4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

Nursie 4y ago
> True -- it cuts down on middle men though! It adds two middle-manned transactions instead of one? This seems to be the same wishful thinking that's come out of the crypto space for about 10 years now. There's no reason to think now is any different.
- zeroclip 4y ago
  Depends on the token used. ETH - middleman is all stakers and nodes securing the network, in which you can also participate. USDC - same, but with a centralized company who will blacklist your funds if you are on a US sanction list. Already very different degree of permissioned entrance to finances than a bank or money exchanger. DAI - same as ETH but also depends on a permissionless and much wider pool of users across the world governing the protocol, which you can also opt into.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    > ETH - middleman is all stakers and nodes securing the network, in which you can also participate. That's three sets of middlemen then, because you need to both get into and out of ethereum as well.
    - zeroclip 4y ago
      Technically more if you count ISP, computer provider, and the bank handling your fiat to actually get in and out of the exchange. But the idea is, once in the system, there are less intermediaries*. So if you send ETH or USDC, the receiver can spend that token for certain services or investments instead of converting back to fiat. * specifically, intermediaries that control your funds or could censor your transactions.
      - Nursie 4y ago
        That's not the idea I was responding to, which was the usual "it's great for international transfers" stuff, which as always completely ignores the two extra transactions introduced. Also, was there not a report just a few days ago about the new PoS eth validators that are complying with US sanctions, making up a majority of the new blocks? This seems to go against the whole "reducing intermediaries who could censor transactions thing". Either way, none of these arguments are new, and AFAICT, cryptocurrency hasn't made a huge dent in the transfers market in the last ten years of people saying it will.

Nursie 4y ago

> True -- it cuts down on middle men though! It adds two middle-manned transactions instead of one? This seems to be the same wishful thinking that's come out of the crypto space for about 10 years now. There's no reason to think now is any different.

zeroclip 4y ago
Depends on the token used. ETH - middleman is all stakers and nodes securing the network, in which you can also participate. USDC - same, but with a centralized company who will blacklist your funds if you are on a US sanction list. Already very different degree of permissioned entrance to finances than a bank or money exchanger. DAI - same as ETH but also depends on a permissionless and much wider pool of users across the world governing the protocol, which you can also opt into.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > ETH - middleman is all stakers and nodes securing the network, in which you can also participate. That's three sets of middlemen then, because you need to both get into and out of ethereum as well.
  - zeroclip 4y ago
    Technically more if you count ISP, computer provider, and the bank handling your fiat to actually get in and out of the exchange. But the idea is, once in the system, there are less intermediaries*. So if you send ETH or USDC, the receiver can spend that token for certain services or investments instead of converting back to fiat. * specifically, intermediaries that control your funds or could censor your transactions.
    - Nursie 4y ago
      That's not the idea I was responding to, which was the usual "it's great for international transfers" stuff, which as always completely ignores the two extra transactions introduced. Also, was there not a report just a few days ago about the new PoS eth validators that are complying with US sanctions, making up a majority of the new blocks? This seems to go against the whole "reducing intermediaries who could censor transactions thing". Either way, none of these arguments are new, and AFAICT, cryptocurrency hasn't made a huge dent in the transfers market in the last ten years of people saying it will.