I was about to make a comment asking how viable this could be in poor nations due to btc transaction fees, but apparently they are way down compared to a few months ago. Average fee now is about 2$ compared to 10-20$ several weeks ago. I'm glad the Nigerians are actually using btc for its intended function!
Still too high though! There are some layer 2 systems that sit on-top of blockchain that help reduce the fees. Hopefully one day it'll be cheap for developing countries :)
You don't need to pay transaction fees on every payment. If you and your target are using the same vendor (no private wallet), there is no fee and no delay.
The typical central bank scam in developing countries is to make them ostensibly independent, but in reality they print new money and hand it to politically favored industries and entities. It allows the ruling class to loot their citizens very efficiently. Furthermore their stranglehold on remittances, where dollars are sent back by emigres and then converted into the local fiat scam coin, then enables them to centrally control what gets imported as they have the bulk of dollars.
Bitcoin and other cryptos fix this scam and enable people to not lose 5 to 90% of their money per year to inflation. It’s really not hard to understand and why hacker news can’t wrap their heads around why crypto has utility is a lack of awareness of how the average government operates.
Crypto certainly doesn't offer price stability when it can go up or down by 5%. And, although you find the idea of defunding the Nigerian government appealing, what would replace it would be far more deadly.
Price stability compared to what though? I think this is an important question because currency risks are going to be relative to your other options. If you live in a place where the local currency fluctuates like crazy anyway, or worse debases substantially each and every year, there's a lot less to lose from crypto instability compared to if you live somewhere with a stable local currency.
Crypto can be effectively stopped - but it will take the application of violence. No one should be any illusion though - nation states who's cohesion is threatened (read : ability to raise tax) will not hesitate to use violence to preserve themselves.
Would it not be easy for a state actor with a large amount of resorces be able to launch an attack on the network by providing most of the mining capacity for a short burst and effectively take control of the currency? I thought that was a thing.
Miners only control transaction inclusion/ordering. That's the only thing that a 51% attack will grant you. You still can't forge coins or make unauthorized transfers. You can do double spend attacks and tank the trust of the network, but I'm skeptical whether that's actually worth it. It's probably cheaper to send death squads to users/merchants/exchanges.
Yup, nation states should apply violence to their own productive populations so they can collect tax in perpetuity from the dead bodies they leave in their wake.
Cryptocurrency is more likely to become a powerful tool to the rich and powerful with even less accountability than there is now than it is to become an incredible boon to the "average person." There's a difference between distributed and decentralized. Money and power can buy a lot of the distribution.
And what, exactly, do you think you're fighting?
Inflation or inflationary policies? Places to park money that are better than bits or gold have existed for a long time.
Surveillance? An indelible ledger has its downsides here.
Technology is more often a magnifier of existing human dynamics rather than a qualitative change. Especially one that seeks to replace existing tech. If you think it's going to produce a fundamental change, why is this different?
>us little people should support anything that gives the average person a fighting chance against the rich and powerful.
I don't think that I have a chance in heaven or hell to navigate a completely opaque ecosystem where wash trading sets the value minute to minute and the mechanisms of realizing that value are run to make money off the realisation.
Even in crypto, wash trading is illegal. It is also significantly more prohibitively expensive to wash trade a security with a market cap of $750T. If you were to try wash trading from a country where it's legal, you might be able to get away with it. But at that point you might as well wash trade in forex.
I tend to agree. There are legitimate use cases, but overall it's unclear whether "the little guys" are really the main use case or how much the average Nigerian (or anyone else except the ultra wealthy) might benefit.
Now if your point is that some wealthy elites want to take power away from other wealthy elites, I'd say this is a more accurate take on the situation. For example, being able to circumvent taxes, or being able to manipulate markets on a global scale.
Anyone can buy crypto. Not understanding how it's only for wealthy elites.
And Mr. Palmer is out of crypto. Good for him. And the solution to reign in fiat-based crony capitalism is what?
I 100% agree with the premise that the ultra-wealthy are finally getting on board with crypto and will pollute it with the same manipulation they've used in other markets. But that still doesn't mean it can't be used by the average person to build wealth if done correctly.
Can everyone just tweet and move markets? Does the average person need hard to trace currencies to evade taxes? Does the average person have stakes in large exchanges, or stand to gain anything by a loose (read: non-existent) regulatory environment?
The average person really doesn't need many of the use cases that crypto provides, as of today. Most of the "normal people use cases" have yet to materialize. I really struggle with this narrative, because it just doesn't reflect any sense of reality. I own crypto, I heavily participate in the space, and yet I don't get people that think a mother of 3 needs to own Eth in any practical sense.
The vast majority of the article focuses on speculative trading, not day to day activities. There's a small paragraph on paying employees, but really it's just the mismanaged finances of Nigeria providing that need. Replace "Bitcoin" with "USD" or "seashells" and it's effectively the same thing. Sure, if you're the 1-2 countries in the world with 200% daily inflation, it makes sense. The vast majority of crypto holders (and users here) come from relatively stable western countries with strong regulatory environments with stable central banks.
It's this narrative of "rich western citizens" talking about "real world use cases" that completely diverge from their day to day which is the ultimate irony. Think of the poor Africans! Said no one from Coinbase or Binance. Think of the use cases! Said the wealthy SWE speculatively trading shitcoins, x5 leverage to the gills.
There are real world use cases, but likely if you're posting here on your macbook, they do not apply to you. People don't give a shit about venezuela or Nigeria, it's just greed.
Did we read the same article? The theme to me seemed to be around people using it to store wealth and keep businesses running despite bank account closures - not speculation.
Why not read the actual Twitter thread and see if the argument has merit? Or engage the summary that the GP brought into the thread instead of pretending the only relevant point in play is the authority of Palmer?
And finally, why not acknowledge that maybe someone who created a coin that took off might have some worthwhile insight?
I did read it. Not super impressed, but glad he has the freedom to say what he wants.
Yes, crypto is being manipulated and distorted by the wealthy and powerful. It's sad to see. But it's still beneficial to the average person to have other options outside of the current system.
Apparently? There is no real proof this has brought mostly normal people in Nigeria out of poverty, at least at large enough numbers to be believed. This is just some yarn spun up by proponents of cryptocurrency to rally more to their cause.
I'd be shocked if most people in Nigeria even have a personal computer and reliable internet. That's how impoverished most of them are.
> I'd be shocked if most people in Nigeria even have a personal computer and reliable internet. That's how impoverished most of them are.
I did a little research on this for a job last year and internet access/mobile phone ownership numbers are far higher than I expected. Mobile payments are already a very common form of transaction in Africa. The Gates Foundation mentioned that one of the big issues with their current infrastructure is middle-men fees when talking about remittances between African countries through to mobile credit, so crypto is actually a strong candidate to improve that area too.
Nigeria has a cell phone adoption rate of around 50% currently. People can trade crypto, do banking, money transfers, etc. on a cell phone. The idea that a desktop computer is required is a very old-school mindset. Similar to your "everyone in Nigeria is impoverished" comment.
Also, it's not about getting rich. It's about surviving when the government has all power to freeze your bank accounts, inflate the currency, etc.
Google: "what percentage of nigerians have cell phones"
Answer: "While Nigeria's mobile penetration rate is lower than developed markets, it is higher than the average across sub-Saharan Africa, standing at around 50% as of 2018, and estimated to rise to 130 million or about 60%-65% of the total population by 2025."
Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which, in this case, is to say that it may be that "there is no real proof that this has brought mostly normal people in nigeria out of poverty." But did you RTFA? It talks about how crypto is helping normal people. So there isn't evidence against this idea either. Maybe we should try to find out, rather than be dismissive.
Can I have an ELI5 on the infra bill and crypto? I keep seeing it come up on my twitter feed and I read a few articles, but it seems to be moving very fast. Is it just about taxes and squeezing crypto owners w/ realized gains for taxes?
Provisions were added into the bill that would require "know your customer" type requirements and taxation of crypto exchanges but were written so poorly that the requirements could be extrapolated to crypto miners, staking, etc.
This is what happens when people who don't understand the technology in the first place try to write legislation at the last minute to insert into a bill that has nothing to do with crypto.
Amendments have been proposed to try and clarify the bill, but there are multiple amendments that are "worse" or "better" for crypto. Guess which one Janet Yellen is pushing? (after receiving millions from big banks for "speaking engagements."
No, they say it's about taxes but there's much more in it. The bill appears to require everyone in crypto (exchanges, miners, stakers, maybe even software developers) to do KYC on every transaction. This either requires massive technical changes or more likely all those entities would leave the US.
Honestly we don't know. The original bill is vague and there are two competing amendments that are being debated. It will take some time for this to shake out.
A lot of people think that the power of the state, even in Western democracies, favors the rich and powerful against the little guy, through corruption and regulatory capture. What they don't realise is that, even in the much less than perfect state of our democracies and rule of law, the little guy is much more protected than any anarcho capitalistic system you could possibly create, where the rich and powerful won't even need to corrupt any officials: they will just use their personal police (or army) to enforce their power direcly, a bit like in the far west, or possibly like some kind of cyberpunk neo-medieval future.
I think your argument is a very nice strawman. No one is endorsing an "anarcho capitalistic system" here.
What we're saying is that having an alternative to fiat is some people's only hope when the government can close your accounts, inflate the currency, etc.
A world where governments aren't able to forcibly close, and more importantly, impound your bank accounts even if you're the head of a Mafia family, or a corporation doing something that the law deems a corporation shouldn't do, looks to me like a very serious step towards anarcho capitalism - which, by the way, is the stated goal of not so few cryptocurrency fundamentalists.
It's already like that, and it always has been. The most powerful people have immense power because they are inside governments or have corrupted them. At a level below that, they have funds in hidden offshore shell accounts, accounts under other people's names, physical assets.
Further, like encryption, cryptocurrencies are not something that you can ban in an effective way no matter how desperately you want to, so you will just have to deal with it.
The most powerful people will always have privacy and be above laws. The only way you can equalise it is to give some of those abilities to the little people
This is exactly where we disagree. Imho giving more and more people an easy way to undermine democracy and rule of law will result in the richer having even more power than now, and the little guys with even less recourse than now.
I don't understand how you can look at the mafia, cartels, China and Russia then say that. No matter what you do, there is NO recourse or transparency AT ALL for those corrupt people in power. The little guy is completely powerless. Cash is becoming phased out. Central Bank Digital Currencies are coming. China already shows that the government can cut people off from life and give you time limits to spend your digital money. I find it impossible to understand your point of view
I’m glad the guy’s Chinese suppliers accepted bitcoin
Ive been paying for a lot of contractor work internationally with stablecoins over the last several years
It annoys me how much Tether is often people’s only stablecoin option at the exchanges in their country, and that education is much lower on how to do stuff onchain without exchanges (so they could accept many more assets and convert to whatever they wanted)
But its way better than western union/paypal/wise/revolut/wire, or when it’s not better it’s nice it’s an option
How is it better than a wire? That's what i totally don't get. If you are not doing any criminal/black market transaction, what's the downside of sending a wire?
For me, time. It can and has taken up to 4 days to receive a wire at TD, because they’re occasionally overloaded. Compare that to a 10 or so minute wait on most coins, for less than the wire fee.
What exorbitant network fees are you talking about? For me it was only in 2017 when it was significant, but still smaller than what transferwise or international bank transfer usually takes from me (BTW make sure that you use a native SegWit address or lightning wallet for efficiency)
What "exorbitant network and miner fees"? According to https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/ transactions with 3 sat/byte are clearing within the next block. For a typical transaction of 400 bytes, that's around 17 cents.
Sending money internationally via fiat is a pain in the ass. It’s slow, unreliable, typically has limited amounts, often you run into regulatory roadblocks, high fees, not all banks accept wires in the currency you want to send, etc. And I’m a “power user” with accounts at multiple international brokerages.
Same. And usually those regulatory roadblocks are really just a private company’s interpretation of regulatory roadblocks, or them just throwing their hands up not wanting to deal with the regulation but inconvenience their customers while calling it “security reasons”.
So yeah unlimited amounts and faster and 24/7 are available over crypto networks.
I’m not sure what people want to read, its like they are waiting for a citable source about something thats just available.
If you’re in a developed nation, the only issue with a wire transfer is the $25-30 fee assessed by most banks. That said, if you’re making a wire transfer, you’re probably spending $5K+, so $25 is nothing.
Those in developing nations might use crypto to avoid remittance fees, or due to increased accessibility. If the recipient doesn’t have a bank account, you can’t do a wire transfer. If the recipient has a phone, they can get an app to facilitate a crypto transfer.
And my bank has arbitrary daily and monthly $ limits for online wire transfers too, even on business accounts, even with their 2-factor key fob. Circumventable by walking into a branch, which is then unlimited.
And all banks have a random interface for sending wires. Some don’t even have a way for you to initiate a wire online.
It's true that the ledger is public but it isn't necessarily tied to your identity. You can use exchanges that do not require KYC to convert to a privacy coin like Monero, and then move that to fiat exchanges like Coinbase etc.
crypto is faster and 24/7. And even when assuming people want their local fiat currency they can use the domestic system to get it, which is usually faster than the international wire system
even the heralded “SEPA” system cross border in Europe is not as reliable as it is a patch work of multiple systems (Instant SEPA, normal SEPA, etc). Ie. A SEPA transaction through Wise/Revolut could be fairly instant or it could be 7 actual days with a customer support query and fingers crossed.
It is better for people to get the asset and convert it in their country with the banking partners or traders that work well for them. Or just invest/spend with that asset alone because it is equally (or more) valid earnings as fiat to many people.
What you might be missing is that many of us arent acquiring crypto at the time to then send it to someone, we already have holdings in crypto because we earn in it too. I may have a few hundred dollars in stablecoins, just like I may also have a few hundred dollars in my Venmo or Wise or Revolut account. I periodically have liquid investments in crypto assets. So when I am choosing how to pay anyone a large amount and they don't accept credit card because they arent really a merchant but just good at something, then its really easy to just say ok give me your wallet address and the liquidity is nearly instantly under their control. Much more practical when you already have it.
so its basically time saving, and what is essentially happening is that higher scrutiny, bank error prone international wires are converted into domestic payments for international commerce and circumvents the interchange bank issues.
There’s an argument that the price of Bitcoin is propped up by Tether, a la Archegos. I was initially pretty skeptical, but the caginess of Tether about what commercial paper they hold makes me think it has some credence.
There's so much money coming into crypto and multiple studies have looked at money coming into Tether and the effect on Bitcoin price and it's negligible.
Plus, money has been coming out of Tether and into other stablecoins and what is happening with Bitcoin's price? Yeah, up.
Tether’s market cap is nearly at an all time high after roughly tripling in 2021 alone. What else should I be looking for as evidence of money coming out of Tether?
I'm referring to the comparison between Tether and USDC. Recently Tether has been flat and USDC is growing. Tether is obviously still #1 and not something I would hold as it does appear shady.
