81–90 of 222 posts
Check out Algorand. Fee is 0.001 ALGO.
Is it possible to send money on the web - or is it iOS only?
Best of luck with the launch.
And before you tell me that this doesn't cover all currencies and countries: Ok, but it just shows that this is not technology problem (i.e. can be done with existing and better tech than blockchain), but a business model / regulation problem.
"We always convert your money at the live rate: the rate on Google." But this is a lie - I checked. At time of writing, you claim 100k GBP is equal to 131390 USD, while Google claims it's 131620 USD, a difference of nearly $300! Even saying "the live rate" is a lie. There is no one "live rate" (and therefore no "the" live rate). The price depends on your liquidity providers. IBKR shows "the live rate". Revolut shows…
It would be fine if the other side transfer rate is the same. 0.18% difference between exchanges could happen.
"We always convert your money at the live rate: the rate on Google." But this is a lie - I checked. At time of writing, you claim 100k GBP is equal to 131390 USD, while Google claims it's 131620 USD, a difference of nearly $300! Even saying "the live rate" is a lie. There is no one "live rate" (and therefore no "the" live rate). The price depends on your liquidity providers. IBKR shows "the live rate". Revolut shows…
We have worked hard not to have any middle-men that mark up rates in our liquidity provision, and are quite certain that our rates are fair and extremely competitive.
I do think that the takeaway from your comment is that we could build out a part of our page that allows a customer to dig deeper to validate this themselves. We understand the sentiment as there is still a lot of mistrust given the opaque nature of the market, and we need customers to believe that we are truly 3 GBP to succeed.
Our core thesis in building this product is that we will win with a fixed fee on larger transactions, given the variable fee nature of the current industry incumbents(either transparently disclosed, or embedded in the FX spread).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for following up! (BTW, double line breaks if you want to make a HN comment more readable, or double leading spaces for blockquotes) > We follow a "trusted devices" model, where you 2FA using your phone number for the first login on a device It sounds like associating and verifying a phone number is required to sign up and use the service - is this something you're open to changing? > I assure you there won't…
Hi, other founder here. Thank you for your feedback! >It sounds like associating and verifying a phone number is required to sign up and use the service - is this something you're open to changing? Are you looking for something like Authy or Google Authenticator here?
Precisely! Both are implementations of TOTP[0] - it's a simple protocol which doesn't rely on any particular implementation.
The other common one with that same characteristic would be Fido U2F[1] (for hardware keys such as Yubikey and Google Titan). If/when you do implement it, make sure to support adding more than one token to facilitate users sorting out their own backups.
Both are open standards that are well-supported with both proprietary and open implementations across platforms.
If you have to initially only pick one of the two I'd go with TOTP.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_one-time_password