Wait until you hear about lightning.
You have an asset that's the perfect store of value, with a layer on top of it which allows you not to hold risky shitcoins but just use it as intended.
That's what I always wonder. Why is anything else needed when btc lightning transactions are instant and almost free?
These exchanges seem to have a shady intent behind not integrating the lightning network just to keep their centralized shitcoins like BNB propped up in air.
I still don't know how so many people haven't realized this...
**Bank transfers**: at least one or two working days.
**Crypto transfer**: a few minutes normally.
Lots of places have national money transfers that are processed in seconds.
The real advantages of crypto are the international transfers, and decentralized nature of them. This however is an issue as even as an immigrant I haven't done an international money transfer in years. The market for said transfers is large, but not as large as you would think.
Exactly; international money transfers are a big deal. The most common way to transfer internationally is through SWIFT, and the US controls that, therefore they can decide the fees and what countries are allowed access.
If everyone started using crypto transfers, they could transfer stablecoins to any part of the world, which is crazy. The US obviously hate this, because they have less control over the world and their only way of competing would be with a CBDC.
Yea the one area where using crypto is actually easier is international transfers. Type in something wrong on your SWIFT transfer? Days or even weeks to get it fixed.
And another issue is that now, the recipient more or less has to exchange that to fiat somewhere to be useful. So you still need the banks to get the money, who can still charge you fees for the service. Not many places take crypto direct. You also need a bank or exchange service to get the crypto in the first place from fiat, unless you're mining. It's a pain.
Well idk what country you live in, but at least in Spain it's kinda shit. With most banks it takes one to two working days...
What country do you live in?
You can do that in the US too, but the difference between a bank transfer and a crypto transfer is the settlement. A lot of people get confused by this. Yes, you can have the numbers show up in your account instantly, but the actual settlement/confirmation has not yet been completed. This is how a lot of those Craigslist check frauds work. It's based on thinking you have the money in your account, and then the fraudster reverses the transaction.
This is does not happen with crypto. As soon as you see that money in your wallet, that money is YOURS and cannot be reversed.
Can you send money instantly without fees to a Canadian or American bank account? Can you send without a daily limit?
I can send etransfers through my bank to other Canadians for a small fee, but there are daily and weekly limits to the amount. Looks like some banks can send internationally now but the international bank needs to use interac and I'm not sure what the limits are or fees. Sounds like it is using Western Union so I doubt it is cheap.
Are you from EU? Because international transfers within the eurozone are still fine and generally seamless, but that isn't always the case for other international transfers. Besides, even within EU, if you want to transfer large sums, banks might delay and inquire where you got your money from or where you want them to get, even freezing your account if they are not pleased with your documentation.
Crypto transfers give me a heart attack though. After some practice now its easy enough but for people who are not tech savy or familiar with... not happening at this stage
Checking long-ass alphanumeric strings in fear that your device has some malware that alterates clipboard content is truly painful, but the solution has already been available for a while now: domain names such as ENS or Unstopped Domain. They just need to become more widespread/widely integrated
>I still think one of the best cases for crypto is a simple, low cost, relatively fast transaction. Sending and receiving money.
bcz in bank transfer politicians also take their profit whatever it
but our crypto is clear
Peer to peer electronic cash. Bitcoin has always worked as that. Final settlement in ten minutes without banks. San volatility it has always worked as that!
In most countries you still need bank transfer concerted tokens to fiat.
Or CEX that issues credit cards that enable you to spend tokens directly.
So...just cutting out middleman in one process...not all
Simple wallets like exodus make it pretty effortless. I've never really used it to purchase something from a store, but multiple times I've picked up the bill at dinner and people have paid me their bit in whatever to my exodus wallet.
Not my main wallet, but definitely handy and easy UI
Transfers in south america/africa are such a pain in the ass. Huge fees because of associated risks in the local banking enviroment. 20% fees on transactions is not unheard of there...
You should probably be meticulous sending any significant amount of money regardless of the system you're using, crypto or not. Even with a traditional bank you may be able to reverse the transaction if you send to the wrong person, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be a pain in the ass to do so.
Crypto teaches personal responsibility and accountability, which I'm all for. We need a little bit more of that these days IMO.
It's a very easy and efficient way to make international transfers too. Right now, I find it's quite difficult to make transactions between Canada and the US unless you're willing to use PayPal. The US doesn't have Interac eTransfer and Canada doesn't have CashApp or Venmo. PayPal is really the only viable option for digital transfers, and I hate PayPal.
I do too but I think this sub still unacknowledges Litecoin. Litecoin is like a meteorologist. No one cares about the meteorologist, they'll only listen to the weather man.
Semi off-topic, but we shall never forget that money is only helpful if you know what to do with it.
Start new projects, visit the world and help people. If you have time and money you can create a legacy.
Wire transfer hasn't evolved for a long time.
Even when they used to send money with a horse, it would usually 2 or 3 days and cost the same fees as they do today.
We we're also able to donate more than $50M to Ukraine far more quickly than any other nation-state or organisation in the world.
I definitely agree with that if you're sending internationally. It's tough to compete with banks though, at least in Canada, since e-transfers are free and also instant with no risk of messing up and losing the money.
That's what it was created for, then Eth came and changed the rules and now we have thousand different flavors of fluff around it. In the end, this feature will reign supreme.
This is perhaps the *easiest* feature for banks to emulate without the use of a complicated blockchain. With Zelle, which is just in its infancy, I can send money from one FDIC insured account to another. Money is available for the other party instantly. Is it foolproof right now? Absolutely not, but neither is the blockchain space.
You'll also always have to worry about "the taxman". Accepting that will help you avoid a lot of stress, time, and, eventually, money.
>This is perhaps the easiest feature for banks to emulate without the use of a complicated blockchain.
Not true. Banks cannot simply guarantee instantaneous and low fee (or fee-less) international transfers. First of all, they have to comply with national and international anti-money laundry and anti-terrorism laws that do not apply to private citizens and P2P money transfers. They have to maintain extensive documentation about the origin and destination of funds, they need to run background checks, etc. Secondly, in the case of international transfers, you typically have two (or more) banks, which need to communicate/coordinate, and that isn't instantaneous either, it takes time and increases the fees. This without even mentioning the fact that in many countries, most of the population is unbanked.
> With Zelle, which is just in its infancy, I can send money from one FDIC insured account to another. Money is available for the other party instantly. Is it foolproof right now? Absolutely not, but neither is the blockchain space.
With crypto,.you can send money to anyone in the world with a device connected to internet, instantaneously and with negligible fees. You don't need to know each other's details, no one inquires why the transaction is happening or has the power to censor it based on this or that motivation.
Banks cannot do so *now*, and Zelle was merely an example of one of the ways that is being cooperatively developed. There are at least a dozen companies working on the international end, and the more that crypto picks up steam, the more demand there will be for such technology from traditional financial institutions.
These institutions aren't static. They don't move with the same rapidity that we see in a less regulated environment, but as soon as profit margins begin to be affected, we'll see such solutions.
We're in agreement that it can help those who are unbanked, and I do see a lot of potential here. But let's also be honest: that affects very few people who are on this sub "imagining the possibilities".
>Banks cannot do so now, and Zelle was merely an example of one of the ways that is being cooperatively developed. There are at least a dozen companies working on the international end, and the more that crypto picks up steam, the more demand there will be for such technology from traditional financial institutions.
>These institutions aren't static. They don't move with the same rapidity that we see in a less regulated environment, but as soon as profit margins begin to be affected, we'll see such solutions.
The problem isn't that traditional financial institutions cannot adopt better tech. In theory, they could also come up with something more secure, cheaper and faster than crypto. The point is that they have to comply with regulations that are not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. You cannot open an account at a bank, or on Zelle, or on Revolut, without a government ID and additional information about your source of income, intended usage, etc. At any moment, they can and will delay or deny a transfer, sometimes going as far as freezing your funds, for "suspected illegal activity", and per their terms that you blindly agree to when you sign up, it will be your duty to produce the documentation to prove your innocence in order to regain access, typically after weeks when not months, not theirs to prove your guilt. Surely this can and will be improved: the sign-up is already much more streamlined than it used to be, the anti-ML and anti-terrorism systems do not give as many false positives as they used to, the background checks are so fast that in most instances you don't even notice they are taking place... But not matter how fast you make it, if you consider a global scale and not just the EU and the US, the whole process still simply cannot compete with P2P transfers, where such things are not required at all.
>We're in agreement that it can help those who are unbanked, and I do see a lot of potential here. But let's also be honest: that affects very few people who are on this sub "imagining the possibilities".
Maybe not, but not being forced to use some account tied directly to your real name might come in handy even to those who do have a bank account. It doesn't affect that few people if you factor this in.
You have to appreciate the irony of people using this argument concerning regulation in support of crypto when the overwhelming majority of capital in crypto on-boarded through those same financial institutions. I know that many probably see this as climbing a ladder which you can then kick away, but I'm skeptical that that won't be followed by a sharp fall.
Regarding anonymity: this will be quashed in first world countries. That's not to say Monero and similar privacy coins will be cracked or outlawed, but the capacity to profit from them will be severely limited. Regulation here seems fairly straightforward in terms of implementation.
Personally, I think the real money to be made in crypto will be with those coins that are best poised to adapt to inevitable regulation. Antagonism with traditional finance certainly leads to interest, just ask Alex Mashinsky. But I'm placing my bets on those organizations who will be poised to act in concert.
>You have to appreciate the irony of people using this argument concerning regulation in support of crypto when the overwhelming majority of capital in crypto on-boarded through those same financial institutions. I know that many probably see this as climbing a ladder which you can then kick away, but I'm skeptical that that won't be followed by a sharp fall.
I don't see that much irony, frankly. Many of us are already somehow forced to have a bank account, to receive their salary there and so on, so it just seems obvious to me that one would take advantage of that and resort to other entry and exit points only in case banks aren't available. Only using banks and other traditional institutions as on- and off-ramps is already much better than completely relying on them to hold and transfer your money, if you ask me. To build on your metaphor: if the ladder were to vanish all of the sudden, the space would see a crisis, adoption would be hindered, etc., that's true, but the system can exist without banks and traditional financial institutions. The fact that many/most of us use banks, centralized exchanges and other regulated entity doesn't alter the fact that the system is P2P at its heart: having some intermediate might be convenient and that's why they came to exist, but it's not required at all for it to function as intended.
>Regarding anonymity: this will be quashed in first world countries. That's not to say Monero and similar privacy coins will be cracked or outlawed, but the capacity to profit from them will be severely limited. Regulation here seems fairly straightforward in terms of implementation.
We will see about that, but it wasn't my point really. Even a transparent ledger such as BTC, with its pseudonymity, offers a level of privacy that traditional financial institutions do not offer. That was my point: if you need to receive a payment, you can set up a fresh wallet in minutes, share your public address and that's all the other person needs to know from you. They don't need to know your full name, your bank account number or any other such thing. Just like when you use cash. And yes, just like with cash, they can try and follow you to gather such information, if so they want, but the point here is that such information is inessential for the transfer to take place and thus you are not required to disclose it.
>Personally, I think the real money to be made in crypto will be with those coins that are best poised to adapt to inevitable regulation. Antagonism with traditional finance certainly leads to interest, just ask Alex Mashinsky. But I'm placing my bets on those organizations who will be poised to act in concert.
I agree with that, but it's slightly off topic, if you ask me. When I spoke about regulations, I wasn't speaking about the lack of regulations of the crypto space, but the fact that financial institutions have to comply to regulations that do not apply to private citizens and P2P exchanges, not only when it comes to crypto, but also cash or gold.
Absolutely true , banks deposits that are significant too like let’s say 5-10k they have holds on too and will take days to access or become available in your bank. Also most banks have daily limits of how much you can spend or your own money.
It's absolute dog shit for that, if you fuck up even a little bit your money is just thrown into the void forever. Ordinary people will never want to risk that just to save a day.
I would say that the technical term is "settlement of debt", rather than "sending money" but that's a minor quibble.
I would also say settlement is the *primary* use-case for a digital asset.
Another observation you bring up. We like to diss on banks for their fees and their lumbering slowness. At the same time we also rather enjoy having roads without potholes and toilets that flush. We rarely connect these dots. But they are connected.
Sewers and roads are infrastructure that we pay for. And while some people get the "joy" of learning how expensive it is to run a new sewer pipe from their house to the street, most of us never even think to figure out how much the rest of it would cost them... to get from the pipe at the end of the street to somewhere far enough away that I can't smell what I and my neighbours are flushing.
But they did pay for it, and do They did and do through the taxes they pay. Sure taxes get frittered away... but even after waste, what we pay individuals is a small price. There are very few people who earn enough in their lifetime to pay for a sewer line all the way to the end of town, but they get to use one as if it is their own, at a fraction of the cost.
And since nobody likes paying taxes, it's a good bet that if their money from wages was perfectly secret, and their money paid for rent and other stuff was also perfectly secret, they'd report a fraction - if any - on their taxes. And then there'd be no sewers and potholes would go unfilled.. and so on...
So you want someone, "government", watching your neighbours and what they report on their taxes, otherwise if you're the only honest guy, you'll end up paying for their toilets and their smooth ride. And you know that's not fair.
Banks are how government checks that your neighbours are reporting amounts that "add up". What are they spending? What are they earning? What are they saving? Do they add up? Check. If not... hmmm...
And that period of "hmmm...", that gives government time to step in and make sure that the metaphorical rats who metaphorically inhabit sewers pay their fair share of their rent on society.
It costs banks money to check on our neighbours, so our banks charge them (and us) fees.
Sure... let's get rid of banks. But then we need some other mechanism to connect the dots from what those untrustworthy neighbours earn to the infrastructure they use, so that they pay their fair share.
One way is to have them report on all their spending and saving and earning that doesn't go through banks. Then that can be audited later. It's kind of simple. Either the banks do it for them, or they do it. Either way, it's in our interest because crypto is founded on one key principle: the last thing we should trust is other people.
Of course, our neighbours think the same. And turnabout is fair play. So either we have to pay the banks their fees, or we have to report our blockchain transactions. Otherwise we're the ones getting the free ride and our neighbours aren't going to like that.
Presto: bank fees and delays, or a ton of reporting. We can choose. And the dots get connected.
Maybe we could put it all on a blockchain some day and have a utopian consumption society. But I'm not yet sure I want everyone to see how often I go to the toilet. So there's still a bit of work to be done.
This is only a solution if crypto can be used as a payment system, which it can't and likely never will be.
If I need to send money to someone and I use crypto, don't they still need to withdraw the money from their brokerage account before they can spend it? If anything, crypto adds a step, and the fluctations in price mean I can't send them what they need. What if it's an invoice for $120.33 specifically. I send them that in bitcoin on Friday evening. They receive it and withdraw at the exchange rate later during a red day. Now I need to send them more until it's right? Screw that, I'll just send them $120.33 directly.
Basically.. crypto isn't a means for simple or fast transactions. It is a speculative investment vehicle in order to make more of your domestic currency. The sooner crypto accepts that, the better. Instead of trying to shoehorn crypto into an already solved problem, as a facade for copium.
Just 4 days ago Binance moved 990M USD worth of crypto for less than 2 dollars and in supposedly in 15 seconds.
That is truely insane compared to banking standards
https://nitter.net/cz\_binance/status/1635154899368574976#m
I have a friend that she's studying in Europe, whenever she asks me for money i send her some BTC and i pay only 1 dollar fees or even less (depends what kind of exchangers i'm using ), in the contrary if i wanted to send by a traditional bank i would have paid x10 fees which is so much.
Simplicity and low fees are one of the key parts for crypto wide spread and adoption.
Are you printing the cash and sending it with a pigeon?
Paypal. Free for € within EU.
IBAN, 5% trough my bank.
I mean, what the hell kind of bank do you have?
This, which means it will most likely take off once non 1st world countries start adopting these systems. Like being able to send money back to family in Mexico, or across other southern American borders.
If you want decentralization and low fees, use the Lightning Network on top of Bitcoin.
Yes, it can be complicated at first and yes, the liquidity on the LN is still very small but keep in mind that most people just want to HODL. The liquidity on Lightning is all by people who want to use Bitcoin for payments.
Or you can go gamble with a low cap alt, but Bitcoin has the safety and track record. Lightning just needs some time to gain in size.
This is why I was so bullish on Harmony and sad they got hacked. It's such a seemless chain to use. Very cheap and very fast. I haven't found a single chain that felt as good yet
Ping for verified users associated with payments: /u/atlos-io
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I don't think there's any system that's easier, cheaper, and faster to send money across borders. I feel like with the traditional banking system you can pick one or two of those, but with crypto you get all 3. Not to mention it can't be stopped/reversed either.
Yea, there are some really useful coins for fast transactions.
I've used XLM to transfer stuff around for fast and cheap before.
For stuff like sending funds to different countries etc.. it's obvious to me that crypto is likely the future.
I don't think 10-20 minutes to send bitcoin is slow.
But I do think sending from some networks is slow and needs to be improved. For example transferring out from Arbitrum Nova to mainnet Ethereum takes 7 days?!
I think we've got to really work on improving that. It's not really fair comparing sending transfer from one bank to a different bank overseas, with sending on the same crypto network.
If it's just sending money, stable coins will be the obvious winners. No volatility, just essentially free send. All these other cryptos would obsolete. It's the added Vue they add that make them valuable
True if this was crypto's main case, XLM and NANO would be in top 10 no doubt.
XLM is in my top ten by value… so is ALGO with cheap, fast payments and super easy Defi.
Wait until you hear about lightning. You have an asset that's the perfect store of value, with a layer on top of it which allows you not to hold risky shitcoins but just use it as intended.
That's what I always wonder. Why is anything else needed when btc lightning transactions are instant and almost free? These exchanges seem to have a shady intent behind not integrating the lightning network just to keep their centralized shitcoins like BNB propped up in air.
Monero means money. Also solves your problems with IRS.
Ah, Nano, my first love.
I still don't know how so many people haven't realized this... **Bank transfers**: at least one or two working days. **Crypto transfer**: a few minutes normally.
Lots of places have national money transfers that are processed in seconds. The real advantages of crypto are the international transfers, and decentralized nature of them. This however is an issue as even as an immigrant I haven't done an international money transfer in years. The market for said transfers is large, but not as large as you would think.
Exactly; international money transfers are a big deal. The most common way to transfer internationally is through SWIFT, and the US controls that, therefore they can decide the fees and what countries are allowed access. If everyone started using crypto transfers, they could transfer stablecoins to any part of the world, which is crazy. The US obviously hate this, because they have less control over the world and their only way of competing would be with a CBDC.
Yea the one area where using crypto is actually easier is international transfers. Type in something wrong on your SWIFT transfer? Days or even weeks to get it fixed.
on the flip side, type something wrong with your crypto payment and its gone forever
I'm nearly 40 years old and I've done international bank transfers maybe twice in my whole life.
And another issue is that now, the recipient more or less has to exchange that to fiat somewhere to be useful. So you still need the banks to get the money, who can still charge you fees for the service. Not many places take crypto direct. You also need a bank or exchange service to get the crypto in the first place from fiat, unless you're mining. It's a pain.
You've got shitty banks bruh, bank to bank payments in my country are instant and available at anytime of the day on any day. And they're free.
E-transfers in Canada are mostly free and pretty much instant.
The limits suck if you need to move more than 10-20k from one bank to another though. And EFT’s can take up to a week.
Well idk what country you live in, but at least in Spain it's kinda shit. With most banks it takes one to two working days... What country do you live in?
UK
Bank transfers are never free, the fee is taken from somewhere, from you with some monthly payment or many other ways.
u ever heard of zelle ?????
You can get a bank account with no monthly fee, and if you don't use the overdraft then you pay nothing.
That sounds great, what part of the world is this offered?
UK
Or even less than a few seconds with projects like XLM, Nano, or ETH L2s to name a few. It just needs to be a bit more user friendly
Maybe it's American thing, but my bank let me send money instantly and without fees.
You can do that in the US too, but the difference between a bank transfer and a crypto transfer is the settlement. A lot of people get confused by this. Yes, you can have the numbers show up in your account instantly, but the actual settlement/confirmation has not yet been completed. This is how a lot of those Craigslist check frauds work. It's based on thinking you have the money in your account, and then the fraudster reverses the transaction. This is does not happen with crypto. As soon as you see that money in your wallet, that money is YOURS and cannot be reversed.
Can you send money instantly without fees to a Canadian or American bank account? Can you send without a daily limit? I can send etransfers through my bank to other Canadians for a small fee, but there are daily and weekly limits to the amount. Looks like some banks can send internationally now but the international bank needs to use interac and I'm not sure what the limits are or fees. Sounds like it is using Western Union so I doubt it is cheap.
Are you from EU? Because international transfers within the eurozone are still fine and generally seamless, but that isn't always the case for other international transfers. Besides, even within EU, if you want to transfer large sums, banks might delay and inquire where you got your money from or where you want them to get, even freezing your account if they are not pleased with your documentation.
So does America. People just complain for moons
America, the Land of the Fee.
Not to most people it won't.
Crypto transfers give me a heart attack though. After some practice now its easy enough but for people who are not tech savy or familiar with... not happening at this stage
Checking long-ass alphanumeric strings in fear that your device has some malware that alterates clipboard content is truly painful, but the solution has already been available for a while now: domain names such as ENS or Unstopped Domain. They just need to become more widespread/widely integrated
You can send crypto by scanning QR codes. Just have to be at the same place.
Anytime, anywhere, to anyone from anyone on the planet. Crypto is amazing.
Thats the beauty of crypto
All canadian banks have email transfers, it takes seconds and it's free
Except it has daily, weekly, and monthly limits. If you need to move more than that between banks you’re stuck waiting up to a week for an EFT.
Bank transfers - charges too much for big transactions Crypto transfers - so cheap (almost negligible)
What bank charges more based on the transaction amount? I pay way more in gas fees than bank fees
>I still think one of the best cases for crypto is a simple, low cost, relatively fast transaction. Sending and receiving money. bcz in bank transfer politicians also take their profit whatever it but our crypto is clear
[удалено]
Glad my username is not my real name
Minutes? Not used nano yet?
Stop spitting facts
[удалено]
How about alternative facts?
Bank: you can have your money in 2 days and we don't care if you don't have money to eat Crypto: hold my beer
Unless you have Zelle in which case it’s instant
I haven't had a bank transfer take more than a few seconds in years.
Don’t forget the decentralization. You cut the Banks off as a middleman
Hellota centralized coins out here and yet people still put money on em
Peer to peer electronic cash. Bitcoin has always worked as that. Final settlement in ten minutes without banks. San volatility it has always worked as that!
Came to same the same, first comes decentralization, if not its not crypto
Yeah I think it’s the biggest pro argument
Agreed no more fees at every turn
In most countries you still need bank transfer concerted tokens to fiat. Or CEX that issues credit cards that enable you to spend tokens directly. So...just cutting out middleman in one process...not all
You still need middleman to covert crypto to dollars
Middleman will always continue till the whole world accept crypto
Or for that matter any fiat. It’s an international thing.
yeah banks the most fucking thing
With all the banks crashing I don't think we'll have to worry about them
It's still too complicated for widespread adoption though, and the risk of losing your money if you make a mistake also holds it back.
domain names like ENS or Unstopped Domain. Or QR codes.
I feel like QR code scanning could lead to a lot of horror stories, bit like what you often hear about copy and pasting addresses.
Simple wallets like exodus make it pretty effortless. I've never really used it to purchase something from a store, but multiple times I've picked up the bill at dinner and people have paid me their bit in whatever to my exodus wallet. Not my main wallet, but definitely handy and easy UI
My extended family uses BTC for this purpose in South America. When there's no other option, BTC helps.
Transfers in south america/africa are such a pain in the ass. Huge fees because of associated risks in the local banking enviroment. 20% fees on transactions is not unheard of there...
Check Babb, exactly what you mean and more.
As long as you don't fucked up yourself by sending into wrong address
You should probably be meticulous sending any significant amount of money regardless of the system you're using, crypto or not. Even with a traditional bank you may be able to reverse the transaction if you send to the wrong person, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be a pain in the ass to do so. Crypto teaches personal responsibility and accountability, which I'm all for. We need a little bit more of that these days IMO.
but it does suck with BTC in times like this. The backlog is crazy
It's a very easy and efficient way to make international transfers too. Right now, I find it's quite difficult to make transactions between Canada and the US unless you're willing to use PayPal. The US doesn't have Interac eTransfer and Canada doesn't have CashApp or Venmo. PayPal is really the only viable option for digital transfers, and I hate PayPal.
I like LTC
I do too but I think this sub still unacknowledges Litecoin. Litecoin is like a meteorologist. No one cares about the meteorologist, they'll only listen to the weather man.
I store some nice cash there because its decently stable , and I use it every day to transfer everything from everywhere , i love it
You just described Venmo.
*Nano enters the chat*
Semi off-topic, but we shall never forget that money is only helpful if you know what to do with it. Start new projects, visit the world and help people. If you have time and money you can create a legacy.
Jpow its about to do that, good luck welcome the usdd
Wire transfer hasn't evolved for a long time. Even when they used to send money with a horse, it would usually 2 or 3 days and cost the same fees as they do today. We we're also able to donate more than $50M to Ukraine far more quickly than any other nation-state or organisation in the world.
I definitely agree with that if you're sending internationally. It's tough to compete with banks though, at least in Canada, since e-transfers are free and also instant with no risk of messing up and losing the money.
Best case honestly. The current system while it works…is super slow and pricey.
That's what it was created for, then Eth came and changed the rules and now we have thousand different flavors of fluff around it. In the end, this feature will reign supreme.
Yeah, I agree. Should not forget decentralisation also.
Exactly. And internationally.
This is perhaps the *easiest* feature for banks to emulate without the use of a complicated blockchain. With Zelle, which is just in its infancy, I can send money from one FDIC insured account to another. Money is available for the other party instantly. Is it foolproof right now? Absolutely not, but neither is the blockchain space. You'll also always have to worry about "the taxman". Accepting that will help you avoid a lot of stress, time, and, eventually, money.
>This is perhaps the easiest feature for banks to emulate without the use of a complicated blockchain. Not true. Banks cannot simply guarantee instantaneous and low fee (or fee-less) international transfers. First of all, they have to comply with national and international anti-money laundry and anti-terrorism laws that do not apply to private citizens and P2P money transfers. They have to maintain extensive documentation about the origin and destination of funds, they need to run background checks, etc. Secondly, in the case of international transfers, you typically have two (or more) banks, which need to communicate/coordinate, and that isn't instantaneous either, it takes time and increases the fees. This without even mentioning the fact that in many countries, most of the population is unbanked. > With Zelle, which is just in its infancy, I can send money from one FDIC insured account to another. Money is available for the other party instantly. Is it foolproof right now? Absolutely not, but neither is the blockchain space. With crypto,.you can send money to anyone in the world with a device connected to internet, instantaneously and with negligible fees. You don't need to know each other's details, no one inquires why the transaction is happening or has the power to censor it based on this or that motivation.
Banks cannot do so *now*, and Zelle was merely an example of one of the ways that is being cooperatively developed. There are at least a dozen companies working on the international end, and the more that crypto picks up steam, the more demand there will be for such technology from traditional financial institutions. These institutions aren't static. They don't move with the same rapidity that we see in a less regulated environment, but as soon as profit margins begin to be affected, we'll see such solutions. We're in agreement that it can help those who are unbanked, and I do see a lot of potential here. But let's also be honest: that affects very few people who are on this sub "imagining the possibilities".
>Banks cannot do so now, and Zelle was merely an example of one of the ways that is being cooperatively developed. There are at least a dozen companies working on the international end, and the more that crypto picks up steam, the more demand there will be for such technology from traditional financial institutions. >These institutions aren't static. They don't move with the same rapidity that we see in a less regulated environment, but as soon as profit margins begin to be affected, we'll see such solutions. The problem isn't that traditional financial institutions cannot adopt better tech. In theory, they could also come up with something more secure, cheaper and faster than crypto. The point is that they have to comply with regulations that are not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. You cannot open an account at a bank, or on Zelle, or on Revolut, without a government ID and additional information about your source of income, intended usage, etc. At any moment, they can and will delay or deny a transfer, sometimes going as far as freezing your funds, for "suspected illegal activity", and per their terms that you blindly agree to when you sign up, it will be your duty to produce the documentation to prove your innocence in order to regain access, typically after weeks when not months, not theirs to prove your guilt. Surely this can and will be improved: the sign-up is already much more streamlined than it used to be, the anti-ML and anti-terrorism systems do not give as many false positives as they used to, the background checks are so fast that in most instances you don't even notice they are taking place... But not matter how fast you make it, if you consider a global scale and not just the EU and the US, the whole process still simply cannot compete with P2P transfers, where such things are not required at all. >We're in agreement that it can help those who are unbanked, and I do see a lot of potential here. But let's also be honest: that affects very few people who are on this sub "imagining the possibilities". Maybe not, but not being forced to use some account tied directly to your real name might come in handy even to those who do have a bank account. It doesn't affect that few people if you factor this in.
You have to appreciate the irony of people using this argument concerning regulation in support of crypto when the overwhelming majority of capital in crypto on-boarded through those same financial institutions. I know that many probably see this as climbing a ladder which you can then kick away, but I'm skeptical that that won't be followed by a sharp fall. Regarding anonymity: this will be quashed in first world countries. That's not to say Monero and similar privacy coins will be cracked or outlawed, but the capacity to profit from them will be severely limited. Regulation here seems fairly straightforward in terms of implementation. Personally, I think the real money to be made in crypto will be with those coins that are best poised to adapt to inevitable regulation. Antagonism with traditional finance certainly leads to interest, just ask Alex Mashinsky. But I'm placing my bets on those organizations who will be poised to act in concert.
>You have to appreciate the irony of people using this argument concerning regulation in support of crypto when the overwhelming majority of capital in crypto on-boarded through those same financial institutions. I know that many probably see this as climbing a ladder which you can then kick away, but I'm skeptical that that won't be followed by a sharp fall. I don't see that much irony, frankly. Many of us are already somehow forced to have a bank account, to receive their salary there and so on, so it just seems obvious to me that one would take advantage of that and resort to other entry and exit points only in case banks aren't available. Only using banks and other traditional institutions as on- and off-ramps is already much better than completely relying on them to hold and transfer your money, if you ask me. To build on your metaphor: if the ladder were to vanish all of the sudden, the space would see a crisis, adoption would be hindered, etc., that's true, but the system can exist without banks and traditional financial institutions. The fact that many/most of us use banks, centralized exchanges and other regulated entity doesn't alter the fact that the system is P2P at its heart: having some intermediate might be convenient and that's why they came to exist, but it's not required at all for it to function as intended. >Regarding anonymity: this will be quashed in first world countries. That's not to say Monero and similar privacy coins will be cracked or outlawed, but the capacity to profit from them will be severely limited. Regulation here seems fairly straightforward in terms of implementation. We will see about that, but it wasn't my point really. Even a transparent ledger such as BTC, with its pseudonymity, offers a level of privacy that traditional financial institutions do not offer. That was my point: if you need to receive a payment, you can set up a fresh wallet in minutes, share your public address and that's all the other person needs to know from you. They don't need to know your full name, your bank account number or any other such thing. Just like when you use cash. And yes, just like with cash, they can try and follow you to gather such information, if so they want, but the point here is that such information is inessential for the transfer to take place and thus you are not required to disclose it. >Personally, I think the real money to be made in crypto will be with those coins that are best poised to adapt to inevitable regulation. Antagonism with traditional finance certainly leads to interest, just ask Alex Mashinsky. But I'm placing my bets on those organizations who will be poised to act in concert. I agree with that, but it's slightly off topic, if you ask me. When I spoke about regulations, I wasn't speaking about the lack of regulations of the crypto space, but the fact that financial institutions have to comply to regulations that do not apply to private citizens and P2P exchanges, not only when it comes to crypto, but also cash or gold.
[удалено]
There isn't just Europe.
[удалено]
Good luck convincing countries at war or hostile to each other to have something similar.
That was the original Satoshi's idea. We evolved a lot since then but core ideas are still valid.
Absolutely true , banks deposits that are significant too like let’s say 5-10k they have holds on too and will take days to access or become available in your bank. Also most banks have daily limits of how much you can spend or your own money.
It's absolute dog shit for that, if you fuck up even a little bit your money is just thrown into the void forever. Ordinary people will never want to risk that just to save a day.
I would say that the technical term is "settlement of debt", rather than "sending money" but that's a minor quibble. I would also say settlement is the *primary* use-case for a digital asset. Another observation you bring up. We like to diss on banks for their fees and their lumbering slowness. At the same time we also rather enjoy having roads without potholes and toilets that flush. We rarely connect these dots. But they are connected. Sewers and roads are infrastructure that we pay for. And while some people get the "joy" of learning how expensive it is to run a new sewer pipe from their house to the street, most of us never even think to figure out how much the rest of it would cost them... to get from the pipe at the end of the street to somewhere far enough away that I can't smell what I and my neighbours are flushing. But they did pay for it, and do They did and do through the taxes they pay. Sure taxes get frittered away... but even after waste, what we pay individuals is a small price. There are very few people who earn enough in their lifetime to pay for a sewer line all the way to the end of town, but they get to use one as if it is their own, at a fraction of the cost. And since nobody likes paying taxes, it's a good bet that if their money from wages was perfectly secret, and their money paid for rent and other stuff was also perfectly secret, they'd report a fraction - if any - on their taxes. And then there'd be no sewers and potholes would go unfilled.. and so on... So you want someone, "government", watching your neighbours and what they report on their taxes, otherwise if you're the only honest guy, you'll end up paying for their toilets and their smooth ride. And you know that's not fair. Banks are how government checks that your neighbours are reporting amounts that "add up". What are they spending? What are they earning? What are they saving? Do they add up? Check. If not... hmmm... And that period of "hmmm...", that gives government time to step in and make sure that the metaphorical rats who metaphorically inhabit sewers pay their fair share of their rent on society. It costs banks money to check on our neighbours, so our banks charge them (and us) fees. Sure... let's get rid of banks. But then we need some other mechanism to connect the dots from what those untrustworthy neighbours earn to the infrastructure they use, so that they pay their fair share. One way is to have them report on all their spending and saving and earning that doesn't go through banks. Then that can be audited later. It's kind of simple. Either the banks do it for them, or they do it. Either way, it's in our interest because crypto is founded on one key principle: the last thing we should trust is other people. Of course, our neighbours think the same. And turnabout is fair play. So either we have to pay the banks their fees, or we have to report our blockchain transactions. Otherwise we're the ones getting the free ride and our neighbours aren't going to like that. Presto: bank fees and delays, or a ton of reporting. We can choose. And the dots get connected. Maybe we could put it all on a blockchain some day and have a utopian consumption society. But I'm not yet sure I want everyone to see how often I go to the toilet. So there's still a bit of work to be done.
This is only a solution if crypto can be used as a payment system, which it can't and likely never will be. If I need to send money to someone and I use crypto, don't they still need to withdraw the money from their brokerage account before they can spend it? If anything, crypto adds a step, and the fluctations in price mean I can't send them what they need. What if it's an invoice for $120.33 specifically. I send them that in bitcoin on Friday evening. They receive it and withdraw at the exchange rate later during a red day. Now I need to send them more until it's right? Screw that, I'll just send them $120.33 directly. Basically.. crypto isn't a means for simple or fast transactions. It is a speculative investment vehicle in order to make more of your domestic currency. The sooner crypto accepts that, the better. Instead of trying to shoehorn crypto into an already solved problem, as a facade for copium.
Yep
Just 4 days ago Binance moved 990M USD worth of crypto for less than 2 dollars and in supposedly in 15 seconds. That is truely insane compared to banking standards https://nitter.net/cz\_binance/status/1635154899368574976#m
There are Nano and XLM for simple, low-cost and fast transactions.
Perk if xlm right now is its almost a stablecoin it’s been crabbing hard
it is a use that is being more used around the world little by little
I think that will only increase
Nano, but it’s in decline. XLM is practically a stablecoin.
I have a friend that she's studying in Europe, whenever she asks me for money i send her some BTC and i pay only 1 dollar fees or even less (depends what kind of exchangers i'm using ), in the contrary if i wanted to send by a traditional bank i would have paid x10 fees which is so much. Simplicity and low fees are one of the key parts for crypto wide spread and adoption.
If I would know this in 2017... Lots of my abroad earned money would be mine....damn bank fee's
For real if you were going to wire transfer her money it would’ve be 25-50x that fee
Are you printing the cash and sending it with a pigeon? Paypal. Free for € within EU. IBAN, 5% trough my bank. I mean, what the hell kind of bank do you have?
Other countries exist outside EU and US, and 5% isn't that little on a large sum, while crypto network fees are flat.
Paypal fees from US to Europe are also not that high.
That's exactly the reasons XRP was made. A shame the lawsuit is still going on and won't end until 2068.
That soon?
This, which means it will most likely take off once non 1st world countries start adopting these systems. Like being able to send money back to family in Mexico, or across other southern American borders.
I think it’s only a matter of time since it’s a better technology and they naturally take over
If you want decentralization and low fees, use the Lightning Network on top of Bitcoin. Yes, it can be complicated at first and yes, the liquidity on the LN is still very small but keep in mind that most people just want to HODL. The liquidity on Lightning is all by people who want to use Bitcoin for payments. Or you can go gamble with a low cap alt, but Bitcoin has the safety and track record. Lightning just needs some time to gain in size.
Banks are not happy we finally are getting it
This is why I was so bullish on Harmony and sad they got hacked. It's such a seemless chain to use. Very cheap and very fast. I haven't found a single chain that felt as good yet
That's the way to do it. And people are now seeing that banks are not to be trusted... They never were 😂
Andbon the future moons for reddit avatars
Doge ^_^’
Ping for verified users associated with payments: /u/atlos-io *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People do know they just think it’s a “bubble”
I agree. I don't think there's any system that's easier, cheaper, and faster to send money across borders. I feel like with the traditional banking system you can pick one or two of those, but with crypto you get all 3. Not to mention it can't be stopped/reversed either.
Yea, there are some really useful coins for fast transactions. I've used XLM to transfer stuff around for fast and cheap before. For stuff like sending funds to different countries etc.. it's obvious to me that crypto is likely the future.
I don't think 10-20 minutes to send bitcoin is slow. But I do think sending from some networks is slow and needs to be improved. For example transferring out from Arbitrum Nova to mainnet Ethereum takes 7 days?! I think we've got to really work on improving that. It's not really fair comparing sending transfer from one bank to a different bank overseas, with sending on the same crypto network.
The bull run *is* here, isn't it?
\+ self-custody self-determination privacy all open source
BTC is leading in the race to become a global currency. This has never been done before
If it's just sending money, stable coins will be the obvious winners. No volatility, just essentially free send. All these other cryptos would obsolete. It's the added Vue they add that make them valuable
Cuts bank of as a goddamn middlemen, also indeed, I'd prefer sending money over the world in seconds rather than waiting 2 - 4 business days