> mechanism
The mechanism often involves correspondent banks, and is generally pretty expensive ($25-$65).
For scale, we’re talking about transfer fees measured in cents with stablecoins.
All of the cost is tied to compliance. A Swift message costs pennies, it's the due diligence behind it that banks charge for. Stablecoins will not change the compliance requirements
Has anyone ever provided an argument against this?
I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce.
> > All of the cost is tied to compliance. A Swift message costs pennies, it's the due diligence behind it that banks charge for. Stablecoins will not change the compliance requirements.
> I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce.
Taking the statement literally as-is: Yes, a strictly > 0 amount of overhead is required to perform said compliance activities.
But the overhead similarly can *never* be 100% of the money being transferred over. And right now, the transfer costs have only ever been shown to grow, and never shrink in isolation. They only shrink when a new competitor comes in to provide said service, which has rarely ever happened because of said regulations that progressively saddle them with more requirements.
------
> I don’t see how crypto boosters get around the fact that more than 0% of regulations are legitimately desired by most of the world. And those require some non zero amount of bureaucracy and money to enforce.
Interpreting this emotionally:
You're leaving out the implicitly-made conclusion that most pro-crypto people will make: That the current banking system *has* to be accepted as-is, useless systems & fee-draining & all that jazz, *and* that they should just take it.
You've already lost all attempts to convince them with that rhetoric. By not putting in more clarifying statements, the gaps have been filled in with the negative implications that will turn them away from supporting your view.
It will be seen by pro-crypto people as own-side points scoring.
But crypto isn’t the only way to change the banking system.
In many cases you can now transfer money instantly and free across European countries. If there’s a will there’s a way.
Turning crypto into an acceptable banking system is probably just as hard, if not harder, than making the existing banking system better, faster and more user friendly.
We’ve been promised crypto would revolutionise payment for more than a decade now. In the same timespan I’ve seen my little country develop a common payment app shared by all banks which has made payment to shops and between people instant and super easy. We didn’t need crypto to make progress.
If banking regulations were relaxed to the point where crypto could be used more widely, traditional banks would also be able to innovate much more quickly without crypto.
In the end, I don’t find it entirely unlikely that banks may use a blockchain to do some of their international settlement. It’s a nice algorithm in the cases where you don’t want a single master arbiter. But it’ll probably be a fairly boring behind-the-scenes kind of thing.
well, they won't change the compliance costs, but those pennies for the swift message will turn into hundreds of dollars for the blockchain gas fee
you probably hold an antiquated notion of how much transaction costs are on blockchains nowadays. It would do good for you to update your priors on this one - you'd be surprised!
That tweet doesn't appear to explain anything about this at all. I take it the information is in the comments? I'm not able to view those.
i don't click on x links, but i bet one trump coin it talked about offchain without taking into account opening up to double spend.