4 ms·
Can you elaborate on that? In particular - Why can't aggregators overcome the transactions costs? MoneyGram does so for remittances from US to Mexico. - What'
by crasshopper 15y ago
Can you elaborate on that? In particular
- Why can't aggregators overcome the transactions costs? MoneyGram does so for remittances from US to Mexico.
- What's not straightforward about "addresses" ? (Which addresses do you mean?)
- Don't intermediaries sometimes lower the overall costs.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer.
- adrianwaj 15y agoIn principle, anytime money goes through someone else on its way to its destination for some benefit, purpose or reason, who is going to pay for that intermediary's existence? If you need to do a bank transfer to someone, you need their bank account number, bank name, account name, branch address, branch number, reason for transfer. A system that needs all this info is a complex system, and that system needs to be maintained, and that maintenance is by extension costly (due to its complexity.) An intermediary might lower overall cost by enabling something to occur that couldn't occur in the first place, but why couldn't it occur in the first place? How helpful are bank transfers when they take 3-5 working days? The banking sector is massively wasteful in my view. Parts might be justified, but other parts not. If people are going to hate on bitcoin because they can't buy it, or don't want it to work (or whatever,) I can hate on the banking sector for eating time, money and efficiency.
- crasshopper 15y agoThanks for the long response, but it seems sort of far afield and I still feel my question was unanswered. MoneyGram reduces transactions costs by pooling wire transfers to Mexico. So they take risk and add value as an aggregator. What's to keep a micropayment aggregator from doing the same?