Spark, New Markets, App Messaging, and Bitcoin Changes
blog.circle.com
blog.circle.com
My unfounded and completely wild speculation here is that dropping their trading services will reduce their expensive compliance costs, in-house development (or platform licensing) costs, and headcount.
[1] http://www.coindesk.com/circle-raises-50-million-with-goldma...
Can't really see the point in them now when so many other services offer similar stuff for non-crypto.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/11/30/cour...
It's like currency exchange booths that have "0% fees" but the buy price is different from the sell price.
I'm guessing they were just burning VC money.
Also, I hope this doesn't put downward pressure on BTC. There is already mounting pressure as the world invests in dollars considering widespread conservative political movement across the globe, and no one quite knows what's going to happen. As the dollar goes up, I'd think that would have another negative effect on BTC.
I see BTC crashing very soon, but in the meantime, I'm waiting cautiously.
Anyone remember dwolla? Probably not. They tried to do the same thing, but it turned out the only reason anyone cared about them was bitcoin-friendliness.
I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would want to compete in the "social money" market right now given that it's saturated with low- or zero-margin projects, often sponsored by large companies. Square cash, venmo, Facebook cash, snapcash. The only one of the bunch I use is square cash because it's the least "social".
From December 2010 until 2014, Dwolla claimed to protect consumer data from unauthorized access with “safe” and “secure” transactions. On its website and in communications with consumers, Dwolla claimed its data security practices exceeded industry standards and were Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard compliant. They claimed also that they encrypted all sensitive personal information and that its mobile applications were safe and secure.
But rather than setting “a new precedent for the payments industry” as asserted, Dwolla’s data security practices in fact fell far short of its claims. Such deception about security and security practices is illegal. Specifically, the CFPB found, among other issues, that Dwolla misrepresented its data-security practices by:
Falsely claiming its data security practices “exceed” or “surpass” industry security standards: Contrary to its claims, Dwolla failed to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect data obtained from consumers from unauthorized access.
Falsely claiming its “information is securely encrypted and stored”: Dwolla did not encrypt some sensitive consumer personal information, and released applications to the public before testing whether they were secure.
As for the change in business model, they announced (2) on a Friday afternoon after the U.S. election, with less than one month before the switchover. Some people were left in the lurch. (3)
1. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-...
2. https://www.dwolla.com/updates/focus/
3. https://discuss.dwolla.com/t/the-changes-this-dec-7th/3209/7
We don't have anything like any of those in Canada, if someone wants to try :)
It costs $1.50 per transaction so it's not practical for paying your friend $5 to split a burrito etc.
Are we sure they were even doing this?
Also over the past year or so it has primarily been China pushing the price of Bitcoin higher. So that also minimizes any effect this could have in my opinion.
(If anyone has stats on the spread between Chinese prices and Western exchange prices, that would be good to see.)
Personally I'd add that they appear quite technically competent albeit somewhat controversial.
All of it.
At once.
But how does it really work? Is it done on a requester side - i.e. I can request money to my bank account having details of someone's else bank account wholly without their permissions? How could such lax security be allowed in modern age? When paranoid EU banks decline my transactions to my own accounts with other banks, confirmed by 2-factor auth, it's impossible to fathom how one can electronically take money from someone else's account.
In theory they should also be verifying your signature but I have never actually seen that happen.
I suspect if someone in another state cleaned out your account it might trigger some fraud alert, but nothing is really stopping it.
Or sign up for a PayPal account and fill in both of those numbers, and transfer money from your account to your PayPal balance.
> the info needed to transfer money to an account is the exact
> same info needed to silently transfer money from an account
If I wanted to transfer money to an account, would I need the username/password/credentials for that account?If I wanted to transfer money from an account, would I need the username/password/credentials for that account?
Fun bonus, both of those numbers are printed clearly on every check you write, too.
(The UK system of account number/sort code does allow you to set up malicious direct debits against other people's accounts e.g. http://hoaxes.org/weblog/permalink/clarksons_account_gets_ha... - BUT the direct debit guarantee system is supposed to make them all reversible, and you can't DD to arbitary accounts, you have to be a verified merchant.)
No secrets involved.
Ripple was also issued a Bitlicense[3] recently, but their virtual currency is not bitcoin. Haven't seen word on Coinbase's Bitlicense approval, but they applied last year sometime and are expected (or perhaps already have received) their license.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitLicense
https://blog.circle.com/2016/12/06/spark-new-markets-app-mes...