Show HN: 10% off at Starbucks when you buy with Bitcoin
coinforcoffee.com
coinforcoffee.com
This gives you every 13th drink free (1 per 12 = 8.3% discount). I think this just crowdsources 1 mega gold card.
I guess if you average out the drink prices... I could use the free drink on the $6 soy latte and use the $2 tall coffee as 1 of 12 drinks to earn that. So I could squeeze out some extra % points that way.
If they're really creative maybe it does geographical hedging as well, using the cheap drinks in Florida to earn free drinks in Manhattan (no idea if Starbucks prices fluctuate geographically.
EDIT: details
Every users gets their own card to prevent tampering and crazy double-spend stuff.
The websocket stuff is a little touch and go, so please let me know if you have issues. Let me know if anyone has an issue loading a card or getting a refund, and I'll work it out.
Since that was an interpretation of categories in tax law, which are completely different than those applicable to money laundering, the IRS determination on how bitcoin is taxes probably has no bearing on any analysis of how money laundering laws apply.
Do you have access to a private API?
Are you distributing the barcode of a card you are auto-loading? (but then how do you know the balance post sale?)
Are you screen-scraping?
I think there's a lot of people in this thread that are v curious, please do tell :)
The short answer is a combination of all those things, plus some help from our partners. The economics is also pretty interesting. Happy to go into more detail over email :)
The refund math is also in the user's favor- more about that in other comments.
Disclaimer: I work at BitPay.
A 1.7% savings really isn't enough to interest me...
1. There's a finite amount of them that can ever be mined
2. There's no central governing body control the rate of inflation/deflation through monetary policy.
By definition this creates a deflationary currency. Meaning as a currency it gains value the more goods and services it can be redeemed for, and the more valuable it is the less likely it is that people will redeem it for goods or services.
Meaning if all of a sudden more merchants started accepting bitcoin then bitcoins will appreciate as it's underlying "value" grows, but people will stop spending bitcoin because that coffee you bought for 3 bucks today might be 30 bucks next year. In turn merchants will spend less money building infrastructure for bitcoins since no one uses it.
Does that make any sense?
To your statements now:
1) That's true, but doesn't mean anything if you put it out of context and the context might very well change in a couple of years. Crypto-currencies are evolving now, new ones are created trying to tackle bitcoin's flaws. Now seems unlikely but in the future some might be more successful than bitcoin. It's a new sector.
2) There no central governing body, but an investor with a big amount of bitcoin (say 2% of the total) might easily drive the price up, down or side-ways. It's like a financial (assets) market really, a little bit of miss-information and a massive dump of bitcoins will turn the price down at once.
It doesn't make any sense for a merchant to accept bitcoin if:
1) He is not the guy holding a huge bitcoin portofolio or plants too. Say Starbucks as a corporation starts accepting bitcoin today, in 6 month does a massive investment in the bitcoin market. If the investment is big enough the price will go up (supposedly).
2) If they have some inside information which allows them to predict with an acceptable risk the future price of bitcoin.
Other than that - and I'd go for that theory - it doesn't make sense. It's just a marketing trick. They are not expecting big amounts, just very small amounts because as you said bitcoiners are basically short or long term hoarders. But I'm sure they are ready to absorb any bitcoin drop up to a point, but not further. So I'm positive they wouldn't accept 20% of their turn-over being on bitcoin (if they are not feeling suicidal).
And I'm talking purely about bitcoin. I'm a lot more bullish on the future of crypto-currencies in general, but bitcoin has a lot of flaws that are probably deal breakers at this point.
That's a bit of a fallacy, because economists are not just passive observers of the economy. If there is broad agreement that something is wrong, they can recommend policies to fix or mitigate it.
It's like saying your system administrators failed to warn about every single unscheduled service outage. It's probably true, but that says nothing about how many outages they anticipated and prevented.
What you're saying is that 1933 and 2008 was an unscheduled service outage to you. I don't really think so.
Let's take another outage that happened this year to the Nobel Committee: This year's Nobel Prize for the economics went to three economists, Eugene Fama and Lars Peter Hansen from Chicago (I hope Friedman rings a bell) and a third guy called Robert Shiller from Yale.
The thing is that the first two are renowned neo-liberals. They took the Nobel prize for their theory called EHM[1], which states that the markets always now better and to make a long story short "all you have to know about a product, it's written on the price tag". Which is of course is not true. Fama was the guy who made the 2008 wall-street meltdown possible. A meltdown that tax-payers still pay and will pay for the years to come. So does really this guy who had a prominent role in loosing financial restrictions which led to the 2008 crisis really deserves a Nobel? Are his theories real? I believe the result is there for all of us to see: Hardly, if the state has to intervene to save the financial market then apparently, is not as efficient as Fama thought it would. It does not auto-adjust.
The third guy though is famous for stating the exact OPPOSITE from the first two! Which is that the market doesn't regulate NOTHING (otherwise moody's, S&P and many others would be out of business today, giving triple A's to Lehman's products till Lehman crashed). Robert Shiller has become famous in economic circles by consistently disproving professor's Fama's theory!!! It's insane!
So why did they gave a nobel to two guys who say something and a guy who became famous by disproving the first two??? I mean it must one or the other right?
Welcome to the beautiful world of economists (and not economics).
PS: I studied economics in Milan (Bocconi) from 1999 to 2003 but had to go home (change country) due to a health problems. Didn't like it much though...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
I don't see how the Nobel Memorial Prize is relevant to that point. If I had to guess, I'd say they got it jointly because developing the theory and giving it a formal definition was an import precursor to testing it empirically, and that seeing whether or not it holds in a given market is useful for analysis. Remember that this is a prize for science.
I can see how making more money with Bitcoin is different than with USD or CAD though, if I were to consider only what you've laid out. With the latter two currencies, I would have to learn about different investment strategies and figure out what would actually make me more money, things as a consumer I don't even know about. But with Bitcoin, I could just hold onto them and except to have more money in the future.
What I am trying to say is I don't think what you've laid out is something new, this incentive–to hold onto money so I can more the future–already exists with our currencies today, but Bitcoin happens to give a little spin to that incentivize–which is it'll easier to have more money in the future.
I would love to hear from a real economist too but I don't think it hurts to take our brains out on a little walk.
Bitcoin doesn't have this defense mechanism.
Update: refreshing the page seems to help
Update 2: I just used my code and it worked great! Nice work guys!
Edit: Up above it is mentioned that each customer gets their own account. So this isn't an issue.
This design looks strangely familiar... :)
I want coffee now not in 10 minutes.
It's could be even more advantageous if you sell the gift cards for bitcoins, which can be sent anywhere in the world and anonymously exchanged for cash in nearly any currency/country through localbitcoins.
Let's say you start out with drug money. You would like to get this money into the banking system so you can use it to buy a house. This is a standard money laundering problem.
If you turn up at the bank with bags full of cash, the bank will ask where you got that money from, and lots of proof that it was legitimate. They will also file paperwork with the government stating that you made suspicious transactions, or they might just deny you entirely. Obviously, you can't say "I got this money selling drugs" so you need a plausible explanation - this is what money launderers do.
So you take your drug money and buy lots of gift cards. Then you resell them at a discount. What you get back is .... cash (or bitcoins which are essentially digital cash). So the bank asks you the same questions. Your explanation is, "I got this money selling gift cards at a loss". This does not hold water, will not be accepted by the bank and thus does not solve your problem, or even take a step towards solving your problem.
I am involved with a company that deals with micro rewards. I am trying to get more info from my co founder who actually deals with it. I am guessing you are based in ATL. Email or tweet me. I am following you.
The other thing is- gift cards are all about vendor lock-in, and that's bullshit. Thus the focus on getting your money back in your pocket.
Edit: was too big (they fixed it)
Starbucks was good for us for a bunch of reasons, and also hopefully there are people in the bitcoin community who like their daily Starbucks.
Edit - sentence structure
...what's with the 6.3 MiB background image?!?!
You'll end up spending an amount of BTC that is equivalent to 90% of the cost of your coffee. So, an example: If you choose the $10 option, and $10 is worth 10mBTC (exchange rate made up to simplify the math), then you'd pay 9mBTC and have $10 available to spend at Starbucks. If you then spend $5 of that at Starbucks, you'll end up receiving a refund of 4.5mBTC (the equivalent of the remaining $5).
We can afford the discount by saving money elsewhere. No credit card fees, etc.
You do get a pre-loading bonus of bitcoins to play with and you can use those to generate profits - like 1000 people put $10 worth of BTC on the app, spend $5 on a coffee then you have $5000 in BTC to "play" with, eg to sell on.
This does all look pretty suspect.
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/adam-back-sidechains-can...
People should be able to spend their money however they want. That's what we're excited about.
Starbucks equals common denominator hyped hipster coffee charged for at premium rates due to its viral-branding and A-locations. I would rather drink water from a sprinkler at a toilet-venue nearby than mix myself in the crowd which is hanging out at Starbucks and let the you-are-our-special-customer indoctrinated employees serve me a coffee.
I definitely want to work with indie shops. It's a numbers game, though- I'll need shops that are interested to step forward and put in some extra effort for this to happen, because we do a lot better / get more people using bitcoin with larger merchants.
I love how my real question which received and answer from the company was voted down. Sorry but Starbucks is not really good coffee. I am writing this from the Philz in Palo Alto :)
That being said... claiming that Starbucks isn't 'good' coffee is just hipster silliness... Yes, I realize it's mainstream now, and your fedora fits in better at Philz, but Starbucks coffee is certainly 'good' enough for millions of people every day, and it seems like an obvious first choice for an application like this.
The comment about Starbuck was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I can see it being taken as Hipster fashion.
I run Ubuntu on my laptop and CentOS on KVM CentOS VM on a server.
Please drop me a line via email (in profile) or any other means (Facebook et el.) http://about.com/nleschov
Peets is a huge chain that's merely less successful than Starbucks. (I like both Starbucks and Peets, FWIW, but I wouldn't pay for someone to ship those to me overseas :)