I'd really like that more information was provided in the article. What is he counting as a "fraudulent transaction"?
> If crypto truly solved all the problems (...) vendors would have already switched over.
Transaction fees are not solved yet.
UX is not solved yet.
Privacy is not solved yet. (Well, it is if you count Monero, but for commerce you need a stabletoken, and you can not easily build a stabletoken on Monero like you can do it in Ethereum. In Ethereum we can have the stabletokens and privacy solutions are being built)
On-ramping is getting solved: it's relatively easy to get fiat-to-crypto today, though I'd say that the current players charging 3% are already at the limit of how they can go, and it's still too high.
There are still plenty of challenges and things to work on to get crypto as a viable alternative for payment networks.
> the state of the overall crypto market
The troubles in the current market have little-to-no relation with the story about crypto for payments. If this crash is going to get us rid of the stupid fools gambling their money in "investment opportunities" and it wipes out the nefarious scumbags who were selling ridiculous promises, all the better.
Honestly the biggest issue with any crypto, at least in the United States, is for taxation purposes, it's treated like buying or selling a stock vs an actual currency. We need some actual crypto regulation defined that protects people and allows for cryptocurrencies to be used as an actual payment method, not an investment...
It has a lot to do with crypto for payments if the vendor has to deal with massive swings in value over very short time frames. The solution that most vendors wind up with is getting their crypto exchanged for not-crypto ASAP, which is useful solution but not much of an endorsement for having accepted crypto in the first place.
When I am talking about payments with "crypto" it also includes stabletokens, which don't have this problem.
(And no, not all stabletokens are created the same. Tether is poison and everyone should stay away from it. The "algorithmic" stabletokens are already provably not viable. But DAI has managed to survive even worst market crashes than the current one, and USDC still has some semblance of trustworthiness.)
DAI can only crash "for good" if Ethereum crashes for good. MakerDAO is not over-leveraging itself to mint DAI into the market. MakerDAO does not pay any type of dividends to the people putting their crypto into the system - the opposite, actually.
> If crypto truly solved all the problems (...) vendors would have already switched over.
Transaction fees are not solved yet.
UX is not solved yet.
Privacy is not solved yet. (Well, it is if you count Monero, but for commerce you need a stabletoken, and you can not easily build a stabletoken on Monero like you can do it in Ethereum. In Ethereum we can have the stabletokens and privacy solutions are being built)
On-ramping is getting solved: it's relatively easy to get fiat-to-crypto today, though I'd say that the current players charging 3% are already at the limit of how they can go, and it's still too high.
There are still plenty of challenges and things to work on to get crypto as a viable alternative for payment networks.
> the state of the overall crypto market
The troubles in the current market have little-to-no relation with the story about crypto for payments. If this crash is going to get us rid of the stupid fools gambling their money in "investment opportunities" and it wipes out the nefarious scumbags who were selling ridiculous promises, all the better.