency

Back in 2004, I lived in shithole country called Uzbekistan, I wanted to buy some US stocks but my bank refused to transfer MY money because of strict currency control in Uzbekistan. This was probably the first time in my life I realized that I don't actually own money stored at bank, it's just bank temporarily allows me to use my money and at any whim bank would reject to do so. In 2010, I lived in a little bit better but still crappy country called Russia, I returned to my old idea to buy US stocks. This time is was possible but I had to make high-quality translation of agreement with US broker (i.e. Google translate wouldn't be accepted) and wait for a week to get permission to wire transfer my money to US brokerage account. In 2012, I wanted to do some small business and I wanted to do everything legally (I was still naive at that time) so I approached my bank in Russia and said that I want to setup website which accepts credit card payments from US. My bank said they wouldn't allow me to do this. Then I thought I can open foreign bank account. I tried to open bank account at HSBC in Hong Kong and was rejected for being Russian citizen (that's literally was a reason!). I also was rejected at every single bank in Europe. And even if I succeed to create shell company in some offshore islands and some account at some not very much reputable bank, I would still have great problems to legalize this money in Russia as I understood from talking to lawyers (again, I naively wanted to do everything legally). So being citizen of two wrong countries, I quickly realized how tightly government and banks control my money. At one hand Russia and Uzbekistan restrict me to move my capital abroad. On the other hand, even if you manage to move your capital abroad, western countries refuse your money. I could call this the Great Western Wall. So now, I highly appreciate cryptocurrencies. If you have BTC, ETH, XRP nobody would stop you to send money anywhere. It's so much valuable! The only drawback is extreme volatility of these currencies. But with creation decentralized stable cryptocurrency DAI, this changing game even more. I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is.

erikb 9y ago
> I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is. And the people who profit from the traditional system. Don't underestimate that group. And in some regards the group you talk about and the group I talk about are overlapping. In first world countries you are really rarely screwed by your bank (when it comes to international transactions at least). But that these countries populace is allowed to live so freely might be the reason of the banks being able to screw people from shithole countries even more than them. So a change for first world country citizens might very well go the negative way and it's reasonable for them not wanting to change as it is.
xiphias 9y ago
There's no such thing as a trustless stable currency. If you want a proof of it in the fiat world, you can just read how Soros shorted GBP [1]. At the same time the volatility (especially the negative volatility) of BTC already gone down tremendously compared to just a few years ago, and new technologies are coming that make it even more useful as money, which decreases the volatility. [1] https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-georg...
Karnickel 9y ago
I think your comment raises some very interesting points, but that you go too far. There are costs (in the wider not just monetary sense) and benefits to various approaches. The reason you had to resort to crypto-currency first of all seems to me to be the problems in the countries you lived in. If they had working institutions, if you had lived in a Western country and had had access to the banking there, would you have come to the same conclusions? Also, there is a reason why Western banks and Asian ones too, it seems, prefer losing business over dealing with customers from some countries, and I doubt the reason is spite. Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I would suspect that as far as volume goes the latter might actually be far bigger than the former. As always those who have most to gain are those who have a lot of money to move (same with the question about who benefits from government more - the rich or the poor? The rich! Any "redistribution" is dwarfed by the amounts of money people get to make and to keep under the protections of strong government institutions). Anonymity, not just for money, always works for those who have their eyes closed to all the horrible things humans do when nobody is looking - and that is not a negligibly small amount. Of course, the extremely wealthy already have "anonymous money", tracing who owns what is very hard even for the government, but I doubt giving everybody access to anonymity would be a net positive.
- dreit1 9y ago
  > Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I'm not in favor of this argument at all. The internet has incredible benefits, but enables a lot of bad actors. Encryption has incredible benefits but enables a lot of bad actors. Lots of good things also enable bad things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them. Outside of third world or financially repressive countries, cryptocurrencies are great for "global citizens." I have done contract work while living in a different country, for clients in other countries, both parties have found it much easier to pay each other using cryptocurrencies as opposed to fiat.
  - 9y ago
Joe-Z 9y ago
>I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is. For me personally, I don't hate Bitcoin, I just don't see the value in it. Maybe that's because I'm not from a shithole counry and I can actually rely on my government and financial institutions. If you need to vent some anger, maybe direct it at the "bloody conformists" and "big brother lovers" in Russia that keep people like Putin in power. Oh wait, maybe these people are also just victims of the system and you should be more careful slinging your insults around.
anticodon 9y ago
Oh, so, half of the world is shit because it's not US (and I guess you haven't even lived in US but you're 100% sure it's the best possible country in the world). But how exactly does cryptocurrency solve your problem? Is it possible to legalize crypto you earned? Nope. Is it easy to accept payments in cryptocurrency? Nope. I don't see any advantage over "shitty" old banks.
bsaul 9y ago
Do you think that once/if crypto currencies become mainstreams, they won't be regulated just as much by shite governments ? To believe that the most fundamental social human issues can be solved by technology is a bit of an utopia imho. Greed, lust for power, envy, etc. Those are part of human nature, i don't think they will disappear thanks to some elaborated algorithm. Unless you want algorithms to take control of social interactions (which is another kind of shite society).
- grondilu 9y ago
  Maybe not but even if you're right, it will push governments, or governments-approved organizations, to offer a decent alternative to what people were seeking for in the first place. Consider file sharing. When P2P came out, the video entertainment business was in a serious crisis. Arguably, platforms like Netflix came out and offered a decent legal solution. I believe governments will eventually approve a form of cryptocurrency, allowing more freedom and transparency to the way people own and exchange money. Not all features of cryptocurrencies will be available (full privacy won't be completely allowed, for instance), but most of them.
- shard972 9y ago
  At least for now his side is winning the arms race so he can benefit from it until that day potentially comes. Although I still think it's going to be a very long way off if western government's can't work out how to make unauthorized use of crypto illegal.
- NHern031 9y ago
  I agree that human nature is corrupt at its core, but the blockchain is not. Placing cryptocurrency's aside and realizing that distributed entities will allow us an attempt at curtailing the effect of these negative human qualities is what I value the most. The blockchain is a perfect example of a publicly accessible ledger that is resistant to manipulation after the fact, inherently making it a source of truth. Blockchain technology will not change the entirety of society (in our life time) but it has definitely become a catalyst for social change.
  - 9y ago
matt4077 9y ago
That’s an argument for better government, not forgoing government altogether, and reverting to anarchy. I’m one of those “bloody conformists”. And because my country is full of then, and we elect sensible politicians, I am welcome at any bank in the world.
tonfa 9y ago
So you "solved" the transferring money bit, but does it help at all to buy US stocks?
rwmj 9y ago
I'm confused by this. It might work for you individually, but if large numbers of people in Uzbekistan or Russia want to bypass capital controls and sanctions, and they all buy bitcoins using their сўм's/Roubles, then they're doing a sort of foreign exchange which will eventually lead to сўм's/Roubles becoming worthless, and you'll need more and more сўм's/Roubles to buy each bitcoin. Or another way to look at is that bitcoins in Uzbekistan are only produced by mining (ie buying expensive foreign-produced ASICs) or by exchanging something of value from Uzbekistan for US$ some other way. So when buying bitcoins there, illegal foreign exchange of fiat currencies is still happening somewhere in the system (maybe you don't see it). TIL: The currency of Uzbekistan is the So'm / сўм.
- hal9000xp 9y ago
  In order for So'm or Ruble not being worthless in case free capital flows is allowed, these governments have to establish investor's trust. In order to establish investor's trust, clan system have to be dismantled, rule of law for all established, property rights strengthened. But elites in these countries aren't willing to gave up their lucrative rent seeking. Therefore, in order to keep their currency not totally worthless, they established strict currency control which patriots buy it without looking deeper.

erikb 9y ago

> I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is. And the people who profit from the traditional system. Don't underestimate that group. And in some regards the group you talk about and the group I talk about are overlapping. In first world countries you are really rarely screwed by your bank (when it comes to international transactions at least). But that these countries populace is allowed to live so freely might be the reason of the banks being able to screw people from shithole countries even more than them. So a change for first world country citizens might very well go the negative way and it's reasonable for them not wanting to change as it is.

xiphias 9y ago

There's no such thing as a trustless stable currency. If you want a proof of it in the fiat world, you can just read how Soros shorted GBP [1]. At the same time the volatility (especially the negative volatility) of BTC already gone down tremendously compared to just a few years ago, and new technologies are coming that make it even more useful as money, which decreases the volatility. [1] https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/ https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-georg...

Karnickel 9y ago

I think your comment raises some very interesting points, but that you go too far. There are costs (in the wider not just monetary sense) and benefits to various approaches. The reason you had to resort to crypto-currency first of all seems to me to be the problems in the countries you lived in. If they had working institutions, if you had lived in a Western country and had had access to the banking there, would you have come to the same conclusions? Also, there is a reason why Western banks and Asian ones too, it seems, prefer losing business over dealing with customers from some countries, and I doubt the reason is spite. Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I would suspect that as far as volume goes the latter might actually be far bigger than the former. As always those who have most to gain are those who have a lot of money to move (same with the question about who benefits from government more - the rich or the poor? The rich! Any "redistribution" is dwarfed by the amounts of money people get to make and to keep under the protections of strong government institutions). Anonymity, not just for money, always works for those who have their eyes closed to all the horrible things humans do when nobody is looking - and that is not a negligibly small amount. Of course, the extremely wealthy already have "anonymous money", tracing who owns what is very hard even for the government, but I doubt giving everybody access to anonymity would be a net positive.

dreit1 9y ago
> Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I'm not in favor of this argument at all. The internet has incredible benefits, but enables a lot of bad actors. Encryption has incredible benefits but enables a lot of bad actors. Lots of good things also enable bad things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them. Outside of third world or financially repressive countries, cryptocurrencies are great for "global citizens." I have done contract work while living in a different country, for clients in other countries, both parties have found it much easier to pay each other using cryptocurrencies as opposed to fiat.
- 9y ago

Joe-Z 9y ago

>I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is. For me personally, I don't hate Bitcoin, I just don't see the value in it. Maybe that's because I'm not from a shithole counry and I can actually rely on my government and financial institutions. If you need to vent some anger, maybe direct it at the "bloody conformists" and "big brother lovers" in Russia that keep people like Putin in power. Oh wait, maybe these people are also just victims of the system and you should be more careful slinging your insults around.

anticodon 9y ago

Oh, so, half of the world is shit because it's not US (and I guess you haven't even lived in US but you're 100% sure it's the best possible country in the world). But how exactly does cryptocurrency solve your problem? Is it possible to legalize crypto you earned? Nope. Is it easy to accept payments in cryptocurrency? Nope. I don't see any advantage over "shitty" old banks.

bsaul 9y ago

Do you think that once/if crypto currencies become mainstreams, they won't be regulated just as much by shite governments ? To believe that the most fundamental social human issues can be solved by technology is a bit of an utopia imho. Greed, lust for power, envy, etc. Those are part of human nature, i don't think they will disappear thanks to some elaborated algorithm. Unless you want algorithms to take control of social interactions (which is another kind of shite society).

grondilu 9y ago
Maybe not but even if you're right, it will push governments, or governments-approved organizations, to offer a decent alternative to what people were seeking for in the first place. Consider file sharing. When P2P came out, the video entertainment business was in a serious crisis. Arguably, platforms like Netflix came out and offered a decent legal solution. I believe governments will eventually approve a form of cryptocurrency, allowing more freedom and transparency to the way people own and exchange money. Not all features of cryptocurrencies will be available (full privacy won't be completely allowed, for instance), but most of them.
shard972 9y ago
At least for now his side is winning the arms race so he can benefit from it until that day potentially comes. Although I still think it's going to be a very long way off if western government's can't work out how to make unauthorized use of crypto illegal.
NHern031 9y ago
I agree that human nature is corrupt at its core, but the blockchain is not. Placing cryptocurrency's aside and realizing that distributed entities will allow us an attempt at curtailing the effect of these negative human qualities is what I value the most. The blockchain is a perfect example of a publicly accessible ledger that is resistant to manipulation after the fact, inherently making it a source of truth. Blockchain technology will not change the entirety of society (in our life time) but it has definitely become a catalyst for social change.
- 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

That’s an argument for better government, not forgoing government altogether, and reverting to anarchy. I’m one of those “bloody conformists”. And because my country is full of then, and we elect sensible politicians, I am welcome at any bank in the world.

tonfa 9y ago

So you "solved" the transferring money bit, but does it help at all to buy US stocks?

rwmj 9y ago

I'm confused by this. It might work for you individually, but if large numbers of people in Uzbekistan or Russia want to bypass capital controls and sanctions, and they all buy bitcoins using their сўм's/Roubles, then they're doing a sort of foreign exchange which will eventually lead to сўм's/Roubles becoming worthless, and you'll need more and more сўм's/Roubles to buy each bitcoin. Or another way to look at is that bitcoins in Uzbekistan are only produced by mining (ie buying expensive foreign-produced ASICs) or by exchanging something of value from Uzbekistan for US$ some other way. So when buying bitcoins there, illegal foreign exchange of fiat currencies is still happening somewhere in the system (maybe you don't see it). TIL: The currency of Uzbekistan is the So'm / сўм.

hal9000xp 9y ago
In order for So'm or Ruble not being worthless in case free capital flows is allowed, these governments have to establish investor's trust. In order to establish investor's trust, clan system have to be dismantled, rule of law for all established, property rights strengthened. But elites in these countries aren't willing to gave up their lucrative rent seeking. Therefore, in order to keep their currency not totally worthless, they established strict currency control which patriots buy it without looking deeper.