6 ms·

Except you can't send between the two. Isn't that so silly? You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it. This is a benefit of the blockchain, a pr

by beaner 8y ago

Except you can't send between the two. Isn't that so silly? You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it. This is a benefit of the blockchain, a protocol for money.

arcticbull 8y ago
Only if both wallets implement it, isn’t it silly not all wallets support all stable coins? Nope, it isn’t. Moreover there seems to be a misunderstanding, square cash allows you to instantly move money between bank accounts, via your bank, have at it, totally interoperable because dollars.
- Karrot_Kream 8y ago
  USDC is an ERC20 token, so the vast majority of wallets support it out of the box.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    Isn’t it funny CoinBase wallets don’t support ERC20 out of the box. They pick and choose what ERC20 tokens the support. Hey wouldn’t you know it they support their own stablecoin, but not others...pretty sure that’s the type of centralization cryptocurrency/Blockchain was trying to avoid.
    - leppr 8y ago
      Coinbase is trying to be the interface between the government-regulated world, and the code-regulated world. Of course they have to make more compromises to accommodate the side with the guns, than the immaterial one.
- radicaldreamer 8y ago
  Only in the United States and with stringent per day limits? Cryptowallets work no matter where you’re at and without limitations.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Think it through, that’s true only if you already have the USDC, you still have to buy them somewhere and sell them somewhere, with the same limits. Also I just picked US services, Canada has Interac e-Transfer and other countries have similar products too. The whole EU has SEPA. There are competitors in the African market even like mpesa. And if you want to move money to another country international remittances are already cheap and fast. Most people just don’t have the problem of needing to send tons of money to each other across borders all the time.
    - radicaldreamer 8y ago
      "Most people" don't but a large number of companies do... and remittances between people are a $500 billion/year market?
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Apple isn’t rolling up to the Wells Fargo and accepting a 5% spread. If you personally want to exchange a ton of money open an interactive brokers account and you’ll pay 0.08 basis points (0.0008%) minimum $1. If you don’t want to trade that much, check out compareremit.com and see what people are paying retail, it’s actually very competitive. In the popular USD-INR corridor you could pay close to mid market rates plus zero commission. This is a solved problem.
- beaner 8y ago
  If I want to send money to someone via square cash, they have to have the square cash app. Same with Venmo, and PayPal, and everything else... Venmo and PayPal are even owned by the same company. Have you ever asked why they're not interoperable? The ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems. None of them work together because regulation makes the operation of money so difficult that you need an entire company to run such an app, and they're all walled gardens applying their own versions of KYC/AML. When you have a unified protocol, all of that melts away and the opportunity for money to have a higher velocity and greater ease of use is upon us. This is what blockchain, and in this case USD Coin based on it, provide. It seems silly to me that such a system would not become popular. Interoperability and protocols are good. They are something HN is typically in love with. When google tried to remove basic support for one protocol for contacts from Gmail, people were up in arms because it broke interoperability. Imagine being in that world with money. I don't know why you wouldn't want it. It's superior by all measures. And it would be silly for anyone in that world to create a wallet that didn't support such currencies. It would be like creating an email client that only lets you read email from other users of the same service. That's not email, that's just a private messaging platform. I think you have to look towards the future and see how, if adopted, things like this would make money easier to use. Rallying against that is silly indeed.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems ACH is for cheap, remote batch transfers. Fedwire is for real-time, remote transfers. Cash is for cheap, real-time, in-person transfers. (FX exchanges, as centralized databases, are faster and safer than stablecoins.)
    - beaner 8y ago
      A system which makes no distinction between any of these use cases and treats them all the same sounds very appealing to me.
IncRnd 8y ago
You say that Venmo and Square are inferior to USDC, because the first two cannot communicate with each other. Then, you say that USDC is superior, because it cannot communicate with the other two.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Sorry for the confusion, I’m using your bank account as your wallet analog, and saying both services can interact via your bank account if necessary. Whereas not all wallets will support USDC.
- beaner 8y ago
  I didn't say that USDC is superior because it cannot communicate with the other two. I'm saying its superior because if adopted it would unite the two.

by beaner 8y ago

Except you can't send between the two. Isn't that so silly? You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it. This is a benefit of the blockchain, a protocol for money.

arcticbull 8y ago

Only if both wallets implement it, isn’t it silly not all wallets support all stable coins? Nope, it isn’t. Moreover there seems to be a misunderstanding, square cash allows you to instantly move money between bank accounts, via your bank, have at it, totally interoperable because dollars.

Karrot_Kream 8y ago
USDC is an ERC20 token, so the vast majority of wallets support it out of the box.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Isn’t it funny CoinBase wallets don’t support ERC20 out of the box. They pick and choose what ERC20 tokens the support. Hey wouldn’t you know it they support their own stablecoin, but not others...pretty sure that’s the type of centralization cryptocurrency/Blockchain was trying to avoid.
  - leppr 8y ago
    Coinbase is trying to be the interface between the government-regulated world, and the code-regulated world. Of course they have to make more compromises to accommodate the side with the guns, than the immaterial one.
radicaldreamer 8y ago
Only in the United States and with stringent per day limits? Cryptowallets work no matter where you’re at and without limitations.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Think it through, that’s true only if you already have the USDC, you still have to buy them somewhere and sell them somewhere, with the same limits. Also I just picked US services, Canada has Interac e-Transfer and other countries have similar products too. The whole EU has SEPA. There are competitors in the African market even like mpesa. And if you want to move money to another country international remittances are already cheap and fast. Most people just don’t have the problem of needing to send tons of money to each other across borders all the time.
  - radicaldreamer 8y ago
    "Most people" don't but a large number of companies do... and remittances between people are a $500 billion/year market?
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Apple isn’t rolling up to the Wells Fargo and accepting a 5% spread. If you personally want to exchange a ton of money open an interactive brokers account and you’ll pay 0.08 basis points (0.0008%) minimum $1. If you don’t want to trade that much, check out compareremit.com and see what people are paying retail, it’s actually very competitive. In the popular USD-INR corridor you could pay close to mid market rates plus zero commission. This is a solved problem.
beaner 8y ago
If I want to send money to someone via square cash, they have to have the square cash app. Same with Venmo, and PayPal, and everything else... Venmo and PayPal are even owned by the same company. Have you ever asked why they're not interoperable? The ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems. None of them work together because regulation makes the operation of money so difficult that you need an entire company to run such an app, and they're all walled gardens applying their own versions of KYC/AML. When you have a unified protocol, all of that melts away and the opportunity for money to have a higher velocity and greater ease of use is upon us. This is what blockchain, and in this case USD Coin based on it, provide. It seems silly to me that such a system would not become popular. Interoperability and protocols are good. They are something HN is typically in love with. When google tried to remove basic support for one protocol for contacts from Gmail, people were up in arms because it broke interoperability. Imagine being in that world with money. I don't know why you wouldn't want it. It's superior by all measures. And it would be silly for anyone in that world to create a wallet that didn't support such currencies. It would be like creating an email client that only lets you read email from other users of the same service. That's not email, that's just a private messaging platform. I think you have to look towards the future and see how, if adopted, things like this would make money easier to use. Rallying against that is silly indeed.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems ACH is for cheap, remote batch transfers. Fedwire is for real-time, remote transfers. Cash is for cheap, real-time, in-person transfers. (FX exchanges, as centralized databases, are faster and safer than stablecoins.)
  - beaner 8y ago
    A system which makes no distinction between any of these use cases and treats them all the same sounds very appealing to me.

IncRnd 8y ago

You say that Venmo and Square are inferior to USDC, because the first two cannot communicate with each other. Then, you say that USDC is superior, because it cannot communicate with the other two.

arcticbull 8y ago
Sorry for the confusion, I’m using your bank account as your wallet analog, and saying both services can interact via your bank account if necessary. Whereas not all wallets will support USDC.
beaner 8y ago
I didn't say that USDC is superior because it cannot communicate with the other two. I'm saying its superior because if adopted it would unite the two.