Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

tempo.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#981

Post by hippo77 »

ac29 wrote: post #685
madamelic wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think US banking needs something an Uber or AirBnB style shake-up to get their act in order. It's awful how behind the times the US is when it comes to banking. 2 - 3 days to get money from one account to another is beyond embarrassing in the modern day. It took the US something like 15 years to get chip-and-pin. Banks are still these monolithic entities that don't care to innovate or listen to customer…

> 2 - 3 days to get money from one account to another is beyond embarrassing in the modern day I've had next day ACH between all my various accounts for years now. Wires have also been a thing basically forever though most people need to pay to send and receive them. Same day ACH and FedNow are both out there too, though I've yet to see widespread implementation.

Try international transfers and get back to me

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#982

Post by hippo77 »

knorker wrote: post #536
apinstein wrote: post #151

Here's the play. It's very simple, and it's quite good. Stripe processes a LOT of money. The customers that get that money need to move it around. Often to banks. Stripe makes no money on that. Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc). Stablecoin providers make money on their float -- selling stablecoins means you get free deposits, and risk-free…

> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc). Huh? In the western world this is nonsense. I move 6-7 digits regularly, internationally, even between continents, for free. Convenience of cryptocurrency? Lol. Maybe if I want to send money to Nigeria or North Korea. Cryptocurrency was never more convenient. It's cheaper than Western Union when that's…

You literally describe the problem in your comment: banking works in the western world. It doesn't work for the rest of the world (which is a lot of people) but maybe you don't care about them.

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#984

Post by lavezzi »

pc wrote: post #340
jchw wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us are not really deep into the finance space. Maybe there's a good reason it's left unsaid, but the question I came away with after reading that page and this comment is, why are businesses finding crypto easier/faster/better? To me, it's not 100% clear exactly who Tempo is for and not for, and why blockchain is more suitable than traditional centralized database technology here. And it sounds like this sys…

Does that imply that some day users would be able to pay using Tempo? I don't think that customers or businesses should see Tempo very much. In the success case, Tempo is a platform like SWIFT or ACH that others employ behind the scenes to orchestrate transactions. "Decentralized, internet-scale SWIFT" isn't exactly the right analogy (there are clearly lots of differences), but it's not totally wrong either. Why are…

> First, stablecoins are now formally regulated in the US (with the GENIUS Act) and in Europe (under MiCA), so their use is now very explicitly regulated.

Which misses the mark given the context, since the GENIUS provisions aren’t yet effective or enforceable, and Tether’s history shows that regulatory arbitrage does exist.

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#985

Post by kortilla »

yieldcrv wrote: post #351
kortilla wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The developer experience is irrelevant when it comes to handling money in volume. Take the spacex example above. They are using a stablecoin to abstract away a bunch of illiquid and unstable foreign currencies. Getting rid of that huge pain of carrying 100 countries’ currencies via various banks is the value prop. The API could be cobol and it wouldn’t matter.

and yet, when you look at what comprises a stablecoin alongside the frictions unstable foreign countries have, you'll see why they occur on EVMs and not some other architecture > The API could be cobol and it wouldn’t matter you can probably get cobol to transpile to bytecode that EVMs can use. I get the point you're trying to make that excludes blockchains, but you don't make that point

If you thought I was trying to exclude blockchains, reread what I said because it wasn’t that.

I’m saying the API can be complete trash and whether it’s a blockchain or a traditional bank, the thing that will drive the decision is money.

>the third party, unaffiliated, developer experience is better on an EVM than it is is on a traditional centralized database.

The developer experience is completely irrelevant when millions of dollars a week are on the line.

The API doesn’t matter.

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#986

Post by knorker »

hippo77 wrote: post #982
knorker wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc). Huh? In the western world this is nonsense. I move 6-7 digits regularly, internationally, even between continents, for free. Convenience of cryptocurrency? Lol. Maybe if I want to send money to Nigeria or North Korea. Cryptocurrency was never more convenient. It's cheaper than Western Union when that's…

You literally describe the problem in your comment: banking works in the western world. It doesn't work for the rest of the world (which is a lot of people) but maybe you don't care about them.

I literally did, yes. That was not by accident. I spent two sentences on that. That's not a "gotcha".

Does this mean that you agree with me that when sending money within the developed world and its functioning banking system, cryptocurrency makes no sense?

I ask this because many times when people say "but what about sending money to the unbanked, or developing world without modern banking?", they don't actually mean it. They just want to drop that there, and then use that as a reason to try to convince you that cryptocurrency is awesome for sending money from New York to San Francisco.

> maybe you don't care about them.

Cryptocurrency people absolutely do not care about them. Not at all. I do. I don't want them poisoned with that terrible burden. It's incredibly condescending to say that modern banking is good enough for us in the west, but poor countries should just be given garbage instead.

So: Are you highlighting that part of what I said honestly? And we can then talk about the unbanked without implying that developed banking, where it exists, is anything but superior?

If yes, then the solution is clearly to bring modern banking to the unbanked, not to give them second class status with cryptocurrencies. At least in the long run.

If no, well then I don't see how you highlighting this use case is honest. And I see many cryptocurrency advocates being dishonest on this issue.

I'll assume that you're being honest, and replied yes.

So what do we do about sending money to Nigeria or North Korea? I'll admit to not knowing first hand the practicalities of that, not having actually done it. Have you? US sanctions still allow up to $5000 per year to family or friends in DPRK.

A quick Googling from other countries to DPRK quotes me ~0.7%, with no transaction fee. Western Union seems to charge 4% (actually I expected worse). If 0.7% is accurate and includes currency exchange, then that's actually not that bad. Credit cards here can have worse foreign transaction fees.

But OK, let's say the choice is WU or cryptocurrency, nothing else being available. If you're unbanked, do you have a computer, and the skill to manage a cryptocurrency wallet? If not, then I guess you'll need to find a middleman.

WU seems to charge 6% to Nigeria. I don't have data about what an agent / middleman would charge, but chatgpt says it'll be about 5-15%.

And even if it were 5%, would you trust one of these agents as much as you would trust Western Union? For this 1% discount? Can you trust them not to screw you, and trust them to not get hacked? For 1%?

I'd be happy to hear better data on this, if you have it.

So again, what is the solution for Nigeria? Is it to go cryptocurrency with its enormous complexities, costs, and trust issues, or is it to bring them modern banking?

Again:

> stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money

lol.

What do you think the unbanked would like more: A cryptocurrency wallet to manage directly, a guy in the village with a computer he's "pretty good with", or modern banking with FDIC deposit insurance?

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#987

Post by knorker »

knorker wrote: post #745
soared wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you doing it for free, how long does it take, and what happens if something goes wrong? These are the things companies want. With current methods you must take on risk to move money cheaper, faster, or without chargebacks/etc.

> How are you doing it for free How do you mean? Some banks and bank accounts don't charge. > how long does it take It depends. Some transfer types are bank opening hours only, though then it's seconds. Some are batch overnight ones. For some use cases you can do an "internal" transfer internationally instantly, with an international bank. And then on both sides it's domestic instant. With others you don't need that…

I should add, before anyone tries to "correct" me: Yes, non-CC transactions can also be reversed, of sorts. But again this is not a technical limitation. If you want to avoid counterparty risk due to a deliberate technical and contractual implementation, then contractual solutions exist for that.

It's not a glitch. It's by design.

Re: Stripe Launches L1 Blockchain: Tempo

#988

Post by mercenario »

pc wrote: post #340
jchw wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us are not really deep into the finance space. Maybe there's a good reason it's left unsaid, but the question I came away with after reading that page and this comment is, why are businesses finding crypto easier/faster/better? To me, it's not 100% clear exactly who Tempo is for and not for, and why blockchain is more suitable than traditional centralized database technology here. And it sounds like this sys…

Does that imply that some day users would be able to pay using Tempo? I don't think that customers or businesses should see Tempo very much. In the success case, Tempo is a platform like SWIFT or ACH that others employ behind the scenes to orchestrate transactions. "Decentralized, internet-scale SWIFT" isn't exactly the right analogy (there are clearly lots of differences), but it's not totally wrong either. Why are…

The question is, what from what you have said is *strictly* only possible by using a blockchain? If you are already going to build something completely new, what is preventing you from creating something that fixes all those problems and do not use any blockchain?
Post reply on HN