Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but this time with no bank accounts for the end user Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed. > with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes You’re linking to a pilot. As it happens, I also worked with UNDP years ago. We similarly launched pilots to try and find uses for novel technologies. (Mine was in mobility data f…
> Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed. Even better, meaning that the smart decision was to add another rails (crypto) which after choosing something like Stellar and trailing it, they found it was useful for them and their customers, to continue using it. Otherwise it would have been scrapped years ago. > That’s what’s happening here. They are looking for…
You’re not seeing how something performative can be both profitable and useless?
Maybe it's semantic. I'm not saying crypto is useless as a moral judgement. The bumblebee keychain on my backpack is functionally useless. But I like it, so it's worth something to me. But it has never carried a key, it never well, and its artistic value is objectively passable as best. It's useless but with worth.
If we say MoneyGram's crypto integrations are useful as marketing, I'll agree. But again, as someone familiar with that particular example more than most, if those customers would have given business for money stained with mayo, MoneyGram would be slathering it on.