4 ms·
Just pay them in stable coins. That's a solved problem.
by AustinDev 2mo ago
Just pay them in stable coins. That's a solved problem.
- MikeNotThePope 2mo agoBuying stable coins is a mild pain because so many banks think crypto is radioactive. Then you have to wait for your deposited funds to completely settle before you can withdraw the crypto from your account and send it elsewhere. Doable, sure. Easy & convenient, not so much. I wouldn't call it a solved problem in the same way you can hand someone cash, tap to pay with your phone, or pay by scanning a QR Code.
- Jommi 2mo agoNot anymore! Most places allow this very easily now.
- rvz 2mo agoExactly. Revolut is a bank that allows cryptocurrencies. HN really is living in their own bubble.
- stavros 2mo agoNo it doesn't. You can gamble with it, but it doesn't let you own or send it.
- rvz 2mo ago> No it doesn't. Yes it does. > You can gamble with it, but it doesn't let you own or send it. You can deposit (receive) and withdraw (send) cryptocurrencies there. "Owning" is a matter at the private key level which of course you use a self-hosted wallet for "true" ownership. But no argument was made on ownership. My point still stands that Revolut is a bank that allows cryptocurrencies.
- interactivecode 2mo agoRevolut does not have a banking license in the US. At the moment they are a front for another bank. Don't be gullible and believe blindly what the marketing departments tell you.
- Shorel 2mo agoIt works in Europe, which is one of the few advantages we have over the US.
- rvz 2mo ago> Revolut does not have a banking license in the US. The US is not the entire world. Revolut has major banking licenses in Europe, UK and Mexico. That doesn't mean it is not bank. Wells Fargo does not operate in the UK, but it is still a major bank in the US and it is still a bank. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is a bank in the UK. Just because it doesn't operate in the US, does not mean it isn't a bank. > Don't be gullible and believe blindly what the marketing departments tell you. Revolut is still a major bank even if they don't operate in the US (yet).
- freeone3000 2mo agoFor those who can’t use Revolut: WealthSimple in Canada and Chase in the US offer custodial cryptocurrency accounts.
- victorbjorklund 2mo agoPITA for a large company to handle stable coins etc with accounting, etc
- fuomag9 2mo agoAlso PITA for people as well, we have a 33% tax on crypto selling here in Italy on profits…
- tonyhart7 2mo agowhy its fucking high ??
- bdavbdav 2mo agoSame in a lot of countries - he said profits - it’s a taxable gain like any other asset or holding.
- reddalo 2mo agoI don't know. It used to be 26%, like capital gains from shares, securities, etc. but since 1st January 2026 crypto is taxed at 33% unless it's euro stablecoins (still 26%). At this point, I think most crypto investors in Italy will just evade taxes altogether.
- michaelt 2mo agoItaly has progressive taxes on salary, with marginal rates from 23% to 43%. The latter on income above €50k And if you've got taxes like that on earned income - shouldn't people with unearned income pay just as much? If your tax on investment gains is too small, you end up with an economy where the salaried worker renting a house pays more tax than their landlord, who owns ten houses.
- freeone3000 2mo agoI think America’s tax policy and redistribution scheme have made it the country where private individuals have the most money in the world - and that saying the landlord should pay just as much tax disincentivizes wealth concentration!
- DonHopkins 2mo agoSkip the crypto, cut out the middle man, and just pay the hackers in cocaine directly from the board of director's supply.
- olelele 2mo agoProbably a similar ecological footprint to Bitcoin too...
- _trampeltier 2mo agoYou got downvoted, but sadly we have 2026 and it's still not easy to send money to any bank in the world. You can say a lot of bad things about the crypto world, but thats a problem Bitcoin solved two decades ago.
- tonyhart7 2mo agobitcoin is neither cheap and stable
- reddalo 2mo agoNor safe. Good luck recalling a wrong crpyto transaction.
- rvz 2mo ago> Good luck recalling a wrong crpyto transaction. No better than recalling a wrong bank transfer or Zelle transaction.
- ShinyLeftPad 2mo agoWrong bank transfers can't get recalled? I know I disputed a debit card transaction and got my money back the other month
- Hugsbox 2mo agoIn Canada, every bank has Interac e-Transfer, essentially we can easily email or text either other money. It's really wicked, and I'm always amazed other places like America don't have it built into their bank accounts and have to use 3rd-party apps to handle sending money to each other. But anyway, the point is that it tells you every single time you send a transfer that way to be careful, because you can't undo a transfer after it's been sent. I'm assuming it's the same for most methods of bank transfer? I mean, debit transactions are surely a different beast.
- michaelt 2mo agoIt's not just the transfer of cash. It's also complying with tax and employment laws in the country the hacker is in, to the satisfaction of your legal and finance teams. Sure, in western-style legal systems you can call them a contractor and they can pay their own tax. Just don't employ them full time for long enough to trigger 'sham contract' rules that would make them employees. But your corporate legal team doesn't have anyone trained and licensed to give advice on Tajikistan tax and employment law, so they can't approve this proposed contract without hiring an outside legal expert. And of course all suppliers, regardless of country, must agree to our anti-slave-labour policy which permits audits of... One might say "skip that nonsense, just send the money" - but the larger the company, the more their in-house infosec becomes a load of uptight squares who love compliance and audit. And the kind of companies that can pay out five-figure bounties tend to be pretty large.
- inigyou 2mo agoWhy would you or anyone in your American company care about complying with Tajikistan law?
- ofjcihen 2mo agoLess about that. More about “not accidentally funding terrorism” (or, more realistically, not giving money to sanctioned countries which can have significant consequences).
- michaelt 2mo agoCISO: "We're going to invite random strangers from all around the globe to hack us, and pay them for their findings" CEO: "I'm not sure I like the idea of us inviting people to hack us - or paying a 'bounty' to hackers holding a knife to our throat. Will they at least agree to a binding NDA and terms of engagement, in advance?" CISO: "No, they won't." CEO: "Well, at least if the hackers are in poor countries, a $500 payout for a critical bug will be plenty, right?" CISO: "No, critical issues will be 10-100x that" CEO: "Well will the average quality of these reports better than those we get from our hired pentesters?" CISO: "On average these will be the lowest quality reports you've ever seen. But 0.1% might be gold. Oh, and I need to hire 3 more guys to sift through these terrible reports. Also our sifters might miss the gold." CEO: "Oh. Well at least we won't be breaking the law though, right?" CISO: "Uh, about that..."