6 ms·
Sure. "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. I literally just struggled for a month with a transfer that included 3 countries, none of them is Engl
by neiman 5y ago
Sure.
"Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. I literally just struggled for a month with a transfer that included 3 countries, none of them is English speaking. It required letters from banks, accountants, plenty of forms of different countries, translations, stuff which is lost in translation (the bank was unhappy with the word selection of a non-English speaker accountant, for example), different formats, different standards and navigating countless options and tricks in order to avoid ridiculous exchange and transfer fees.
This was for a "simple" action in the real world, involving me and a regular seller of something. Now take this and try to divide donations between 5 participants of your project, each from a different country and a different language. Good luck with that.
Hwoever, in my open source project we did the same thing in 20 seconds with crypto. Not because we avoid tax (we don't), but because the international mechanism is cumbersome and inaccessible if you're not an expert, and expensive probably even if you are.
We manage the donations/profits with votings, and are not familiar with a platform offering a safe way to do that in our settings.
Besides, my experience with platforms for open source projects (or in general) is bad. There is no one platform offering all the services we need, so we end up having dozens of accounts (which is actually a source of tension, because when you offer to use a new platform, an argument starts with those who "have enough accounts in their life"). Moreover, platforms eventually close, so you get stuck (migration is a hard thing to do).
Let me ask a question that maybe will look at it from a different angle. Which problems remotely sending money and online platforms solve that crypto has for managing votings and finance of an international online open source project? Seems to me it beings 100% extra problems and 0% solutions.
- eterm 5y ago> "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. Technologically it is not. Which is why anyone in the EU can instantly send money to anywhere else in the EU, for free, despite being a collection of 27 countries with dozens of different languages and legacy banking systems. The hurdles are legal and regulatory, not technical. Blockchain and new technology does not solve the underlying problem at all.
- neiman 5y agoPart of the transaction I described (which was personal) involved a bank transfer between two EU states, and it's simply not true. It's not instantly, doesn't work 24/7 (a transaction made on Friday arrived on Tuesday), and you have to find plenty of tricks to avoid high fees and super bad exchange rates (EU has more than one currency, you know).
- piva00 5y agoWise (former Transferwise) is pretty much instant in the EU, with very low fees. Even then, transferring money with SEPA from my Swedish account to friends in Germany, Poland and the Netherlands is pretty much instant, I just don't like the exchange rate of my bank.
- neiman 5y agoWise (Germany->Poland) is the one who took me 4 days (Friday->Tuesday)... I have no idea how you did an instant transfer from Sweden to Poland.
- faeyanpiraat 5y agoIt might depend on the amount. Wise might not had the liquidity in your currency pair, and you had to wait for a transaction to happen in the reverse direction. (Just speculation)
- democracy 5y agoWhat's wrong with paypal?
- mateuszf 5y agoYou can find lot of stories of them blocking your account without explanation and taking the money.
- 5y ago
- ulfw 5y agoBut none of that needs Blockchain as a technical solution. E.g. my bank allows worldwide free SWIFT transfers in many many currencies. It's not hard to find out someone's name, bank account number and SWIFT code et voila... money sent. There's plenty of other solutions from Paypal to (Transfer)Wise etc. Saying "it can be done in 20 seconds with crypto" is really only half the truth. At the end of the day we all need fiat money. So there's always a conversion step (if not two!) between fiat -> crypto -> fiat money. I can't pay my baker in Cardano nor my hair stylist in Fantom.
- neiman 5y ago> Saying "it can be done in 20 seconds with crypto" is really only half the truth. At the end of the day we all need fiat money. Fair point.
- RandomLensman 5y agoUsing some kind of crypto as a more internal transfer and accounting unit seems like a fair use case. And then on/off ramps to traditional when needed. Could likely be done simpler, but then why not (there are payments solution providers that keep everything internal etc.).
- democracy 5y agoI think the crypto shills for the "bank the unbanked" and "international money transfers" never really did any international money transfers
- lottin 5y agoIs this money transfer system compliant with current regulations? Because if it isn't, you're comparing apples with oranges.
- CRConrad 5y ago> "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. I literally just struggled for a month with a transfer that included 3 countries, none of them is English speaking. It required... But this only shows that some (many?) places are woefully behind on online banking, not that blockchain is required. I can transfer money abroad from my bank account to, probably, yours (do you have an IBAN account number?) with just a few clicks more in my online bank than a domestic transfer. If the banks in your target countries caught up to that (not incredibly advanced) standard, you could have done that too. And I'm fairly sure neither my bank nor the ones of my recipients, nor the systems in between them, use any blockchain whatsoever for this. So not a valid example that blockchain is actually needed.