Except you can't send between the two. Isn't that so silly?
You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it.
This is a benefit of the blockchain, a protocol for money.
You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it.
This is a benefit of the blockchain, a protocol for money.
Moreover there seems to be a misunderstanding, square cash allows you to instantly move money between bank accounts, via your bank, have at it, totally interoperable because dollars.
Hey wouldn’t you know it they support their own stablecoin, but not others...pretty sure that’s the type of centralization cryptocurrency/Blockchain was trying to avoid.
Of course they have to make more compromises to accommodate the side with the guns, than the immaterial one.
Same with Venmo, and PayPal, and everything else...
Venmo and PayPal are even owned by the same company. Have you ever asked why they're not interoperable?
The ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems.
None of them work together because regulation makes the operation of money so difficult that you need an entire company to run such an app, and they're all walled gardens applying their own versions of KYC/AML.
When you have a unified protocol, all of that melts away and the opportunity for money to have a higher velocity and greater ease of use is upon us.
This is what blockchain, and in this case USD Coin based on it, provide.
It seems silly to me that such a system would not become popular. Interoperability and protocols are good. They are something HN is typically in love with.
When google tried to remove basic support for one protocol for contacts from Gmail, people were up in arms because it broke interoperability.
Imagine being in that world with money. I don't know why you wouldn't want it. It's superior by all measures.
And it would be silly for anyone in that world to create a wallet that didn't support such currencies. It would be like creating an email client that only lets you read email from other users of the same service. That's not email, that's just a private messaging platform.
I think you have to look towards the future and see how, if adopted, things like this would make money easier to use. Rallying against that is silly indeed.
ACH is for cheap, remote batch transfers. Fedwire is for real-time, remote transfers. Cash is for cheap, real-time, in-person transfers. (FX exchanges, as centralized databases, are faster and safer than stablecoins.)
It's a bad compromise. If you want the cheapest transfers, you batch them. (This is the logic of Lightning.) If you want the most reliable transfer, you wire it. If you want to be sneaky, you use cash. (There are other reasons to use these modes.)
Batching being cheaper and slower than RTGS is fundamental to payment economics, irrespective of whether in an electronic database, armored car or blockchain. I go into this in a comment from about a year ago [1].
It's more fundamental than accounting. If a transaction costs X, aggregating N transactions into a single transaction reduces the per-transaction cost to X/N. The latter, batched process will always be slower and cheaper than the former.
(If a transaction costs Y%, aggregating bilateral transactions allows for "netting out," thereby reducing costs while increasing latency. For example, suppose Bank A sends Bank B $10, Bank B sends Bank A $5 and the Bank B sends Bank A $2. Real-time systems would see 3 transactions of $17. Net-settlement systems would see as few as 1 transaction for $3.)
If you remove these burdens by having a technology that is cheap and nearly instant for all payments, then there's no real need to batch.
We're not quite at cheap + instant with crypto, but there's nothing preventing it in principle. And when we get there, there's no reason batching needs to continue to be part of the equation, at least not with the same tradeoffs.
They're slow to enable batching. Fedwire is time-limited, but many other real-time payment networks are not.
> If you remove these burdens by having a technology that is cheap and nearly instant for all payments, then there's no real need to batch
Yes, there is. To make payments even cheaper. For any given transaction price and speed pair, there's a market that cares more about price than speed. You'll always be able to layer a net settlement layer on top of an RTGS network to serve that market at lower cost.
In any case, if we're arguing for RTGS, it will always be faster and cheaper to transfer money via database operations than on a blockchain. Fast and cheap are not–and should never have been–cryptocurrencies' selling points.
Additionally, I need a debit card or bank account to use them at all. With crypto, you don't.
The common protocol is that they both link to your bank account (“wallet”).
I think the interoperability is nearly solved for the quick transfer world as well. Cross-border is solved through remittance schemes as mentioned up/down thread.
Then, you say that USDC is superior, because it cannot communicate with the other two.
I'm saying its superior because if adopted it would unite the two.