It obviously isn't cash, it isn't even money - that's the reason the amount received is stated in something else, namely dollars, which this has to be exchanged into to be useful.

What happened here is a wire transfer, not different from me sending money from my bank account to someone else bank account. Just with two additional transformation steps (make money into whatever crypto, make whatever crypto back into money).

It is very different than you sending money via an intermediary bank.

I dare you to describe a method of wire transfer to Kyiv that works in that quantity and timescale and is practically usable by the recipient that quickly and cannot be blocked by your local government's policies.

There simply isn't anything close to that. People that think that this is the same as a wire via a regulated bank are ignorant of the specifics of each type of payment.

Cryptocurrency is indeed cash, and is useful the same way cash is useful.

None because if it was a high quantity method it would get regulated or banned by society

The regulations exist for a reason. The reason crypto do not have them is because there is no quantity.

Not because it is magically immune to existing in societies

"Cryptocurrency has no practical use case."

'Yes it does, I got money to refugees when it was otherwise impossible.'

"Well... you shouldn't be able to do that."

> more than $60 million of the $100 million was received in the main fund run by Kuna, the Ukrainian crypto exchange.

So the majority of crypto donations were from Ukrainians on Kuna exchange; hardly a prime example of global crypto's good will. Also $100M is kind of small when you consider it next to the $14B congress has promissed to Ukraine. Then consider the total $1.5T sticker price of the congressional spending bill that $14B was a part of and it all seems insignificant.

In short we can and should give more to Ukraine.

The $14B is slow and probably won't make it to individual Ukrainians. So, like in the original charge, you're stuck in the position of having to trivialize $100M in aid because ... well, other modes are helping too, and this isn't a "prime example".

>In short we can and should give more to Ukraine.

And this is a way to give direct aid, something you ostensibly want, and yet you're stuck saying crypto doesn't count, somehow.

It seems a less epicyclic approach is to just accept that this is a valid use case rather than finding a way to out-argue it.

Society has banned the consumption of illegal drugs (!). How is that ban going vis a vis shutting the market down? Ditto copyright infringement. Some things the government cannot ban.

Without the ability to create and control chokepoints like banking institution, it may be impossible to stop people voting with their feet when it comes to international crypto transfers. Especially once people figure out what privacy preserving designs work in practice.

Given the whispers around unbanking political protesters, at some point it may become necessary to deal in crypto to have a political opinion. They can't arrest everyone.

As the parent said, if Crypto ever became a threat to government control of their economies it will be regulated. In fact the blockchain protocol provides the audit trail to enable the regulation.

Any anonymous chains like Monero will be blacklisted and only exist in an island where its economy is limited to certain illegal commodities, with the off ramp to wash it clean complex.

I don't want some unknown group of Crypto Bros completely outside my control running the economy of my country. At least in a democracy the people have some control.

The absolute only thing a wire transfer doesn’t do from your list there, is it can be blocked. One phone call is all it takes to send cash instantly.

PayPal and bank wire transfers still work in Ukraine, so this not a particularly good example of a crypto use case.

Russian hackers demanding ransom payments in bitcoin—thereby circumventing economic sanctions—now that is a legitimately illegitimate use case for crypto.

Try sending PayPal from Russia to Ukraine.

PayPal requires identity and permission. I am barred from using it, for example.

No barriers to me donating to Ukraine via cryptocurrency.

> Try sending PayPal from Russia to Ukraine.

Sounds like the real problem is having RUB.

> No barriers to me donating to Ukraine via cryptocurrency.

In this case you're not starting with RUB, so you're solving a different problem.

Ukraine is not short of donations, they don't need money from the country currently destroying their cities and committing war crimes.

What they are asking for is more sanctions (which the Crypto utoptia is supposed to make impossible) to try and force the hand of a mad dictator without ushering in WW3.

Crypto is barely a footnote.

I just sent money to Ukraine via PayPal and the Ukrainian recipient confirmed they were able to add it to their bank card.

I’m not sure why you are barred but if I sent you crypto you’d probably need verification to withdraw it to fiat as well.

Fair enough - I actually do think bitcoin is the only use case of this crypto stuff that remotely makes sense. Its not without issue, but its passed the proof of concept stage into something sort of useful for some people.

Ah yes. Desperate people in need have received a bunch of fantasy novelty tokens that they are going to use... how exactly?