3 ms·

Which is why it's not used for important purchases. Except illegal ones.

• tialaramex 6y ago
  And it's why you'll notice that bill denominations didn't follow inflation. If no legitimate transactions need $100M in cash, it follows there is no need to make it practical to actually move $100M in cash. For a while there was a workaround, it lasted a long time in the United States and after it ended Hollywood kept it around (in fiction) partly by using plots that were written when it was real and partly just because it looks cooler even though it's not possible. Bearer Bonds. You'll notice that's what they're stealing in Die Hard. When it was made, and when it was set, Bearer Bonds weren't a thing (adverse tax treatment ensured they had basically ceased to exist) but when the novel the screenplay is based on was written it is reasonable that a wealthy multinational might possess large sums of Bearer Bonds in a vault. Bearer Bonds were bonds (duh) but they weren't registered anywhere, the owner of the bond was whoever was holding it, just like cash, except a briefcase full of bonds could be worth tens of millions of dollars.
  • knorker 6y ago
    That's a really good point. I recently transferred a few hundred k. It's a little bit of a hassle, but you know what, the system SHOULD look at that more closely. And it can, because that scales. What we need is scalable micropayments, not ability to more easily lose $100M one transaction. The people who do need to move $100M it's ok if we have a separate system for.