3 ms·

Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. It's going to be offering an NFT series on Ethereum to raise yet more funds: https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is

Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. It's going to be offering an NFT series on Ethereum to raise yet more funds: https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bonds/ https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bond... Beyond the state's fundraising efforts, many in Ukraine were only able to take their wealth with them when they fled the country because they had it in the form of crypto. >>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. And encrypted chat applications give criminals and scammers the ability to coordinate their scams anonymously. Centralization via mass-surveillance (Total Information Awareness) is not a solution to social problems. It's putting all of society's eggs in one basket, and hoping the basket doesn't fall into corruption. >>* Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people And according to this pro-centralization philosophy, a million people dying in Iraq due to sanctions is "worth it". So are all the people who "starve" due to this philosophy's AML mass-surveillance laws: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-side-153111892.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-...

bryananderson 5y ago
As always with crypto, this “use case” falls apart on even the tiniest inspection. Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It was quick and it was easy and the Ukrainians lost a hell of a lot less of my donation to transaction fees than they did of the ETH. Donating to Ukraine in ETH is a higher-fee way to do something you can already do (this is typical of purported blockchain “use cases”). If you actually care about the recipient of the donation, you should want as little of the donation to be siphoned off as transaction fees as possible.
- malermeister 5y ago
  There is an advantage to Ukraine though: This might get them more donations from the crowd that has fully bought into all the crypto junk and will happily throw money at everything with the right buzzwords. I suppose you can consider the transaction fees marketing budget.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It is far easier to donate from your browser, using your MetaMask wallet, than by visiting your bank branch to effect an international wire transfer. It can potentially also be safer, in letting you not have your identity recorded anywhere in association with a donation to a party to a conflict.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Visiting a bank branch? What is this, 1998? Use an app or a website like a normal human.
  - bryananderson 5y ago
    Who said anything about a bank branch? I did it on the Central Bank of Ukraine’s website in about 30 seconds. I don’t know how much I can emphasize what a solved problem this is.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      That's a fair point about the existence of payment options that are more convenient than wire transfer, but not every one has a credit card or lives in a country where international e-wallets like PayPal operate. And the problem of identity being linked to payments, and the risks this can engender, is not a solved problem in traditional finance.
dmitriid 5y ago
> Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. Ah yes. Because those "$100 million in crypto" can be definitely used to buy gas, food, water, transportation etc. in the country...

bryananderson 5y ago

As always with crypto, this “use case” falls apart on even the tiniest inspection. Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It was quick and it was easy and the Ukrainians lost a hell of a lot less of my donation to transaction fees than they did of the ETH. Donating to Ukraine in ETH is a higher-fee way to do something you can already do (this is typical of purported blockchain “use cases”). If you actually care about the recipient of the donation, you should want as little of the donation to be siphoned off as transaction fees as possible.

malermeister 5y ago
There is an advantage to Ukraine though: This might get them more donations from the crowd that has fully bought into all the crypto junk and will happily throw money at everything with the right buzzwords. I suppose you can consider the transaction fees marketing budget.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It is far easier to donate from your browser, using your MetaMask wallet, than by visiting your bank branch to effect an international wire transfer. It can potentially also be safer, in letting you not have your identity recorded anywhere in association with a donation to a party to a conflict.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Visiting a bank branch? What is this, 1998? Use an app or a website like a normal human.
- bryananderson 5y ago
  Who said anything about a bank branch? I did it on the Central Bank of Ukraine’s website in about 30 seconds. I don’t know how much I can emphasize what a solved problem this is.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    That's a fair point about the existence of payment options that are more convenient than wire transfer, but not every one has a credit card or lives in a country where international e-wallets like PayPal operate. And the problem of identity being linked to payments, and the risks this can engender, is not a solved problem in traditional finance.

dmitriid 5y ago

> Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. Ah yes. Because those "$100 million in crypto" can be definitely used to buy gas, food, water, transportation etc. in the country...