Confirm your country
United States
United Kingdom
There are two main requirements for using Venmo:
You must be physically located in the United States
You must have a U.S. cell phone that can send/receive text messages from short codes (please note that this phone number can not be on file with another Venmo account)
I can use USDC as much as I want yet I'm Canadian and that's true for any country in the world, whoever you are, whenever you are, however you do it.
This is not solving a problem that isn’t otherwise solved except money laundering and skirting AML/KYC rules. Look I may well be wrong, but can you suggest a use case I haven’t considered?
Sorry I didn't see your message until 10 days later. Did you know that the internet is worldwide? I do use an e-Transfer to transfer cash in Canada but more than likely, a transfer on the web will need to be done internationally. A stablecoin is a way to make sure the value is secured, at least as much as what it's backed on and the company holding it, for the duration of the transaction.
Any Canadian Exchange (and not a specific provider) could hold that stablecoin and many people will do arbitrage over it which will make sure I will be able to buy it easily for a minimum of fee.
That's specifically for me as a Canadian in a first world country too. A stablecoin allow that in ANY country, no need to do a case by case.
There isn't a single country in the world today where you can't spend a US dollar. Canadians will happily take them, especially at a 1:1 exchange rate.
Having spent some time in YT, I've found Canadians to be extremely agreeable. If you opened your wallet in a shop in Dawson City and said "Drat, I only have USD. Can you work with me?" I can pretty much guarantee they'll take your money - perhaps at a small discount to compensate them for the trouble.
I've traveled pretty far and wide. You really have to look hard (or piss someone off) before they'll reject USD. It spends easily.
The strongest argument I think I can construe from your statement is that every country has at least one place where you can spend a US dollar but I don't think that's very useful.
If you bring a 20 USD bill to Europe, head to the center of a major city and try to spend it, I think you'll have a pretty hard time handing it to a shopkeeper. You'll have trouble spending it at all save for exchanging it for the local currency and handing that to a shopkeeper.
I could see a decent amount of usage for dApp developers or anyone who wants micro transactions on their platform. That being said, “stablecoin” is probably quite useless outside of that very narrow use case.
Fair point. What I’m really interested in seeing is if they can maintain their peg.
You can send USDC to/from any wallet that implements it.
This is a benefit of the blockchain, a protocol for money.
Moreover there seems to be a misunderstanding, square cash allows you to instantly move money between bank accounts, via your bank, have at it, totally interoperable because dollars.
Same with Venmo, and PayPal, and everything else...
Venmo and PayPal are even owned by the same company. Have you ever asked why they're not interoperable?
The ACH system underneath links all US bank accounts, but it's so slow and burdensome that private companies need to build apps on top of it that abstract away all of its problems.
None of them work together because regulation makes the operation of money so difficult that you need an entire company to run such an app, and they're all walled gardens applying their own versions of KYC/AML.
When you have a unified protocol, all of that melts away and the opportunity for money to have a higher velocity and greater ease of use is upon us.
This is what blockchain, and in this case USD Coin based on it, provide.
It seems silly to me that such a system would not become popular. Interoperability and protocols are good. They are something HN is typically in love with.
When google tried to remove basic support for one protocol for contacts from Gmail, people were up in arms because it broke interoperability.
Imagine being in that world with money. I don't know why you wouldn't want it. It's superior by all measures.
And it would be silly for anyone in that world to create a wallet that didn't support such currencies. It would be like creating an email client that only lets you read email from other users of the same service. That's not email, that's just a private messaging platform.
I think you have to look towards the future and see how, if adopted, things like this would make money easier to use. Rallying against that is silly indeed.
I think the interoperability is nearly solved for the quick transfer world as well. Cross-border is solved through remittance schemes as mentioned up/down thread.
ACH is for cheap, remote batch transfers. Fedwire is for real-time, remote transfers. Cash is for cheap, real-time, in-person transfers. (FX exchanges, as centralized databases, are faster and safer than stablecoins.)
It's a bad compromise. If you want the cheapest transfers, you batch them. (This is the logic of Lightning.) If you want the most reliable transfer, you wire it. If you want to be sneaky, you use cash. (There are other reasons to use these modes.)
Batching being cheaper and slower than RTGS is fundamental to payment economics, irrespective of whether in an electronic database, armored car or blockchain. I go into this in a comment from about a year ago [1].
It's more fundamental than accounting. If a transaction costs X, aggregating N transactions into a single transaction reduces the per-transaction cost to X/N. The latter, batched process will always be slower and cheaper than the former.
(If a transaction costs Y%, aggregating bilateral transactions allows for "netting out," thereby reducing costs while increasing latency. For example, suppose Bank A sends Bank B $10, Bank B sends Bank A $5 and the Bank B sends Bank A $2. Real-time systems would see 3 transactions of $17. Net-settlement systems would see as few as 1 transaction for $3.)
If you remove these burdens by having a technology that is cheap and nearly instant for all payments, then there's no real need to batch.
We're not quite at cheap + instant with crypto, but there's nothing preventing it in principle. And when we get there, there's no reason batching needs to continue to be part of the equation, at least not with the same tradeoffs.
They're slow to enable batching. Fedwire is time-limited, but many other real-time payment networks are not.
> If you remove these burdens by having a technology that is cheap and nearly instant for all payments, then there's no real need to batch
Yes, there is. To make payments even cheaper. For any given transaction price and speed pair, there's a market that cares more about price than speed. You'll always be able to layer a net settlement layer on top of an RTGS network to serve that market at lower cost.
In any case, if we're arguing for RTGS, it will always be faster and cheaper to transfer money via database operations than on a blockchain. Fast and cheap are not–and should never have been–cryptocurrencies' selling points.
The common protocol is that they both link to your bank account (“wallet”).
Additionally, I need a debit card or bank account to use them at all. With crypto, you don't.
Hey wouldn’t you know it they support their own stablecoin, but not others...pretty sure that’s the type of centralization cryptocurrency/Blockchain was trying to avoid.
Of course they have to make more compromises to accommodate the side with the guns, than the immaterial one.
Then, you say that USDC is superior, because it cannot communicate with the other two.