People have longed said that crypto has no use cases. They're clearly wrong. There is only one true use case for crypto: Making it easier to skirt the law.
This includes: selling/trading unregistered securities, scams, rug pulls, money laundering.
> one true use case for crypto: Making it easier to skirt the law
And gambling. That's a $580bn market on its own [1]. Add to that the $2 to 5tn of money laundering that occurs globally [2][3], assume a 15% take rate, and on the upper bound you have another $580bn market. Curiously, adding those together one gets 91% of the current "market cap" of Bitcoin [4].
Really, all Bitcoin has to do is displace every casino and every cartel and it would be worth over 90% of its current price.
I subjectively disagree with your sentiment but can objectively show you are not accurately quoting your sources. Source [2] and [3] show nothing about $2-$5 trillion dollars being laundered globally. [2] links to an article written in 1998 presumably re-published in 2015 because of the number's presence in the url path, and [3] links to the 'GDP, current prices' of the IMF. Maybe your estimate for the amount of money laundered globally is factual, but your links definitely don't show that.
Also, nothing is "curious" about you adding rough estimates together and getting a random percentage of something else.
No that's exactly the point. The point is what is a legitimate use case for crypto, this use case is getting around pointless bureaucracy. You don't get around regulations, the responsibility of adhering to them just shifts from a third party to you, hence the person you're replying to paid taxes.
Are you implying avoiding operating fees is not a valid use case? Operating fees help facilitate adherence to regulation at scale but they themselves are not the regulation.
Do you have any stats to support this is some “huge movement” relative to whatever is considered standard practice? I ask this as an honest question since I’d never heard of the phenomenon, but am not steeped in OSS dev work by any means.
Crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine. Even when we look at the crypto donated, most (EDIT: half) of it was dollar denominated [1].
> Even when we look at the crypto donated, most of it was dollar denominated [1].
Have you at least read your source? 120 of 225M were BTC + ETH.
> Crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine.
Crypto is there barely since the Second Maydan, of course Ukrainians managed to survive without cryptocurrencies.
If you look closely on your arguments, you will find just a rejection without any arguments. Didn't you observe the recent news about Xenia Havana who donated $50 from her American bank account being in Russia and therefore went into jail?
Sure. I never said crypto is useless. But something being randomly meaningful to one person doesn't make it "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
A human went to jail because of using obsoleted money transaction technologies and you are really judging the fact by the amount of her donation - just to protect your misjudgement about cryptocurrencies? Are you even Ukrainian?
> Sorry, meant to say half. Corrected. Thank you.
Even if it would be 99%, so what? Why are using this as an argument?
I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
> Even if it would be 99%, so what?
It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. It's a derivative financial system, and one completely subject to U.S. law, surveillance and sanctions.
The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.
> I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
Your saying isn't reasonable because you are talking about tangential things to cryptocurrency. Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful. Amount of donated funds by Ukrainian anti-Russian adventure is not.
> It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.
It is as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?
> Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful
Sure. Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
> as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?
No, it absolutely isn't. The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value. A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.
> Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
I don't say an opposite. An entire counter-claim about "donations to Ukraine was only 217M" is not an argument against Bitcoin, despite your efforts to present it so.
> The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value.
LOL the crypto is one of established commodities perfectly fitting for inter-government trade.
> A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.
I don't understand why it is important. A couple of thugs believes they can call "money laudering" anything they don't like, and what? Their presence is clearly diminishes because they have no ways to control cryptocurrencies.
Sure. But within the context of a money-laundering article, it's important to note that dollar-denominated crypto exists at the whim of the U.S. government. It is globally subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and uniquely vulnerable to U.S. surveillance and sanctions.
This is not a property of stable coins, but of permissioned stable coins only. Decentralized permission less stableclins like DAI etc. are beholden to none.
Bit of a tangent, but the fundraiser that the Canadian government froze was initially organized by a Canadian secessionist and a white nationalist, and during that protest (and possibly unrelated) weapons were seized at a border crossing from members of diagalon, a white nationalist group that wants to carve out parts of Canada and USA to make a “white” nation.
Unlike your other examples, that one is an example of using crypto for nefarious reasons.
Ah, so there was a procedural issue in prosecuting the group with a cache of guns that wants to carve out a white nation out of Canada and the US. My mistake.
This doesn’t change the point that from the perspective of the Canadian government, they were facing 2 racist separatist groups at a time, and one of the groups was raising a LOT of cash while leading an occupation of the capital.
This is a valid scenario for seizing funds, though maybe the fact that groups like Diagalon and Wexit are a “meme” should be considered more closely.
In the case of Wexit, Tamara Lich was a founder, and she buddied up with Pat King for the fundraiser, who is a self avowed white supremacist, like he's literally on twitter saying white people have the "strongest" bloodline.
If someone who is involved with multiple "Canada for Canadians" movements joins forces with a known racist, I would take the odds and bet good money that person is a racist.
Which European countries are close to becoming communist? And what protection does it offer then if said communist countries use violence to collect private wealth?
Mélenchon in France has big scores wants to take 100% (everything) on income tax above 30k per month per individual. Do this and I will instantly get paid in crypto and have a new nationality
Even if that were to happen (which I cannot see as the PS polls around 12%) it would be a far cry from actual communism. Also, how would crypto help if the situation would be permanent and you stayed there?
Also if you are Russian living outside of Russia then good luck having a bank account, since European scumbags effectively consider any Russian as villain.
Only if it goes "nuts" in very specific ways: Anything that means the government can exercise large scale organized violence while backed by a sufficient number of people means it doesn't help.
The stuff only helps if the government goes weakly nuts - otherwise unlikely to help much.
The large number of guns in Germany wasn't doing anything against the Nazis. The idea of violently overcoming an organised tyrannical and violent government that has millions of people supporting it is largely a US myth. Maybe the Russian revolution qualifies - but that kind of swapped things only.
Guns aren't a good analogy and the arguments against guns making a meaningful difference for a non-violent minority don't make as much sense. Money separated from state at least prevents the non-violent minority from having the fruits of their labor power those who might end up oppressing them.
> idea of violently overcoming an organised tyrannical and violent government that has millions of people supporting is a US myth
It's designed to increase the cost of an unpopular takeover, not let Joe who thinks he can shoot 100 yards with a glock take on the U.S. army. The Nazis were popular when they came to power. Contrast that with e.g. Hong Kong.
This includes: selling/trading unregistered securities, scams, rug pulls, money laundering.