3 ms·
> It made no sense to implement everything in one app. WeChat would disagree [1]. There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with
by ROARosen 6y ago
> It made no sense to implement everything in one app.
WeChat would disagree [1].
There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with potential for increased user adoption because of that ("please download signal so I can pay you easily") and I don't see this as inherently bad. But they should have used a reputable coin instead of some scammy pyramid token.
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:text=The%20iResearch%20Consulting%20Group%20estimates,transactions%20take%20place%20per%20day https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:te....
- beojan 6y ago> There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Not in a country that has free, (de facto) instant bank transfers (Faster Payments). If the problem there is that you need someone's bank details and not just their phone number, there's Barclays' Pingit.
- ROARosen 6y agoThe fact that there is a separate service providing instant payments does nothing to disprove my point - being that payments within a chat app is useful, if not preferred, by millions in China and elsewhere. What exactly is the rationale that makes payments within a chat app 'inferior' or 'unneeded' just because there are separate services available (e.g. Barclays' Pingit)?