3 ms·

I don’t understand why digital financial transactions are so heavily regulated and scrutinized while cash still exists. Governments have even basically soft-kil

I don’t understand why digital financial transactions are so heavily regulated and scrutinized while cash still exists. Governments have even basically soft-killed Monero which is pretty much the only way to get actual cash-like semantics digitally. Yet cash is still given preferential treatment over traditional digital payments. I understand the rationale behind both camps ie “to prevent personal/tax fraud, money laundering, and cut off funding to terrorists we have to give up privacy” vs “personal privacy extends to transactions and the benefits justify the increased difficulty in fighting crime”. What I don’t understand is the inconsistency between physical and digital payments. Anybody committing crime can just use cash so why even bother with all the annoyances with digital transactions? IMO we might as well outlaw cash because typical law-abiding citizens already have basically zero financial privacy, but are missing out on all the tax revenue and supposed safety from actually fully tracking transactions. The way I see it, cash right now basically only exists so that small businesses/individuals can cheat on taxes and to keep criminals on the USD.

wmf 2y ago
Cash is grandfathered but (in the US) it's really essential for some old people who don't use tech, homeless people, anti-government survivalists, and "mark of the beast" conspiracy theorists. (A similar constituency is blocking federal IDs and digital IDs.) You wouldn't think that's a powerful bloc but apparently it is.
- weitendorf 2y ago
  That is fair and I thought of that “old people might legitimately need it” case too when writing my other comment. But even that might only be the case for another 10-20 years. I would actually be surprised if homeless people remain cashless for much longer, if a substantial number are even cashless now. I am pretty sure even people without permanent addresses can open bank accounts and almost every homeless person in the US has a smartphone. Any homeless people not being directly handed cash or working under the table/doing low-level crime would probably have no reason to use cash. Over time, they probably will not be directly handed cash as much because I don’t think most people will keep carry cash if their only use for it is to give it to beggars. The other use cases you mentioned are definitely pro-privacy but clearly those blocks are not influential or powerful enough to get governments to allow for private digital transactions. Time will tell but I think it’s really only old people who’d struggle to adapt that are keeping us on cash.
  - wmf 2y ago
    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this. The fact that Sweden, Japan, and China went 99% cashless shows that it can be done. BTW there's a new scam where a homeless person asks for a small donation via EMV but they charge thousands of dollars and then when you chargeback the card issuer asks for your receipt which of course the homeless person didn't give you.
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      Japan did not, a few things even require it.
      - umeshunni 2y ago
        Maybe India more than Japan
  - ty6853 2y ago
    You generally cannot open a bank account without address. It is trivial for criminals to do with darks. Last time I was between addresses no one would open me an account even with a US passport as it failed kyc with no address. KYC does fuck all to curb crime and mainly used as a tax dragnet and control mechanism for the mostly honest.
  - pests 2y ago
    A lot of drugs are cash only. Even marijuana in legal states like Michigan.
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  It is not just for old people, homeless people, etc. I do not have a credit card or a smartphone and I always pay in cash.
  - wmf 2y ago
    You're a survivalist (whether you admit it or not).
graymatters 2y ago
Very simple. 1. Orders of magnitude. Digital transactions can be billions in single transaction. While making large cash transactions in cumbersome and unrealistic. 2. Because they can. Regulating digital transactions is simple. Regulating cash - next to impossible.
piokoch 2y ago
Cash still exists since there could be war, massive catastrophe, your bank might have offline hours, there could be internet failure, electricity failure. Cash always works. Getting rid of it is plane stupid and asking for troubles.
- sadeshmukh 2y ago
  I feel like you're forgetting that cash can also be destroyed, whereas an offline wallet with keys engraved into a metal card is a lot more safe.
sifar 2y ago
>> The way I see it, cash right now basically only exists so that small businesses/individuals can cheat on taxes and to keep criminals on the USD. sigh Cash is the barrier for interest rates going negative for too long. sigh
cafard 2y ago
I use cash for small purchases probably five days a week--lunches, small stuff from the store, sometimes books. I am certainly not cheating on my taxes with by spending cash. I don't see how the vendors are by accepting it, given that most of them will give me a receipt.

wmf 2y ago

Cash is grandfathered but (in the US) it's really essential for some old people who don't use tech, homeless people, anti-government survivalists, and "mark of the beast" conspiracy theorists. (A similar constituency is blocking federal IDs and digital IDs.) You wouldn't think that's a powerful bloc but apparently it is.

weitendorf 2y ago
That is fair and I thought of that “old people might legitimately need it” case too when writing my other comment. But even that might only be the case for another 10-20 years. I would actually be surprised if homeless people remain cashless for much longer, if a substantial number are even cashless now. I am pretty sure even people without permanent addresses can open bank accounts and almost every homeless person in the US has a smartphone. Any homeless people not being directly handed cash or working under the table/doing low-level crime would probably have no reason to use cash. Over time, they probably will not be directly handed cash as much because I don’t think most people will keep carry cash if their only use for it is to give it to beggars. The other use cases you mentioned are definitely pro-privacy but clearly those blocks are not influential or powerful enough to get governments to allow for private digital transactions. Time will tell but I think it’s really only old people who’d struggle to adapt that are keeping us on cash.
- wmf 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this. The fact that Sweden, Japan, and China went 99% cashless shows that it can be done. BTW there's a new scam where a homeless person asks for a small donation via EMV but they charge thousands of dollars and then when you chargeback the card issuer asks for your receipt which of course the homeless person didn't give you.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Japan did not, a few things even require it.
    - umeshunni 2y ago
      Maybe India more than Japan
- ty6853 2y ago
  You generally cannot open a bank account without address. It is trivial for criminals to do with darks. Last time I was between addresses no one would open me an account even with a US passport as it failed kyc with no address. KYC does fuck all to curb crime and mainly used as a tax dragnet and control mechanism for the mostly honest.
- pests 2y ago
  A lot of drugs are cash only. Even marijuana in legal states like Michigan.
zzo38computer 2y ago
It is not just for old people, homeless people, etc. I do not have a credit card or a smartphone and I always pay in cash.
- wmf 2y ago
  You're a survivalist (whether you admit it or not).

graymatters 2y ago

Very simple. 1. Orders of magnitude. Digital transactions can be billions in single transaction. While making large cash transactions in cumbersome and unrealistic. 2. Because they can. Regulating digital transactions is simple. Regulating cash - next to impossible.

piokoch 2y ago

Cash still exists since there could be war, massive catastrophe, your bank might have offline hours, there could be internet failure, electricity failure. Cash always works. Getting rid of it is plane stupid and asking for troubles.

sadeshmukh 2y ago
I feel like you're forgetting that cash can also be destroyed, whereas an offline wallet with keys engraved into a metal card is a lot more safe.

sifar 2y ago

>> The way I see it, cash right now basically only exists so that small businesses/individuals can cheat on taxes and to keep criminals on the USD. sigh Cash is the barrier for interest rates going negative for too long. sigh

cafard 2y ago

I use cash for small purchases probably five days a week--lunches, small stuff from the store, sometimes books. I am certainly not cheating on my taxes with by spending cash. I don't see how the vendors are by accepting it, given that most of them will give me a receipt.