4 ms·

Yep agreed, and other underlying applications (NFTs as evidence of group membership or ownership that can be easily owned and transferred, an auditable historic

Yep agreed, and other underlying applications (NFTs as evidence of group membership or ownership that can be easily owned and transferred, an auditable historical record) have a lot of value. The ability to hold decentralized state is a resilient way is pretty cool and a lot of the finance applications are better than legacy stuff - try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system, expect to wait several days for every action. HN people can continue to cynically dismiss it, but the nice thing about economic bets is it doesn't really matter. Those that see the value will become rich anyway. There are always people dismissing any new thing - the value of that signal is near zero. I'm excited about what kind incentive alignment we might be able to achieve with programmable money. The city coins stuff I think is pretty cool, maybe a way out of NIMBY type incentive problems. There's a ton of stuff that's being figured out on the frontier - it's exciting. Like I imagine the web was like in 1999 (with the good, and as potentially the case in the OP's article, the bad).

Aeolun 5y ago
> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system, expect to wait several days for every action The legacy system (e.g. banks) aren’t sitting still either. In many parts of the world (Europe) a transaction is pretty much instant.
- facorreia 5y ago
  Same in Brazil.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Maybe it’s better outside of America. I still see the crypto tech being more capable long term, but the ux is still in its infancy.
arcticbull 5y ago
> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system Well, cryptos aren't really money so actually sending money via crypto requires transferring crypto from a bank to an exchange, making a purchase, withdrawing it to a destination wallet at an exchange, selling it, and transferring the proceeds to another account. That takes days, requires multiple transactions and costs boatloads of fees. By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process. Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage. What you're describing is the third. Sending money in any classic fintech system takes milliseconds. What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security. Crypto pretends those don't exist. Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too. Anyways, sending "large amounts of money" isn't a problem most people have by definition. And if you actually do have large amounts of money, sending it around isn't an issue. I've had six-figure domestic wire transfers clear instantly with no questions asked from my brokerage account, free of charge, same day. The first time they called to check. I didn't mind. Most of the world has free or nearly free instant transfers. Europe has SEPA, the UK has FPS, Canada has Interac e-transfers, Australia has NPP. The US is getting RTP and FedNow in 2023. [edit] In fact, the cheapest way to move USDC from FTX to Coinbase is actually to request a free wire transfer from FTX to your bank account, and then either a free wire or ACH from your bank account to Coinbase. Saves $25.
- gonehome 5y ago
  > “ By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.” Yeah, I’m betting on the future utility enabled by the tech, not what it can do right now. Similarly people said the web was useless in the 90s [0] when the future utility (imo) was obvious. > “Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage.” There are non-crime advantages to being able to use decentralized systems. These are most obvious in places with hostile governments and unstable currencies. The new stuff you can do with decentralized state and public auditable records is super new and the applications there I think will be really interesting. > “ What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security.” Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? > “Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too.” I think you’re failing to steelman this. It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. Imagine using an NFT as a pseudonymous ID that you KYC once and then can use anywhere unless it changes wallets. There are also likely better ways to determine credit worthiness than FICO enabled by the new stuff. A lot of your arguments feel like someone saying “ever heard of radio” when someone else says you can stream sports on the internet. I think you’re being a little myopic. I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. [0]: https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part. That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right? > It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share. > I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha. [edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist? Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.
BoorishBears 5y ago
> There are always people dismissing any new thing - the value of that signal is near zero Crypto is too old to play this card. Could you have gotten rich off investing in Enron? Sure, it made some people fantastically rich. That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company. Nothing with the word "currency" can experience 5 digit deflation and call itself anything but a failure in that regard. Nothing cynical about that take, and it's a useful signal for those who expect to treat it as a currency.
- gonehome 5y ago
  > “ That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company.” You’re right of course, my point was not that cynicism is always false, but that people are cynically dismissive about everything so it holds zero signal. It’s basically the Sagan quip, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” BTC is more like some sort of asset class than a currency imo [0], but there are others that are more suited to currency. [0]: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skeptic https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    You're missing the most important part of the quip... But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses The dismissiveness is often a signal, that was his point. BTC has grown too far to be compared to Columbus setting out anyways, it's reached widespread access and accessibility, there are public companies devoted to it's access, BTC ETFs, etc. We've reached the point where the cynicism is backed by reality. I think the fact we're now abandoning the currency pipedream for the most well known cryptocurrency says it all.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I wasn't missing it - that part is implied by the meat of the bit I quoted. The point is to keep in mind that just because people are laughing doesn't mean you're a genius, but people do also mock people doing great things. Elon Musk is another easy example, look at the HN dismissal of Tesla and SpaceX over the years - even in the face of obvious massive success. You basically have to dismiss the naysayers and evaluate things for yourself.

Aeolun 5y ago

> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system, expect to wait several days for every action The legacy system (e.g. banks) aren’t sitting still either. In many parts of the world (Europe) a transaction is pretty much instant.

facorreia 5y ago
Same in Brazil.
gonehome 5y ago
Maybe it’s better outside of America. I still see the crypto tech being more capable long term, but the ux is still in its infancy.

arcticbull 5y ago

> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system Well, cryptos aren't really money so actually sending money via crypto requires transferring crypto from a bank to an exchange, making a purchase, withdrawing it to a destination wallet at an exchange, selling it, and transferring the proceeds to another account. That takes days, requires multiple transactions and costs boatloads of fees. By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process. Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage. What you're describing is the third. Sending money in any classic fintech system takes milliseconds. What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security. Crypto pretends those don't exist. Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too. Anyways, sending "large amounts of money" isn't a problem most people have by definition. And if you actually do have large amounts of money, sending it around isn't an issue. I've had six-figure domestic wire transfers clear instantly with no questions asked from my brokerage account, free of charge, same day. The first time they called to check. I didn't mind. Most of the world has free or nearly free instant transfers. Europe has SEPA, the UK has FPS, Canada has Interac e-transfers, Australia has NPP. The US is getting RTP and FedNow in 2023. [edit] In fact, the cheapest way to move USDC from FTX to Coinbase is actually to request a free wire transfer from FTX to your bank account, and then either a free wire or ACH from your bank account to Coinbase. Saves $25.

gonehome 5y ago
> “ By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.” Yeah, I’m betting on the future utility enabled by the tech, not what it can do right now. Similarly people said the web was useless in the 90s [0] when the future utility (imo) was obvious. > “Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage.” There are non-crime advantages to being able to use decentralized systems. These are most obvious in places with hostile governments and unstable currencies. The new stuff you can do with decentralized state and public auditable records is super new and the applications there I think will be really interesting. > “ What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security.” Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? > “Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too.” I think you’re failing to steelman this. It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. Imagine using an NFT as a pseudonymous ID that you KYC once and then can use anywhere unless it changes wallets. There are also likely better ways to determine credit worthiness than FICO enabled by the new stuff. A lot of your arguments feel like someone saying “ever heard of radio” when someone else says you can stream sports on the internet. I think you’re being a little myopic. I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. [0]: https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part. That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right? > It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share. > I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha. [edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist? Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.

BoorishBears 5y ago

> There are always people dismissing any new thing - the value of that signal is near zero Crypto is too old to play this card. Could you have gotten rich off investing in Enron? Sure, it made some people fantastically rich. That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company. Nothing with the word "currency" can experience 5 digit deflation and call itself anything but a failure in that regard. Nothing cynical about that take, and it's a useful signal for those who expect to treat it as a currency.

gonehome 5y ago
> “ That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company.” You’re right of course, my point was not that cynicism is always false, but that people are cynically dismissive about everything so it holds zero signal. It’s basically the Sagan quip, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” BTC is more like some sort of asset class than a currency imo [0], but there are others that are more suited to currency. [0]: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skeptic https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  You're missing the most important part of the quip... But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses The dismissiveness is often a signal, that was his point. BTC has grown too far to be compared to Columbus setting out anyways, it's reached widespread access and accessibility, there are public companies devoted to it's access, BTC ETFs, etc. We've reached the point where the cynicism is backed by reality. I think the fact we're now abandoning the currency pipedream for the most well known cryptocurrency says it all.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    I wasn't missing it - that part is implied by the meat of the bit I quoted. The point is to keep in mind that just because people are laughing doesn't mean you're a genius, but people do also mock people doing great things. Elon Musk is another easy example, look at the HN dismissal of Tesla and SpaceX over the years - even in the face of obvious massive success. You basically have to dismiss the naysayers and evaluate things for yourself.