Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

wave.com

31–40 of 227 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#31
Cryptocurrencies have never claimed they address the hardest parts of financial inclusion. Cryptocurrencies solve the issue of trust.

> We need to keep track of our customers’ account balances.

Right. That's what the blockchain is able to do. It can assert that you, who says you have 1 bitcoin in your wallet, actually really have 1 bitcoin in your wallet (assuming no attack vectors such as 51% attack).

> We need them to trust that their Wave balance is correct and Wave won’t lose the money.

This is the same argument as above.

> We need to comply with relevant regulations—know-your-customer laws, capitalization requirements, account limits, etc.

Not something cryptocurrencies have claimed they can solve.

> We need to provide an easy way for users to exchange their balance for cash and vice versa.

This is an implementation detail, and entirely depends on how the UX of the wallet is. Sure running a CLI tool and GUI that looks like it's from 2008 (at least it was last time I looked at bitcoin's GUI) isn't great UX, but you can build a different GUI for it. Something plenty of exchanges have already done.

> Of course, the above aren’t the main use cases of cryptocurrency today: those are speculation, theft, extortion, more theft, drugs, even more theft, and speeding up climate change. It remains to be seen whether legitimate, productive uses of cryptocurrency will ever justify the hype. We hope so!

There it is. This is just an article blindly bashing cryptocurrencies. I implore you to ask yourself, what has previously been used to do all the above? That's right. Fiat currencies such as the GBP, USD, and other currencies.

I may possibly be biased, because, I certainly believe cryptocurrency has its place, though I don't believe it will replace fiat. But this article is just unnecessary fear mongering with zero merit.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another problem, which is the unit of account. What currency are prices posted in? It's going to be very hard to displace fait on this front. I don't think cryptos can become this until they are as stable as existing currency. They aren't even used as currency or behave like one. More like gold or stocks and present.

I don’t think this matters. Wallets can convert between the two trivially. Acceptance as a method of payment is what matters. What matters more is acceptance as a method of savings.

It matters for mass adoption. Why would I want to be paid, or pay in, something other than the primary currency that matches all of the prices?

It's not a technical problem, it's about human behavior

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#34

Yet another middle man stating that crypto is not the way to go. Of course they are going to say that, they lose their 1% transaction fee.

Because there are no fees or middlemen in crypto.

Never mind that it costs $50 worth in fees to send a penny on Ethereum, and I need to convert my money to casino tokens on some scammy exchange first.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#35
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> multi-region durability Why is this important? Why can't they get by with a traditional main server plus some backups with a sync, plus failover when the main server goes down? It seems to me that all of your questions are issues that have been often discussed over the last 20 years, and they all have well known answers, except perhaps "multi-region durability". Leave that out, and you've well known answers for you…

"Why is this important?" Because without multi-region or multi-AZ durability, Wave could lose balances. For example, in the event of a DC fire. "Why can't they get by with a traditional main server plus some backups with a sync" Because without distributed strict serializability, Wave would also be risking the loss of data back to the last backup. However, I'm assuming here that Wave are running consensus around Post…

Not losing transactions with a database is not exactly terra incognita.

> Because without distributed strict serializability

Depends what you mean by "distributed". A simple 2-phase commit would do it. Or hell, just a write-ahead log on the application layer.

> Postgres just doesn't seem like the best way to get distributed failover safely

That may be so. But are you arguing in favour of blockchain? When was the last time a real bank forgot your bank balance? They never used blockchains for this.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#36
post #34

Yet another middle man stating that crypto is not the way to go. Of course they are going to say that, they lose their 1% transaction fee.

Because there are no fees or middlemen in crypto. Never mind that it costs $50 worth in fees to send a penny on Ethereum, and I need to convert my money to casino tokens on some scammy exchange first.

You can use any other blockchain. Why pick Ethereum?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#37
post #31

Cryptocurrencies have never claimed they address the hardest parts of financial inclusion. Cryptocurrencies solve the issue of trust. > We need to keep track of our customers’ account balances. Right. That's what the blockchain is able to do. It can assert that you, who says you have 1 bitcoin in your wallet, actually really have 1 bitcoin in your wallet (assuming no attack vectors such as 51% attack). > We need them…

Trust is the biggest issue with cryptocurrency. I can trust my bank + the government to keep my money safe. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, I can’t trust an exchange and keeping your own wallet is extremely risky.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#39
post #15

Yet another middle man stating that crypto is not the way to go. Of course they are going to say that, they lose their 1% transaction fee.

Things is, companies like this solve a real world problem for real people in developing countries now . At least where I am, Colombia, crypto has utterly failed to do this. The target audience of such products doesn't care much about some hypothetical ifs and whens of the future.

I live in Argentina and crypto is the best solution available today. I've tried multiple services like Paypal, Payoneer, Wise, Bankera, Paysera, Wester Union, etc. They all have the same issues.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#40
post #14

Yet another middle man stating that crypto is not the way to go. Of course they are going to say that, they lose their 1% transaction fee.

Isn't the cost generally substantially higher than 1% if directly using the blockchain [depends on transaction size and urgency/timeliness I suppose]? But yes, you are right there is a competitive pressure/force at work here.

I just made a 400 USDC transfer. I payed 1 USDC in fees.
Post reply on HN