3 ms·

Coinbase has USDC, Gemini has GUSD. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm curious if adoption becomes a function of which fly-by-night exchanges st

Coinbase has USDC, Gemini has GUSD. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm curious if adoption becomes a function of which fly-by-night exchanges start launching pairs. But then again, if the fees are low enough (if my $1 truly gets me one token, and one token gets me $0.9999 back) these tokens are going to be useful in themselves without needing to be traded on seedy exchanges. It would be great for taking micropayments on online services. The thing I worry about is how these tokens are set up. If there is central control, can the governing bodies at any time decide to deactivate my tokens? I'd like to see the actual "contracts" behind these tokens. And even then, the contracts can change and be updated. Obviously there are some regulatory protections, but that won't fix people hacking these contracts. I guess what I'm saying is, "hmm, interesting, I'll check it out in a few years." Until then I'll likely just use it for hedging against other cryptos while speculating if/when I decide to get back in the market.

stanleydrew 8y ago
Somewhat unrelated, but the reason micropayments aren't a thing isn't that transaction fees are too high. The reason is that consumers hate them. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-save-publishers/ http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont...
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  The idea of a micropayment isn't monolithic. People certainly will not like to be nickle-and-dimed to read the news, but that's fairly obvious. The real model here is Patreon. Patreon is (well, was) about bundling payments to make recurring micropayments practical. Their execution has issues (it's also highly successful) but the fundamental idea of recurring micropayments is totally sound. Audiences are receptive to it, and creators can legitimately support their work with this kind of aggregate payment.
wslh 8y ago
> I'd like to see the actual "contracts" behind these tokens. https://github.com/centrehq/centre-tokens https://github.com/centrehq/centre-tokens and https://github.com/paxosglobal/pax-contracts https://github.com/paxosglobal/pax-contracts give you some idea. There is obviously an external system minting and burning these tokens.

stanleydrew 8y ago

Somewhat unrelated, but the reason micropayments aren't a thing isn't that transaction fees are too high. The reason is that consumers hate them. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-save-publishers/ http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont...

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
The idea of a micropayment isn't monolithic. People certainly will not like to be nickle-and-dimed to read the news, but that's fairly obvious. The real model here is Patreon. Patreon is (well, was) about bundling payments to make recurring micropayments practical. Their execution has issues (it's also highly successful) but the fundamental idea of recurring micropayments is totally sound. Audiences are receptive to it, and creators can legitimately support their work with this kind of aggregate payment.

wslh 8y ago

> I'd like to see the actual "contracts" behind these tokens. https://github.com/centrehq/centre-tokens https://github.com/centrehq/centre-tokens and https://github.com/paxosglobal/pax-contracts https://github.com/paxosglobal/pax-contracts give you some idea. There is obviously an external system minting and burning these tokens.