* Nailed it *
I've long said the killer app for blockchain already exists: international money laundering and untraceable transfers.
This also happens to be the precise use case where folks want to "evade conventional and easier systems".
* Nailed it *
I've long said the killer app for blockchain already exists: international money laundering and untraceable transfers.
This also happens to be the precise use case where folks want to "evade conventional and easier systems".
Then, Crypto at its worst is far better than international Wire Transfers, etc.
Let’s say I’m invoicing someone abroad for $100k USD.
Today they send me a wire transfer. It costs about 25 USD (fixed fee, but in this case 0.025% of the transaction, i.e. negligible) and normally completes the same day.
The payment is made in the currency of my invoice, so I’m guaranteed to receive the right amount. (Any currency exchange is the sender’s responsibility. But a lot of companies maintain accounts in various currencies, so they probably have USD at hand.)
How does crypto payment improve anything here? Exchanges just add extra steps. The extreme volatility of Bitcoin means that, by the time an exchange is processing my $100k withdrawal, it might be worth $90k. It’s not a useful currency if it goes up and down 10% in a day.
How does using one of these products let me access the money faster than a wire between the sender’s USD account and mine?
> unregulated
Depending on your perspective, this is either a feature or a bug. In my opinion, a big feature.
> you have to move the money to a real bank to use it
Well yes, that's one of the main hurdles right now caused mainly by lack of adoption. It's not a fundamental problem with the tech; in fact, it's the very kind of problem that would be solved by it going mainstream.
> How does using one of these products let me access the money faster than a wire between the sender’s USD account and mine?
This one is easy: 6 Bitcoin confirmations takes about an hour, and only a few minutes for Ethereum. Much, much faster than wire transfers.
I live in New York now, but previously I lived in Europe and UK. Bank transfers there are instant. If you want to send 20k EUR from Finland to Spain, it can be done immediately, 24/7, with minimal fees. Same in UK for GBP transactions.
So it’s perfectly possible to do this without a cryptocurrency. It takes some political will though. But then again, it also takes political will to prevent cryptocurrency exchanges from being shut down if they truly threatened central banks.
US wire transfers seem to depend entirely on goodwill of banks. I regularly send wires between Wells Fargo and Schwab, and they always complete in a few hours. Yes, it sucks that banks get away with bad service. But routing money through unregulated cryptobanks isn’t a long-term fix because the regulators will come for them.
https://news.bitcoin.com/central-bank-of-nigeria-orders-bank...
I guess if the use case is “I want to send $1M from Iran to an American who will distribute the money to Nigerian accounts”... Then yes, that is presumably easier to execute in crypto. But there are also pretty good reasons why countries want to keep an eye on that kind of flows.
Your story about it being easy and cheap to do via remittances or whatever is pure fiction. Any traditional mechanism is at least two of slow, expensive, and onerous.
What country has the banking infrastructure to support easy $50k-equivalent withdrawals from a local Bitcoin exchange, but not for receiving wires?
US Bank -> Wire -> IBKR -> Wire -> SG Bank (or whatever)
Usually this takes at least 5-9 business days end-to-end. (Wire delay, withdrawal hold, wire delay on the other end.)
A bitcoin transaction takes a few minutes, and if your counterparty doesn't want Bitcoin, there's probably an exchange with an entity in the destination country, so you only need to wait for the second wire delay.
Some banks charge up to 2% for currency conversion, but surely that’s better than the 10-15% lottery involved in Bitcoin? Unless you want to have a gambling aspect to your invoices.
My suspicion is that your mental model for comparing volatility and loss is incomplete, given that you didn’t mention anything about the size of the transfer compared to your wealth, or anything else about local risk-aversion/utility convexity.
That’s fine, but I don’t think it aligns with what most people want from their money transfers.
To me it is unclear what issue there is to solve unless your country has messed up banks.