> Traditional banking already does this very well in most countries, through centralized systems with multiple redundant tracking and audit methods

So how does traditional banking solve the very problem the submission article is about? Companies seem to say this is an issue today, some seeing 15% fraudulent receipts, if traditional banking did these things well, why are these companies still seeing these issue?

Again, I'm not arguing that things will be better with cryptocurrencies, just that if we suddenly see companies and governments urging people to adopt cryptocurrencies, I'd totally understand why, although I'd push against it as much as I could.

In my employers case they issue everyone a company card that has expense policies built in (it literally won't let you spend outside of policy). If you need to do a personal card expense it needs multiple levels of approval.

Sounds like a OK solution and much better than letting cryptocurrencies infect every side of society.

Maybe the companies in the article complaining about the fraud isn't aware you can do something like that? Or is there something else stopping them from doing that? Why isn't everyone doing that if it solves the very problem outlined in the article?

> Maybe the companies in the article complaining about the fraud isn't aware you can do something like that?

This is shockingly common in the business world. It's like, 40% of the reason the big consulting firms exist - to tell insular businesses that "hey, you can buy an off the shelf solution to this problem"