3 ms·
It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial
by infamouscow 4y ago
It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees.
Rather than conceding, you're in the position of asserting three things simultaneously:
1. The gov of Ukraine is using crypto donations for illegitimate purposes, but only the crypto donations.
2. Non-crypto donations are legitimate, but only those donations.
3. Even if the crypto donations were legitimate, unless the donations were ten times what was actually raised (~ 14M USD), it still has no reason to exist.
- colesantiago 4y ago> It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees. You mean innovations such as UPI, Pix, PromptPay, PayNow and MPesa that are used by more than 1BN+ real people collectively and growing? My point is what is crypto doing significantly differently that makes it better than the current financial system? Donating via crypto is completely moot point since I mentioned I can do the same thing without middlemen.
- mattdesl 4y agoYou are describing centralized and walled-garden services run by middlemen. The significant difference of a blockchain is that it is a decentralized protocol that any individual or state can build upon, much like HTTPS. Pix, for example, is managed by the central bank of Brazil. Ethereum, on the other hand, is not managed or controlled by a single state actor.