I've been DYOR and I suspect that once a few companies start using their network, Keeta will quickly become indispensable because of their speed and low usage cost.
Also wonder if those companies who sell over Keeta will pass the savings on to consumers. hmmm :)
Thanks xescure
"Tens of trillions of dollars worth of value are transferred across outdated financial systems daily — and Keeta Network has proven it has the speed, scale, and security to be the foundation for a new, interconnected ecosystem."
"Google Cloud was also instrumental in helping to prepare and execute Keeta’s stress test, providing world-class infrastructure and technical guidance that helped validate the network’s real-world performance"
If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that.
Maybe sane officials will let the US Federal Reserve launch a digital dollar and finally fix all the middle men sucking no-value-added rents out of the financial system
Blockchain technology is not just a scam industry by happenstance. The technology is so bad at what it usefully does that it necessitates being a scam industry. If it was to compete with mainline banking, it would lose 10 times out of 10.
I am sure you can make a more efficient banking system if you don't do any checks at all. That's not an interesting observation.
Yup. Most crypto maximalists are unknowingly (knowingly?) aligned with terrorists and other criminals looking for anonymity online skirting existing banking rules.
I don’t want to charge people for money. I’m just leery of the I must be anonymous in everything crowd. I’m pro encryption, I’m also pro KYC and other anti money laundering programs — I do think the industry could be disrupted a bit though the exchange fees are egregious. Most of it is just going to profit margin and by activities that are just rent seeking.
Are you aware of the Coinbase customer data leak that happened this year? It revealed cryptocurrency balances, names, and home addresses. It was a disaster for the customers who will now risk kidnappings and death threats from extortionists. This nightmare was a direct result of KYC. It would have been a non-issue without KYC in a stablecoin economy.
I was hoping we could find common ground in destroying the margins the payment processors rake in ... and still do KYC while still knowing that crypto is otherwise used for quick gains and is more or less just a Ponzi scheme.
The biggest ponzi, larger than all other ponzis combined, is the exponentially growing debt of the national currency. It is destined to devalue the national currency.
Your assertion about cryptocurrency being used mostly for a particular market is self-suiting nonsense.
The world is full of those who want to be enslavers and those who want to be free. You are in the former group.
KYC is among others the law of the land for financial institutions. Even if not don’t you want to know you’re not aiding terrorists or sex traffickers or drug cartels in washing their money and funding crimes that harm or kill people?
Some freedoms are traded in a civil society for civility. What did you do before crypto? Not bank? Not buy anything? Never use a credit card? Always pay cash? Live off the grid?
KYC is the law for financial institutions, one that it would be in their best interest to lobby against. It is also not the law for self-custody crypto, and certainly not for users, not that it could ever be one since it would be impossible to enforce anyway. The users have no interest in it.
Your nonsense of aiding terrorists, traffickers, cartels, is just that -- plain nonsense. This is because just as with cash, the usage of cryptocurrency is orthogonal to the criminal activities. The law increasingly wants practically every freedom traded away, not for civility, but for repression. They are the ones harming more people as of late, with an increasingly undemocratic and oppressive agenda. Moreover, the government already heavily tracks the usage of non-privacy cryptocurrencies; its is like a dream for them.
Self-serving freedom-hating people like you will always try to restrict what others can do, falsely in the name of protecting them, but we see through it.
Firstly, one has to submit strong evidence, call them repeatedly, and wait for many months. It is not a pleasant experience.
Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service. This is a substantially worse outcome for the user.
You should get an Amex. (I've had little issue with various Visa/MC issuing banks, though. Quick and easy.)
> Secondly, in the real world, any vendor like Amazon or Ebay or Uber or Lyft will immediately freeze the user's account if a dispute is initiated, barring the user from using the service.
In most cases, shady vendors are a one-off concern. If I'm charging back, I'm probably not buying from them again.
This would explain your apparent confusion around the chargeback process.
1. They don't matter for unapproved charges and renewals because crypto doesn't allow charges at all.
2. They don't matter for buying from large sites like Amazon, Ebay, Google, etc. because these large sites will quickly freeze a user's account completely if a chargeback is introduced. Most orders these days go through the large sites.
3. Chargebacks filed with Visa/MC (not Amex) require substantial evidence and follow-up for them to succeed. They are not easy. The time spent on retrieving the money back is hardly worth it for someone with a full-time job.
2. Yes and thanks to modern trad-fi law, it’s incredibly easy to get refunds and returns on basically all retail websites.
3. Not true, trivially disproved by having gone through the process multiple times with various providers myself with minimal effort and documentation. I suggest you DYOR once too.
1. Regarding malicious smart contracts, they can steal only from incompetently written smart contracts.
2. Regarding refunds by large vendors, that's the ideal, but not the reality. I have had Uber reject a refund for unfair reasons when the driver was wasting time and didn't show up for over 15 minutes past the estimated time. I have also had Google provide me no refund for a large transaction on a scam app that fooled me.
2. I am struggling to see how this is/would/could ever be solved by crypto.
The cost of an authorized stablecoin transfer is.
The cost of an unauthorized stablecoin transfer is infinite. The cost of an unauthorized credit card transaction is $0.
> The credit card is associated with a checking account.
No, not necessarily. Several of mine are not. For example, Chase will happily accept payments in cash via their branches. https://www.chase.com/personal/credit-cards/education/basics...
> the bank will not protect or refund you for [fraudulent transactions on checking accounts and debit cards]
Deeply wrong. They are, in most cases, required to do so by federal law.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resour...
"The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E apply to an electronic fund transfer that authorizes a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer's account. 12 CFR 1005.3(a). The term account means a demand deposit (checking), savings, or other consumer asset account (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan) held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(1). It includes a prepaid account, as defined by Regulation E. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(3)."
"Unauthorized EFTs include transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery and consumer transfers at an ATM that were induced by force."
https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/artic...
"If your debit card or personal pin identification number (PIN) was lost or stolen, you must notify the bank within two business days after learning of the loss or theft. The bank cannot hold you responsible for more than the amount of any unauthorized transactions or $50, whichever is less. However, if you notify the bank after two business days, you could be responsible for up to $500 in unauthorized transactions."
Perhaps this is a little illuminating as to why your anti-fiat arguments fall on apparently deaf ears.
I strongly suspect the reason is the regulations themselves. KYC implementations cost money, and so do fraud disputes. Traditional crypto provides neither, so the fees ther are much lower.
Wise used to be almost completely free (excl spread), but they also introduced small % based fees over 1-2 yrs ago. They have had and continue to have many competitors, all of whom are experimenting with pricing models all the time.
If crypto could solve this, or if a trad-fi competitor could disrupt this, they would have. But that is not a very satisfying story, so here we are…
One is of course always free to use real cryptocurrency too, e.g. BTC and XMR, although they are subject to pumps and dumps, although the price rises over time.
One does not “solve” forex by trading in a common shared currency, that is already possible without stablecoins - it’s just that vendors often want their local currency and therein lies the problem.
Even if everyone moved to stable coins or Monopoly money, once you need to cash out in IRL, you encounter forex fees.
A sort-of example is Trump’s insistence on oil being traded purely in USD for the USA’s hegemonic benefit - but other nations are waking up and opposing this status quo actively.
The actual disruptor here is Google Spanner which actually handles all the ACID required.
> If crypto destroys the fx money changer companies that charge egregious fees and makes it such that I can send money to friends and family without delay and fees I’d be all for that
Strange how this amazing ripe-for-the-taking idea has been said about crypto for 20 years now. And somehow it's always "too early, it's coming in the future"
Moreover, other companies like Coinbase that do KYC have had their KYC data stolen this year as well, putting the lives of asset holders at risk.
Please understand that the muddying of terms only harms your argument, instead of strengthening it.
In other words, the technicality you state is the difference between the user getting punched in the guts versus in the gonads. Both are to be avoided.
Leaking PII like names and phone numbers, versus KYC specific PII like ID proofs is a completely different ball game.
This argument is not about levels of harm, just your lack of understanding of nuance tbh.
soaringseagull•5d ago