4 ms·

Crush the competition.

by argella 4y ago

dd36 4y ago
Crush the criminals.
martin8412 4y ago
Crypto is not a competitor to banks.
- notch656c 4y ago
  Crypto as a competitor to SWIFT is kind of interesting though. SWIFT is basically a fast international transfer. Crypto is actually pretty great for that because you can do a fast transfer against domestic crypt/fiat pairs and after the int'l crypto transfer dump back into fiat so the currency risk is relatively low. Using SWIFT / int'l fiat transfer to buy crypto makes no sense. In short cutting off SWIFT from crypto exchanges is a nothing burger because domestic crypto/fiat pairs are available and int'l transfer of crypto bypasses SWIFT.
  - dd36 4y ago
    Or you can do that all in a database without the wasted energy.
ben_w 4y ago
I know it varies by crypto, but last I checked BTC couldn't handle 2% of the transactions Swift handles. It's "competition" only in the same way that New Shepard is competition for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon.
- argella 4y ago
  - crypto includes more than btc - btc has the lightning network for higher volume of transactions
  - ben_w 4y ago
    The first I explicitly acknowledged by saying it varies by crypto. Both are irrelevant because similar can be said about normal money. SWIFT is (a) not the only inter-bank system, and (b) is specifically for inter-bank exchanges (the "I" is for Interbank), so when a transaction is between two accounts in the same bank it doesn't need to touch SWIFT. I have no idea how many cash transactions there are, but I think cash payments of just children's pocket money (let alone school dinner money) and even then just in the UK is by itself enough to exceed BTCs capacity. I wonder if the Matutus in Nairobi are still cash, or if they're mostly MPESA now? Either way, they're probably also by themselves at least three times over the capacity limit for BTC. Not that it matters much; while Lightning (and crypto) are technically intriguing, they're all fairly terrible for both practical and economic reasons. All the liquidity of shares, but with higher volatility and the fundamentals of a stock bubble.

Crush the competition.

dd36 4y ago

Crush the criminals.

martin8412 4y ago

Crypto is not a competitor to banks.

notch656c 4y ago
Crypto as a competitor to SWIFT is kind of interesting though. SWIFT is basically a fast international transfer. Crypto is actually pretty great for that because you can do a fast transfer against domestic crypt/fiat pairs and after the int'l crypto transfer dump back into fiat so the currency risk is relatively low. Using SWIFT / int'l fiat transfer to buy crypto makes no sense. In short cutting off SWIFT from crypto exchanges is a nothing burger because domestic crypto/fiat pairs are available and int'l transfer of crypto bypasses SWIFT.
- dd36 4y ago
  Or you can do that all in a database without the wasted energy.

ben_w 4y ago

I know it varies by crypto, but last I checked BTC couldn't handle 2% of the transactions Swift handles. It's "competition" only in the same way that New Shepard is competition for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon.

argella 4y ago
- crypto includes more than btc - btc has the lightning network for higher volume of transactions
- ben_w 4y ago
  The first I explicitly acknowledged by saying it varies by crypto. Both are irrelevant because similar can be said about normal money. SWIFT is (a) not the only inter-bank system, and (b) is specifically for inter-bank exchanges (the "I" is for Interbank), so when a transaction is between two accounts in the same bank it doesn't need to touch SWIFT. I have no idea how many cash transactions there are, but I think cash payments of just children's pocket money (let alone school dinner money) and even then just in the UK is by itself enough to exceed BTCs capacity. I wonder if the Matutus in Nairobi are still cash, or if they're mostly MPESA now? Either way, they're probably also by themselves at least three times over the capacity limit for BTC. Not that it matters much; while Lightning (and crypto) are technically intriguing, they're all fairly terrible for both practical and economic reasons. All the liquidity of shares, but with higher volatility and the fundamentals of a stock bubble.