> Instant on-chain transfers avoiding trapped liquidity. If you're transferring money from financial institution A to institution B, and the transfer takes a day, you're either slowed a day in taking the next step or you have to somehow cover that float.

These are slow by design - abuse/fraud. How does blockchain solve that issue?

> * Fees that are lower than cards. Card payments are instant, which is often valuable (and superior to many bank transfers), but card transactions are also expensive relative to stablecoins. (And while card authorization is instant, settlement is not.)

Once again - CCs are instant because the % fee pays for fraud and customer service. What is to stop centralized blockchains from incremently increasing fees to the level of CCs over time? ...nothing.

> Crypto is punishing if you make a mistake, but, if you do things correctly, reliability is all-but guaranteed.

Once again - this is a feature not a bug. Things are slow because of bureaucracy AND abuse, not JUST bureaucracy. Crypto is only beneficial today because the actors using it are savvy. When the laggards join, we'll just fall back to the norm.

FWIW - the banking system in the US is awful and the experience to transfer money into other fiat is just as abysmal. However I think crypto's current idealism is a factor of the parties involved, not the technology itself. We're just reinventing finance...it's just this time with Silicon Valley in control instead of Manhattan.

▲

alixanderwang 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

At the very least, assuming you're correct the current slow infrastructure is by design, it seems good there are options.

A business can choose if they want

1. slow, pay for customer support and fraud protection

2. instant, lower cost, mistakes are irreversible

▲

pc 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In these matters, I always try to keep in mind that technologies aren't themselves disruptive; customer choices are. It'll be interesting to see what customers choose in the years to come.

	▲	mbesto 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For sure, but do you care to address the fraud/abuse aspects? FWIW - I personally would choose a quicker and cheaper transaction all day, every day, but if it came at the expense of losing my money, I'd have to think twice about it. You yourself said it best "crypto is punishing if you make a mistake".
	▲	utyop22 5 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		"In these matters, I always try to keep in mind that technologies aren't themselves disruptive;" That is NOT TRUE! Technologies that are disruptive are those that intrinsically possess features that present benefits that exceed the switching costs of existing technologies. Therefore they are inherently disruptive. The timeline of product adoption is decided by consumers yes. Which is actually preceded by (and accelerated by) visionary leaders who can figure out what the benefits of said technology are, where to best use it and then tell people about it (market the technology). Here's a simple example: graphical user interface. Anyone who saw it early on at Xerox knew it was so obvious. But the timing of its mass appeal, adoption and who would produce the preferred interface was questionable. This comment alone makes me incredibly skeptical about the way you think.
	▲	md224 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> technologies aren't themselves disruptive; customer choices are Technologies are themselves disruptive, as their introduction can shape human behavior. Choice doesn't happen in a vacuum.

▲

dcposch 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Once again - this is a feature not a bug

Are you really "once again"ing Patrick Collison on the issue of how payments work?

▲

mbesto 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm fully cognizant that pc understands how payments work, hence why I'm asking the question. What you can infer is this - there is either some I'm missing, or there is some ulterior motive here.

▲

sagarm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know who pc is, and he mentioned speed as a benefit without addressing the fraud / abuse implications. It's pretty reasonable to flag the gap.

	▲	neis 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Patrick Collison, the CEO & co-founder of stripe. His profile mentions his personal website: http://patrickcollison.com.

▲

jeremyjh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn't a consumer payments system. Certainly there are use-cases where fraud and abuse aren't very relevant. A network of larger businesses could find value in expediting transactions but they are all long-term players and can't afford to defraud each other. The system could make it impossible to hide such activity, and recovery through the courts is always possible because there is an entity with assets involved in a business transaction.

▲

jekrb 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> What is to stop centralized blockchains from incremently increasing fees to the level of CCs over time?

Then users will just go to a different chain that provides a better outcome.