I wired approximately that much money internationally years ago with Wise (then known as TransferWise). Wasn't a hassle at all, didn't require any rigamarole, and importantly, didn't require crypto. What's the problem with using Wise?

Everything you mentioned that you and your brother had to do is because of regulation?

No it's not.

The limitations you're describing are only in place because the countries that are subject to these bank limitations present significant issues (money laundering, terrorism, etc).

Using Wise within Europe, also between non-Euro currencies/countries takes less than 4-8 hours most of the time.

_Your_ transaction wasn't about regulation.

What is the breakdown of transaction volumes?

In EU, regulations are heavy and the result is I can send money instantly for free. That’s actually what the regulations are for. To protect free trade from bad actors.

That only makes sense if Stripe issues their own stablecoins? If they let their customers hold USDC on the Tempo chain, then any revenue from holding short-term treasuries goes to Circle. Are you suggesting Stripe would force Circle to share some of their revenue with them or they launch their own stablecoin to compete with USDC?

So then by using this product you are de facto buying short term US debt lowering the debt costs in a way? Is that what you are describing? And Stripe makes money on that short term carry.

> I’m typing this shortly after buying my groceries with a visa debit card that was funded 30 seconds before the transaction over Lightning Network with Bitcoin that was sold at a 0.1% fee for USD and immediately then transacted on Visa debit payment network.

I think I'm confused. You paid 0.1% on this transaction, but if you'd done it with just a Visa debit card tied to a traditional bank account you would have paid 0.0%.

Am I missing something?

Unless I read this wrong there were likely two "traditional" banks in this process you just described? At the very least it sounds at least twice as complicated as how I pay for groceries with no obvious benefit.

So you paid a 0.1% fee for a less convenient way to pay? I just tap my credit card or phone, and then the CC company debits my bank account automatically a month later, essentially giving me a free small loan plus 2% cash back.

I am curious about the Lightning Network, 10 years in it is still perceived as a failure.

What is blocking its adoption?

One I can think about is it is hard to accept that if I pay $20 for a pizza today, 6 months later that pizza might have cost me $40. It is a bit irrational but it will prevent most people from using it.

This is where the stablecoin thing is genius, one can decide/optimise when get in and out of crypto.

What does a bank do? Many things that crypto can't but probably the number 1 thing compared to crypto ... the bank (via the FDIC) provides assurances for each account for up to $225,000 USD.

I wouldn't write off banks that quickly.

i don't know why this fence is here or who named it chesterton but i'm DAMN sure it needs to go!!

That sounds like a needless pile of complicity and expense that offers literally zero value in return.

Crypto isn’t going to take over anything.

> “what does a bank add to this situation ?”

In developed states (so, not the USA), regulation that protects the consumer.

Said another way, much lower legacy technical debt than trying to be a bank.

There’s an estimated 7,500 billion dollar turnover of fiat currency in forex markets daily.

wash trades go in, wash trades go out, you can't explain that!

The pinnacle of fake it till you make it. Still a scam.

Your argument is “ah yes, it’s a scam, but look how much money it makes”

That doesn’t make it…less of a scam. I bet drug kingpins make bank too, doesn’t make them any more valid.

Aren't you the definition of delusion. The past matters for a reason, it's the indication of how they started their fake scam. Sure, hard to touch them now but once a crook always a crook and taking pride in that shows your immoral nature in this late stage capitalistic era where money negates all the bad things you did in the past

> They make $30-50 million per day with just 200 employees

Right, but isn't this... bad? Like so bad that it could bring down the entire capitalist system if it is allowed to grow unchecked?

Tether had a big chunk of funds seized by a government/bank making them less then whole. They did the needful to get past that and now a distant memory. Scam allegations are made by old curmudgeons who drank the bitfinexed cool-aid.

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?

> 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 trick, and it's just instant by default.

While this has greatly improved (part of what I meant by stablecoin supposedly being more relevant in the last few years being nonsense), yes the overnight thing is something that's not perfected yet.

Compare this to stock sales. We're down to T+1 settlement now, depending on the market. Imagine someone saying we need to replace the whole idea of money in order to reduce from T+5. We don't.

> without chargebacks

Cryptocurrency advocates talk about chargebacks as if it's a law of nature they managed to find a loophole in.

What exact use case are you thinking of? Customer payments to a business? If you want to reduce (though not eliminate) chargebacks and risk, those businesses are already declining CC, and only accept debit card and bank transfers as payment?

There's a reason most companies don't want to do that, because there's a good reason customers choose to just go elsewhere if they do.

Chargebacks were not an accident, just like "being stuck in KYC" was a deliberate design choice.

"If we do this then we can't get stuck in KYC" is not clever, it's just indistinguishible from crime, and quite possibly is crime. (structuring)

Sorry, forgot to reply to this part:

> and what happens if something goes wrong?

If something goes wrong I have a chance to get my money back. Unlike with cryptocurrency, where it's just gone forever.

If fact things have gone wrong with fiat, and it's always been fixable.

Are you being sarcastic? That's literally the most broken thing about cryptocurrency.