8 ms·

Well looks like my timing is off. Despite never touching crypto up until now, I feel it finally has a solid use case. ETH’s merge along with the existence of

Well looks like my timing is off. Despite never touching crypto up until now, I feel it finally has a solid use case. ETH’s merge along with the existence of L2 networks means it can put western Union out of business for international same party (sending money to yourself) money transfers, The KYC on both sides not withstanding. Hell even NFTs —- the clearest feverdream tinted scam —- had a use case after all: tokens for securitizing and allowing speculation in membership networks (see Gary V coin). Sure someone could have just made a much less wasteful self-hostable/SaaS secret club membership app but NFTs seem to have found exactly one use case as a membership mechanism du jour which enables speculation (importantly, giving people a way to profit from their early “investment” in one creator or another). At the risk of stoking the ire of HN, does anyone still think crypto does not have a use case? There are a lot of things it is not and has not turned out to be, but IMO the biggest issue was needlessly destroying the earth and that seems to be all but solved now. Of course, FedNOW may prove to make crypto for money transfers an even worse option relatively but… I think we may be at the start of an actual crypto boom (where there is actually Utility underpinning ETH’s value) Another thing I find quite exciting is the idea of trading shares via a blockchain. While obviously becoming a financial exchange is a key choke point for innovation because of the requirements, I can imagine a shadow network based on settlements of contract negotiated with blockchain with small trusted networks of investors. All you need is to request the stock certificates and you can actually sign them over (let’s consider this an unorthodox “settlement”). Does this mean that we have a substrate for person to person hawala systems (which are normally outlawed by the government?)

rchaud 4y ago
I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people making those arguments actually use those services. There's an ease of use aspect to it that crypto boosters simply cannot understand, because they are used to dealing with a dizzying array of exchanges, cold wallets and nonsensical alphanumeric strings, and think that this is the UX that regular people will accept.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  I absolutely agree it’s not ready for regular people to use. > I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people making those arguments actually use those services. I know you weren’t talking about me but I’ve actually used western Union, and while it wasn’t bad, it wasn’t a particularly pleasant nor pain free experience either. Wise is EXCELLENT though. More importantly, money exchangers and check caching places extract a TREMENDOUS toll on people who are forced to use them, and the prospect that could change is actually pretty good. Up until now the main issue was the wastefulness and lack of scale/purpose fit of blockchain. It seems like ETH is poised to solve those things where BTC was stuck due to the interests of miners. There are problems, but it really does feel like blockchain might have just finished it’s infancy (the scam era, let’s say). Maybe I should publish something longer form on this. I had something written then chose to self censor
  - rchaud 4y ago
    I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I too have worked in the money services business, so I know the good and bad about these companies. They are by no means angels, but they work within the regulatory systems of the countries in which they operate and that creates costs and bureaucracy. But it also prevents problems that most of the crypto sector likely doesn't see, due to lack of real world logistical experience.
    - hardwaresofton 4y ago
      > I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. Will do! I am confident I have the same misgivings but the base assumption here is that cross border fund transfers are hard, but crypto gives the system a chance to be rebuilt (with technology that's much more traceable, as well) -- without governments funding development and doing the political wrangling and horse trading to get on one system. I'll try to lay this simpler thought out even simpler (for my own sake) -- If nation X and nation Y trust Coinbase, and have negotiated how to off ramp, and Coinbase satisfies KYC with both countries/participating institutions, we can theoretically do away with SWIFT + TARGET2 or VISA at the end of the day. What Coinbase as done is also not so unassailable (where as VISA very much is), so there will be many Coinbases, and this will drive prices down. > There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I agree -- I think this assumption of Crypto is optimistic and wrong. But, I also see this as opportunity -- this is a problem to be solved. Crypto needs people willing to do the hard work of building reliable, trustable, and reversible transactions, and essentially re-imagining what transactions, contract enforcement, and escrow look like without the threat of violence from one government in particular. Maybe people shouldn't manage their own crypto wallets at all -- maybe they should be managed custodially -- that's an industry that needs to spring up. I know this is peak crypto-bull-speak but I assure you I am not a crypto bull (I literally do not hold any) -- but I can really imagine the recreation of the modern bank. An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank. I could Trust and reputation becoming paramount, moreso because there is less recourse.
alexslobodnik 4y ago
There's also several projects attacking web3 social and identity: 1. https://ens.domains/ https://ens.domains/ 2. https://nftychat.xyz/ https://nftychat.xyz/ [0] 3. https://www.farcaster.xyz/ https://www.farcaster.xyz/ 4. https://tryshowtime.xyz/ https://tryshowtime.xyz/ [0] I'm the co-founder
pjc50 4y ago
> international same party (sending money to yourself) money transfers But you've not sent money to yourself, you've sent Eth to yourself, and you still need a forex transaction on each end? > Does this mean that we have a substrate for person to person hawala systems (which are normally outlawed by the government?) I've thought of crypto as "hawala banking for geeks" for a while now, but if it's banned by the government then inserting extra steps does not fix that and if you become big enough they will come after you for money laundering. Why do you want to trade shares via a blockchain rather than a perfectly normal broker?
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > But you've not sent money to yourself, you've sent Eth to yourself, and you still need a forex transaction on each end? True -- it cuts down on middle men though! Also, there's the very very theoretical case of buying things in ETH/USDC/whatever else. While buying things in BTC and ETH may be a pipedream (I don't think so in the ETH case but I won't try to defend it), stable coins are quite alluring as essentially proto-FEDCoin. There is no reason every nation won't have a coin, and they'll be traded that way. There are a lot of negative effects to more heavily digitizing the money system, but that's another discussion -- crypto is just serving as an emotionless, politics-free money transferer (of course, it is enveloped in politics still), with a different fee structure (vs. Western Union, for example). I said this elsewhere but basically it gives us a chance to rebuild the money system. Even if what we build is bad it's not like we're being forced into it -- but if it's even a little better, the value is infinite (given infinite time). > I've thought of crypto as "hawala banking for geeks" for a while now, but if it's banned by the government then inserting extra steps does not fix that and if you become big enough they will come after you for money laundering. > > Why do you want to trade shares via a blockchain rather than a perfectly normal broker? I'm not sure the government will ever actually ban it at this point. Especially with the relatively "blessed" nature of USDC and size Coinbase has grown to (and it's market leader position). I think at this point bitcoin exists as a political tool and prepping mechanism for the complete digitization of currency. FedNOW is the first step in that direction, maybe we'll get FEDCoin later. Brokers charge fees, and are protected by capital requirements and regulation (which also protects consumers of course!). I think a rebuild of the system gives us a chance to meaningfully improve on the system of legislation and regulation we have so far -- the second build of finance, let's say. For example, it's unnecessarily hard to set up an ETF -- I think the middlemen, gatekeepers, and fees there could be reduced to near zero there.
soulofmischief 4y ago
> Despite never touching crypto up until now, I feel it finally has a solid use case. I'd reword this as "I finally feel it has a solid use case", as the use case of "put western Union out of business for international same party money transfers" has been present since day one. You're just now understanding that it takes time for complex software systems to mature and reach their goals. Next time a novel system appears, this reframing of your mentality might help you to see the benefits earlier on and become an early adopter.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > I'd reword this as "I finally feel it has a solid use case", as the use case of "put western Union out of business for international same party money transfers" has been present since day one. This is true, that was badly worded. Maybe something like "the few use cases that make sense to me have finally become guilt-free". > You're just now understanding that it takes time for complex software systems to mature and reach their goals. Next time a novel system appears, this reframing of your mentality might help you to see the benefits earlier on and become an early adopter. But I still don't necessarily want to be an early adopter in every piece of technology. I'm perfectly content to let people find the sharp edges and report back -- and either way up until now it was an absolute no for me with the environmental impact (knowing that PoS was possible) and rampant low-grade scams.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    > the few use cases that make sense to me have finally become guilt-free Again, it takes time for novel, complex systems to reach their goals. Proof of work was a rudimentary attempt at security a network, and if you read the Bitcoin whitepaper, it was never suggested as the best solution. This wording still applies undue negativity to crypto fundamentals. It's totally fine to not jump on every new technology, but equally fine not to be a hater towards new technology which is still being developed. :)

rchaud 4y ago

I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people making those arguments actually use those services. There's an ease of use aspect to it that crypto boosters simply cannot understand, because they are used to dealing with a dizzying array of exchanges, cold wallets and nonsensical alphanumeric strings, and think that this is the UX that regular people will accept.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
I absolutely agree it’s not ready for regular people to use. > I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people making those arguments actually use those services. I know you weren’t talking about me but I’ve actually used western Union, and while it wasn’t bad, it wasn’t a particularly pleasant nor pain free experience either. Wise is EXCELLENT though. More importantly, money exchangers and check caching places extract a TREMENDOUS toll on people who are forced to use them, and the prospect that could change is actually pretty good. Up until now the main issue was the wastefulness and lack of scale/purpose fit of blockchain. It seems like ETH is poised to solve those things where BTC was stuck due to the interests of miners. There are problems, but it really does feel like blockchain might have just finished it’s infancy (the scam era, let’s say). Maybe I should publish something longer form on this. I had something written then chose to self censor
- rchaud 4y ago
  I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I too have worked in the money services business, so I know the good and bad about these companies. They are by no means angels, but they work within the regulatory systems of the countries in which they operate and that creates costs and bureaucracy. But it also prevents problems that most of the crypto sector likely doesn't see, due to lack of real world logistical experience.
  - hardwaresofton 4y ago
    > I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. Will do! I am confident I have the same misgivings but the base assumption here is that cross border fund transfers are hard, but crypto gives the system a chance to be rebuilt (with technology that's much more traceable, as well) -- without governments funding development and doing the political wrangling and horse trading to get on one system. I'll try to lay this simpler thought out even simpler (for my own sake) -- If nation X and nation Y trust Coinbase, and have negotiated how to off ramp, and Coinbase satisfies KYC with both countries/participating institutions, we can theoretically do away with SWIFT + TARGET2 or VISA at the end of the day. What Coinbase as done is also not so unassailable (where as VISA very much is), so there will be many Coinbases, and this will drive prices down. > There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I agree -- I think this assumption of Crypto is optimistic and wrong. But, I also see this as opportunity -- this is a problem to be solved. Crypto needs people willing to do the hard work of building reliable, trustable, and reversible transactions, and essentially re-imagining what transactions, contract enforcement, and escrow look like without the threat of violence from one government in particular. Maybe people shouldn't manage their own crypto wallets at all -- maybe they should be managed custodially -- that's an industry that needs to spring up. I know this is peak crypto-bull-speak but I assure you I am not a crypto bull (I literally do not hold any) -- but I can really imagine the recreation of the modern bank. An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank. I could Trust and reputation becoming paramount, moreso because there is less recourse.

alexslobodnik 4y ago

There's also several projects attacking web3 social and identity: 1. https://ens.domains/ https://ens.domains/ 2. https://nftychat.xyz/ https://nftychat.xyz/ [0] 3. https://www.farcaster.xyz/ https://www.farcaster.xyz/ 4. https://tryshowtime.xyz/ https://tryshowtime.xyz/ [0] I'm the co-founder

pjc50 4y ago

> international same party (sending money to yourself) money transfers But you've not sent money to yourself, you've sent Eth to yourself, and you still need a forex transaction on each end? > Does this mean that we have a substrate for person to person hawala systems (which are normally outlawed by the government?) I've thought of crypto as "hawala banking for geeks" for a while now, but if it's banned by the government then inserting extra steps does not fix that and if you become big enough they will come after you for money laundering. Why do you want to trade shares via a blockchain rather than a perfectly normal broker?

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> But you've not sent money to yourself, you've sent Eth to yourself, and you still need a forex transaction on each end? True -- it cuts down on middle men though! Also, there's the very very theoretical case of buying things in ETH/USDC/whatever else. While buying things in BTC and ETH may be a pipedream (I don't think so in the ETH case but I won't try to defend it), stable coins are quite alluring as essentially proto-FEDCoin. There is no reason every nation won't have a coin, and they'll be traded that way. There are a lot of negative effects to more heavily digitizing the money system, but that's another discussion -- crypto is just serving as an emotionless, politics-free money transferer (of course, it is enveloped in politics still), with a different fee structure (vs. Western Union, for example). I said this elsewhere but basically it gives us a chance to rebuild the money system. Even if what we build is bad it's not like we're being forced into it -- but if it's even a little better, the value is infinite (given infinite time). > I've thought of crypto as "hawala banking for geeks" for a while now, but if it's banned by the government then inserting extra steps does not fix that and if you become big enough they will come after you for money laundering. > > Why do you want to trade shares via a blockchain rather than a perfectly normal broker? I'm not sure the government will ever actually ban it at this point. Especially with the relatively "blessed" nature of USDC and size Coinbase has grown to (and it's market leader position). I think at this point bitcoin exists as a political tool and prepping mechanism for the complete digitization of currency. FedNOW is the first step in that direction, maybe we'll get FEDCoin later. Brokers charge fees, and are protected by capital requirements and regulation (which also protects consumers of course!). I think a rebuild of the system gives us a chance to meaningfully improve on the system of legislation and regulation we have so far -- the second build of finance, let's say. For example, it's unnecessarily hard to set up an ETF -- I think the middlemen, gatekeepers, and fees there could be reduced to near zero there.

soulofmischief 4y ago

> Despite never touching crypto up until now, I feel it finally has a solid use case. I'd reword this as "I finally feel it has a solid use case", as the use case of "put western Union out of business for international same party money transfers" has been present since day one. You're just now understanding that it takes time for complex software systems to mature and reach their goals. Next time a novel system appears, this reframing of your mentality might help you to see the benefits earlier on and become an early adopter.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> I'd reword this as "I finally feel it has a solid use case", as the use case of "put western Union out of business for international same party money transfers" has been present since day one. This is true, that was badly worded. Maybe something like "the few use cases that make sense to me have finally become guilt-free". > You're just now understanding that it takes time for complex software systems to mature and reach their goals. Next time a novel system appears, this reframing of your mentality might help you to see the benefits earlier on and become an early adopter. But I still don't necessarily want to be an early adopter in every piece of technology. I'm perfectly content to let people find the sharp edges and report back -- and either way up until now it was an absolute no for me with the environmental impact (knowing that PoS was possible) and rampant low-grade scams.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  > the few use cases that make sense to me have finally become guilt-free Again, it takes time for novel, complex systems to reach their goals. Proof of work was a rudimentary attempt at security a network, and if you read the Bitcoin whitepaper, it was never suggested as the best solution. This wording still applies undue negativity to crypto fundamentals. It's totally fine to not jump on every new technology, but equally fine not to be a hater towards new technology which is still being developed. :)