4 ms·

> I reduced a portion of my ecommerce store checkout fees to <1% by using a crypto payment processor > stripe's highway robbery of 3% per sale. Maybe the fees

> I reduced a portion of my ecommerce store checkout fees to <1% by using a crypto payment processor > stripe's highway robbery of 3% per sale. Maybe the fees are worth it for currency stability? Saving 2% doesn't help much if the price of crypto plunges 10% the next day.

pcthrowaway 5y ago
Stablecoins rarely plunge 10% in a day ;)
saurik 5y ago
This is a solved problem (and not just in theory): transfer a stable coin (such as DAI).
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  This is my issue with much of the crypto movement. The answer to all questions seems to be re-creating existing infrastructure (in this case, we are trying to recreate the price of USD). The promise of crypto was a world without this type of centralization and institutionalization. As it's grown in popularity, it appears to be re-creating all the existing centralization. Even wall street market-makers like Citadel are getting into the game [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-securities-silicon-valley-funding-hints-at-crypto-entry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-s...
  - saurik 5y ago
    I hope you appreciate how disingenuous this complaint is :(. If you want to not be tied to USD, crypto clearly does that. But someone complained that they didn't like having something that wasn't tied to USD. So crypto also solves that: DAI is a decentralized stable coin, using tons of economic incentive tricks to build something tied to USD. You don't have to use it, but that person clearly wanted something tied to USD. Meanwhile, the banking infrastructure you all seem to love so much continues to not be programmable, continues to have multi-day settlement delays even between your own accounts (that it takes multiple days to pay off my credit card is insane), and continues to be actively exploitative of people with lots of regressive fees with built-in traps that regularly screw over the most vulnerable of people. But somehow that is all ignorable when people want to complain about crypto. Can't crypto just solve a problem for someone and we can be happy for that? Does it really have to be better at everything at once? This person said they were getting cheaper transfers: they were paying 1% instead of 3%. Isn't that good? Why is it somehow broken if it is done with a stable coin? If these banks you love so much are so smart, why is this person so happy using crypto? Put elsewise: why are they wrong for using crypto? This is like someone saying "I love sandwiches: they let me hold my food while I am on the go" and someone with a sour face responding "I guess if you like unhealthy heavy food! I love my salads". And I say "they do make vegetable sandwiches: they are healthy and holdable!" and being pushed back with "this is the problem I have with this new sandwich movement: they are attempting to recreate everything from salads". I mean, come on :/. If your salads are so good, why can't I hold them? Oh right, because sometimes I need a sandwich.
    - adwn 5y ago
      > But someone complained that they didn't like having something that wasn't tied to USD. No, you're misrepresenting long_time_gone's point. EUR, for example, is very stable without being tied to USD, and EUR/USD will almost never fluctuate by 10% within a single day. Fiat currencies tend to be very stable even when not tied to USD. Non-tied cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile to pretty much all fiat currencies (and to most other non-tied cryptocurrencies), while most fiat currencies are comparatively stable to most other fiat currencies, without being tied to them.
      - lui8906 5y ago
        Crypto offers stable coins (USD, EUR, KRC etc.) and non stable, volatile assets (BTC, ETH, SOL). The original poster complained about: A) Crypto being too volatile B) Crypto recreating existing finance Which seems to be a contradiction.
        asimpletune 5y ago
        Or it could not be volatile and actually create something original? I think the original complaint was it's volatile, to which the solution was "well use this one tied to the dollar"... well what about the ones that aren't volatile and aren't tied to the dollar? (They don't exist, which was the whole point)
        long_time_gone 5y ago
        >Which seems to be a contradiction. The point was that each individual criticism of crypto (speed, instability, energy efficiency) brings a new solution which seemingly recreates an existing financial function or institution. This is the logical thing to do as it increases trust in crypto and speeds adoption. However, in the end, we have a crypto economy stabilized and supported by the exact institutions it was supposed to displace.
  - immibis 5y ago
    True, but I don't see why this is such a big complaint. With the Internet revolution, the answer to all questions regarding computers was to re-create all the existing infrastructure on the Internet. That's how we have online shopping, online video streaming, etc. Imagine walking into Netflix and saying "you can't replace Blockbuster because you'll have to re-create all their existing infrastructure" Centralization of wealth is a big problem.

pcthrowaway 5y ago

Stablecoins rarely plunge 10% in a day ;)

saurik 5y ago

This is a solved problem (and not just in theory): transfer a stable coin (such as DAI).

long_time_gone 5y ago
This is my issue with much of the crypto movement. The answer to all questions seems to be re-creating existing infrastructure (in this case, we are trying to recreate the price of USD). The promise of crypto was a world without this type of centralization and institutionalization. As it's grown in popularity, it appears to be re-creating all the existing centralization. Even wall street market-makers like Citadel are getting into the game [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-securities-silicon-valley-funding-hints-at-crypto-entry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/citadel-s...
- saurik 5y ago
  I hope you appreciate how disingenuous this complaint is :(. If you want to not be tied to USD, crypto clearly does that. But someone complained that they didn't like having something that wasn't tied to USD. So crypto also solves that: DAI is a decentralized stable coin, using tons of economic incentive tricks to build something tied to USD. You don't have to use it, but that person clearly wanted something tied to USD. Meanwhile, the banking infrastructure you all seem to love so much continues to not be programmable, continues to have multi-day settlement delays even between your own accounts (that it takes multiple days to pay off my credit card is insane), and continues to be actively exploitative of people with lots of regressive fees with built-in traps that regularly screw over the most vulnerable of people. But somehow that is all ignorable when people want to complain about crypto. Can't crypto just solve a problem for someone and we can be happy for that? Does it really have to be better at everything at once? This person said they were getting cheaper transfers: they were paying 1% instead of 3%. Isn't that good? Why is it somehow broken if it is done with a stable coin? If these banks you love so much are so smart, why is this person so happy using crypto? Put elsewise: why are they wrong for using crypto? This is like someone saying "I love sandwiches: they let me hold my food while I am on the go" and someone with a sour face responding "I guess if you like unhealthy heavy food! I love my salads". And I say "they do make vegetable sandwiches: they are healthy and holdable!" and being pushed back with "this is the problem I have with this new sandwich movement: they are attempting to recreate everything from salads". I mean, come on :/. If your salads are so good, why can't I hold them? Oh right, because sometimes I need a sandwich.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > But someone complained that they didn't like having something that wasn't tied to USD. No, you're misrepresenting long_time_gone's point. EUR, for example, is very stable without being tied to USD, and EUR/USD will almost never fluctuate by 10% within a single day. Fiat currencies tend to be very stable even when not tied to USD. Non-tied cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile to pretty much all fiat currencies (and to most other non-tied cryptocurrencies), while most fiat currencies are comparatively stable to most other fiat currencies, without being tied to them.
    - lui8906 5y ago
      Crypto offers stable coins (USD, EUR, KRC etc.) and non stable, volatile assets (BTC, ETH, SOL). The original poster complained about: A) Crypto being too volatile B) Crypto recreating existing finance Which seems to be a contradiction.
      - asimpletune 5y ago
        Or it could not be volatile and actually create something original? I think the original complaint was it's volatile, to which the solution was "well use this one tied to the dollar"... well what about the ones that aren't volatile and aren't tied to the dollar? (They don't exist, which was the whole point)
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        >Which seems to be a contradiction. The point was that each individual criticism of crypto (speed, instability, energy efficiency) brings a new solution which seemingly recreates an existing financial function or institution. This is the logical thing to do as it increases trust in crypto and speeds adoption. However, in the end, we have a crypto economy stabilized and supported by the exact institutions it was supposed to displace.
- immibis 5y ago
  True, but I don't see why this is such a big complaint. With the Internet revolution, the answer to all questions regarding computers was to re-create all the existing infrastructure on the Internet. That's how we have online shopping, online video streaming, etc. Imagine walking into Netflix and saying "you can't replace Blockbuster because you'll have to re-create all their existing infrastructure" Centralization of wealth is a big problem.