The protocol isn't promising anything. The people promoting it are, however.
> > You do in fact have to deal with legal requirements - it’s a requirement for converting into useful money and tax evasion has serious consequences in most of the world.
> I never said otherwise. Buyer can purchase the DAI on a KYC exchange that is regulated by their government. The beneficiary can report taxes on income and capital gains as they do with other assets.
Here's what you said: “without the beneficiary needing to set up a USD bank account or disclose private data to a third party.” How is that true if you're not breaking KYC?
> > Replacing Western Union has some appeals but it’s not enough to justify the returns which blockchain salespeople have been claiming, especially when the established player can cut margins easily and blockchain users need a fairly large just to compensate for currency conversion and increased risk.
> This is now a subjective argument about what you feel is better or more valuable. To some people, reducing commission for global transfers to 0%, with 30-60s finality and better privacy features is all desirable and valuable.
It's an economic fact, not a subjective argument. If you're just cutting out a middleman, you're not going to be able to make a greater return than the middleman is currently taking. You could argue that this will unlock some kind of previous unviable economic activity which will dramatically increase volume, but that's a separate argument and needs some data supporting the idea that it's probable at a level which would provide the promised returns.
> reducing commission for global transfers to 0%,
You surely meant 0% plus the transaction and currency conversion fees on both ends, right?