This sounds great for the recipient, who will get approximately the amount of money they'd otherwise get, but bad for the sender, who now has to budget a thousa

This sounds great for the recipient, who will get approximately the amount of money they'd otherwise get, but bad for the sender, who now has to budget a thousand times more than they were intending to spend. Or more precisely, it's good for the party operating at scale and bad for the individual participant. This is the opposite of how most financial schemes handle unpredictable events: they put the risk on the party that can absorb the risk by letting it be lost in the noise, and take it away from the party that cares deeply about small amounts. Insurance companies will charge everyone the same amount, whether it's a customer that will ultimately bring them a bit of revenue or ultimately cost them a lot of money: the price for the individual customer is fixed. A plane flight costs the same amount of money whether there are strong tailwinds and the plane flew cheaper than expected or whether there was bad enough weather that the flight had to land somewhere for refueling, and the cost of the occasional rare disruption is built into the ticket. This trick is mathematically nice, but there isn't really a reason for a consumer to prefer it to even paying $.02, unless the consumer is also paying at scale (in which case you can just aggregate the transfer and not use this scheme at all).