4 ms·

There is a strong use case for that, for my personal spending and utilities it would be very inconvenient for me to convert cryptocurrency to cash without an in

There is a strong use case for that, for my personal spending and utilities it would be very inconvenient for me to convert cryptocurrency to cash without an intermediary bank account. but business-wise many of my vendors have been able and willing to take cryptocurrency especially in the last 3 years. I've executed many legal agreements paid in crypto. Its made it extremely practical for Americans to have offshore corporations again since the bank account part became difficult but is no longer needed for international commerce and asset holdings.

fennecfoxen 7y ago
Yeah, those routine inflationary / deflationary episodes that can see the Bitcoin-denominated price of your services (just to use an example) rise and fall by 400% in a year, easily? Very practical! These intermediate bank accounts will soon be a thing of the past.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > the Bitcoin-denominated price of your services (just to use an example) rise and fall by 400% in a year Yeah its a bad example because thats not whats happening at all. Criticisms are possible but yours are so far off that I guess these are called weak strawman arguments? I don't think this was intentional as its seems more like a precompiled argument that isn't really a response to this situation so I will tell you my experience with international vendors: When legal contracts are executed a payment method and pricing index is determined. The payment itself does not take a year and there is usually no catalog of goods and services that are "bitcoin-denominated", for our agreements. When the actual payment occurs we use the agreed upon index to use the dollar price, paid in crypto and this takes a few seconds to execute and even in the volatile crypto markets usually nothing is happening in this time frame. The cryptos typically involve: Bitcoin most frequently using Tradeblock's XBX index, or CME's index, or Coinmarketcap Ethereum most frequently using Coinmarketcap, and lately Tradeblock's ETX index random token that one of us has large consolidated ownership of stablecoin like DAI, USDC, Tether This is conceptually no different than any legal contract that use shares for payment. You get a glimpse of this common transaction method when companies are acquired for "cash and stock". For the recipient, it is all about the tolerance of liquidity. There is a curve of liquidity for different asset classes, with US treasuries and non interest bearing dollars being the most liquid on the planet, and a different velocity of liquidity needs for recipients. In a different use case that uses stablecoins there are no price fluctuations and no index price negotiations involved. Its been more convenient for some of our non-US businesses because it is difficult for banks to open bank accounts when the beneficial signers are Americans. This is due to FATCA and the high compliance burden for non-US banks, as well as FBAR filings for the US person. But the whole concept of bank accounts have been leapfrogged and international commerce continues unabated.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    > When the actual payment occurs we use the agreed upon index to use the dollar price, paid in crypto and this takes a few seconds to execute and even in the volatile crypto markets usually nothing is happening in this time frame. Ah, so unlike the person using it for savings that you're replying to, you're basically just paying someone for the overhead of getting that money to a real bank account, through a novelty payment mechanism, to avoid regulators. I mean, that's a step up, at least. Good luck with FATCA Mk II, Cryptocurrency Edition.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      its not really avoiding its just more convenient as the private sector itself has made it more difficult since they don't want the compliance burden of opening accounts for American signers we'll comply with any applicable regulation. if we have to start filing FBAR's for on-chain or off-chain custodial cryptocurrency holdings we'll do it, while also seeing if there is an applicable exemption, while also having our lawyers write to the Treasury during the comment period to suggest they not pursue this route

fennecfoxen 7y ago

Yeah, those routine inflationary / deflationary episodes that can see the Bitcoin-denominated price of your services (just to use an example) rise and fall by 400% in a year, easily? Very practical! These intermediate bank accounts will soon be a thing of the past.

rolltiide 7y ago
> the Bitcoin-denominated price of your services (just to use an example) rise and fall by 400% in a year Yeah its a bad example because thats not whats happening at all. Criticisms are possible but yours are so far off that I guess these are called weak strawman arguments? I don't think this was intentional as its seems more like a precompiled argument that isn't really a response to this situation so I will tell you my experience with international vendors: When legal contracts are executed a payment method and pricing index is determined. The payment itself does not take a year and there is usually no catalog of goods and services that are "bitcoin-denominated", for our agreements. When the actual payment occurs we use the agreed upon index to use the dollar price, paid in crypto and this takes a few seconds to execute and even in the volatile crypto markets usually nothing is happening in this time frame. The cryptos typically involve: Bitcoin most frequently using Tradeblock's XBX index, or CME's index, or Coinmarketcap Ethereum most frequently using Coinmarketcap, and lately Tradeblock's ETX index random token that one of us has large consolidated ownership of stablecoin like DAI, USDC, Tether This is conceptually no different than any legal contract that use shares for payment. You get a glimpse of this common transaction method when companies are acquired for "cash and stock". For the recipient, it is all about the tolerance of liquidity. There is a curve of liquidity for different asset classes, with US treasuries and non interest bearing dollars being the most liquid on the planet, and a different velocity of liquidity needs for recipients. In a different use case that uses stablecoins there are no price fluctuations and no index price negotiations involved. Its been more convenient for some of our non-US businesses because it is difficult for banks to open bank accounts when the beneficial signers are Americans. This is due to FATCA and the high compliance burden for non-US banks, as well as FBAR filings for the US person. But the whole concept of bank accounts have been leapfrogged and international commerce continues unabated.
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  > When the actual payment occurs we use the agreed upon index to use the dollar price, paid in crypto and this takes a few seconds to execute and even in the volatile crypto markets usually nothing is happening in this time frame. Ah, so unlike the person using it for savings that you're replying to, you're basically just paying someone for the overhead of getting that money to a real bank account, through a novelty payment mechanism, to avoid regulators. I mean, that's a step up, at least. Good luck with FATCA Mk II, Cryptocurrency Edition.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    its not really avoiding its just more convenient as the private sector itself has made it more difficult since they don't want the compliance burden of opening accounts for American signers we'll comply with any applicable regulation. if we have to start filing FBAR's for on-chain or off-chain custodial cryptocurrency holdings we'll do it, while also seeing if there is an applicable exemption, while also having our lawyers write to the Treasury during the comment period to suggest they not pursue this route