5 ms·

There is absolutely no reason for USDC to be on a blockchain other than to interact with DeFi. Once DeFi hype dies USDC will be outcompeted by a centralized so

There is absolutely no reason for USDC to be on a blockchain other than to interact with DeFi. Once DeFi hype dies USDC will be outcompeted by a centralized solution. It's multisig controlled anyway so it's the same thing.

arandomusername 3y ago
Sending USD across countries, e.g from EU to US, is a LOT easier and faster with USDC than any other solution out there.
- defiamazing 3y ago
  That's because it has regulatory approval (for now). It's not because of a blockchain. You can start the thought experiment by asking why USDC is on Ethereum and other popular chains rather than own private blockchain. People could make payments faster. Fees would be lower or more likely zero.
  - arandomusername 3y ago
    If it's not because of a blockchain, how come there is no other good way? It's not on it's own private blockchain because then no one would use it.
    - defiamazing 3y ago
      No one would use it because people don't actually want to send money internationally badly enough to create a profit opportunity. They want to interact with DeFi protocols, that's why USDC exists on eth, once the DeFi protocols die then so will USDC. There's no good other way because people don't actually want to send money internationally badly enough to create a profit opportunity.
      - arandomusername 3y ago
        Huh? International payments are a HUGE industry. What are you talking about? Western Union and Transferwise are both huge companies that specialize in international payments. DeFi protocols are a benefit, but even without it USDC would still persist. There's no good other way because of extreme regulations that harm law abiding citizens under the guise of AML and other junk.
        defiamazing 3y ago
        If your application is evading AML then your scale will always be limited. I don’t know how you could possibly feel like that’s a serious pitch. Sounds like, “We’ll just evade the law”. I guess ICOs got away with it for a bit. They want it sure, but again, not enough to create a profit opportunity. Profit is revenue minus costs, so there's a lot of revenue opportunity (from the bank deposits by the way, not the payments), but the costs are huge. The revenue has to justify the legal headache involved with processing payments in under a minute. That's why the only live solution needs a DeFi bubble to support it.
        arandomusername 3y ago
        Not sure why you are bringing in ICOs in discussion with USDC/stablecoins and international payments. > The revenue has to justify the legal headache involved with processing payments in under a minute. See how AML regulations just harm law abidding citizens? Please explain how defi bubble is supporting it.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        defiamazing 3y ago
        AML is good, no I don’t. My turn to ask the questions. Is there literally any scenario where you'd accept that maybe crypto isn't actually useful and maybe it is just a big scam? Think about it hard, otherwise you'll waste years of your life in an internet libertarian larp. Bro USDC is multisig'd, it isn't decentralizing anything and it doesn't even need a blockchain except to interact with DeFi.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      If my aim is transfer money internationally cheaply and efficiently why do I care what blockchain it uses. Or whether it uses a blockchain at all.
      - nikita_789 3y ago
        You don't have to use blockchain, you can use payment systems like Arbonum.
everfree 3y ago
Why is it that no other solution has been developed in the 40 years of the internet, but you believe now is a particularly ripe time for one to pop up?
- defiamazing 3y ago
  Because there's not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache for most types of international payments, unless you have the added benefit of interacting with DeFi protocols during a massive shitcoin bubble.
  - everfree 3y ago
    Sorry, but I thought you said in your last comment that you believe USDC will be outcompeted by a centralized solution. Do you believe that, or do you believe that there is not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache of launching a centralized solution? Those seem to me to be opposing viewpoints.
    - defiamazing 3y ago
      Yes, because Circle will either start using whitelists at which point it will shrink to the point where competition is trivial or it'll just shut down completely. If for some reason there's massive demand in the next decade for sub-minute international money transfers then surely CashApp will get back on that. There's just not, existing slower solutions work fine in most cases and not enough people need something better. Also important to emphasize, I know I said it'll be outcompeted by a centralized solution. But actually USDC is centralized because it has a multisig, and all of its contracts are 100% upgradeable. So it's like a very inefficient centralized solution that really doesn't belong on a blockchain or at least not a popular one with high fees. But again, DeFi protocols exist, and people want to swap USDC for crypto hedge funds to frontrun.

arandomusername 3y ago

Sending USD across countries, e.g from EU to US, is a LOT easier and faster with USDC than any other solution out there.

defiamazing 3y ago
That's because it has regulatory approval (for now). It's not because of a blockchain. You can start the thought experiment by asking why USDC is on Ethereum and other popular chains rather than own private blockchain. People could make payments faster. Fees would be lower or more likely zero.
- arandomusername 3y ago
  If it's not because of a blockchain, how come there is no other good way? It's not on it's own private blockchain because then no one would use it.
  - defiamazing 3y ago
    No one would use it because people don't actually want to send money internationally badly enough to create a profit opportunity. They want to interact with DeFi protocols, that's why USDC exists on eth, once the DeFi protocols die then so will USDC. There's no good other way because people don't actually want to send money internationally badly enough to create a profit opportunity.
    - arandomusername 3y ago
      Huh? International payments are a HUGE industry. What are you talking about? Western Union and Transferwise are both huge companies that specialize in international payments. DeFi protocols are a benefit, but even without it USDC would still persist. There's no good other way because of extreme regulations that harm law abiding citizens under the guise of AML and other junk.
      - defiamazing 3y ago
        If your application is evading AML then your scale will always be limited. I don’t know how you could possibly feel like that’s a serious pitch. Sounds like, “We’ll just evade the law”. I guess ICOs got away with it for a bit. They want it sure, but again, not enough to create a profit opportunity. Profit is revenue minus costs, so there's a lot of revenue opportunity (from the bank deposits by the way, not the payments), but the costs are huge. The revenue has to justify the legal headache involved with processing payments in under a minute. That's why the only live solution needs a DeFi bubble to support it.
        arandomusername 3y ago
        Not sure why you are bringing in ICOs in discussion with USDC/stablecoins and international payments. > The revenue has to justify the legal headache involved with processing payments in under a minute. See how AML regulations just harm law abidding citizens? Please explain how defi bubble is supporting it.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        defiamazing 3y ago
        AML is good, no I don’t. My turn to ask the questions. Is there literally any scenario where you'd accept that maybe crypto isn't actually useful and maybe it is just a big scam? Think about it hard, otherwise you'll waste years of your life in an internet libertarian larp. Bro USDC is multisig'd, it isn't decentralizing anything and it doesn't even need a blockchain except to interact with DeFi.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    If my aim is transfer money internationally cheaply and efficiently why do I care what blockchain it uses. Or whether it uses a blockchain at all.
    - nikita_789 3y ago
      You don't have to use blockchain, you can use payment systems like Arbonum.

everfree 3y ago

Why is it that no other solution has been developed in the 40 years of the internet, but you believe now is a particularly ripe time for one to pop up?

defiamazing 3y ago
Because there's not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache for most types of international payments, unless you have the added benefit of interacting with DeFi protocols during a massive shitcoin bubble.
- everfree 3y ago
  Sorry, but I thought you said in your last comment that you believe USDC will be outcompeted by a centralized solution. Do you believe that, or do you believe that there is not enough demand to justify the regulatory headache of launching a centralized solution? Those seem to me to be opposing viewpoints.
  - defiamazing 3y ago
    Yes, because Circle will either start using whitelists at which point it will shrink to the point where competition is trivial or it'll just shut down completely. If for some reason there's massive demand in the next decade for sub-minute international money transfers then surely CashApp will get back on that. There's just not, existing slower solutions work fine in most cases and not enough people need something better. Also important to emphasize, I know I said it'll be outcompeted by a centralized solution. But actually USDC is centralized because it has a multisig, and all of its contracts are 100% upgradeable. So it's like a very inefficient centralized solution that really doesn't belong on a blockchain or at least not a popular one with high fees. But again, DeFi protocols exist, and people want to swap USDC for crypto hedge funds to frontrun.