By more efficient you mean taking hours to settle? And no inflation as in Bitcoin level volatility and up?
I'd love an efficient and cheap option to move funds online - especially for micro payments too. But so far I haven't heard of any crypto option that actually stayed around long enough to prove these things.
Happy to be pointed in the right direction here.
Stablecoins on any number of low cost networks are fine for small payments (I haven’t lost anything, not even $0.01 in 10+years, vs tens of thousands in chargebacks, mostly fraudulent, for credit card processors).
I factor in 2.5% total costs for transaction frictions, historically that is a bit over 3x our actual average cost from payer to bank account, but it would easily cover the occasional loss of a day or two of sales in a catastrophe.
Pick a top 5 stablecoin that has a good reputation and at least 3 years, on a network with at least that, and settle your accounts daily, or whenever the accumulation represents a significant dent if lost.
The approximate aggregate risk-cost of major (top 10) stablecoins is somewhere south of .001% per day, and is better than the aggregate risk-cost of national fiat currencies, which unremarkably collapse or suffer catastrophic inflation and rebasing on a regular basis. There are frequently several undergoing this process at any given time.
> The approximate aggregate risk-cost of major (top 10) stablecoins is somewhere south of .001% per day, and is better than the aggregate risk-cost of national fiat currencies
This thinking is dangerous and stupid. Learn from history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
This "stablecoin" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up. Fixing exchange rates is folly, yet here we go again...
Why would I care if a stablecoin blows up? My payment cost allocation more than compensates for that possibility and my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.
> my losses in a worst case scenario would be eclipsed to oblivion by the cost savings I have already realized.
Please elaborate :)
My theoretical potential losses compared to the costs of the payment processsors I ditched, and the chargebacks we used to deal with.
International payment processing is quite expensive, both on a teansaction and on an administrative basis.
My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing overhead, without counting fraudulent chargebacks and “we are going to freeze your account because we can” risks.
FWIW in the last 60 years I have lost way more money to fraud and theft dealing with banks and cash then I ever will using cryptocurrency. On a total, or a percentage basis. I see the risk profile, when properly managed, to be much, much lower using blockchain solutions.
> My worst case total risk exposure is approximately the same as the cost of 3 months of payment processing
Okay, yes: what you're describing is the actual utility of these things.
I think you underestimate how many people dealing in them are using them much less intelligently than you are.
They are being marketed in an extremely dishonest way, as a safe long term store of value. I regularly overhear normal people at my local bars talking about how they're "investing big in stablecoins" and it terrifies me.
>>This "government issued fiat currency" garbage needs to die yesterday: a lot of people are going to lose their shirt when the first one blows up.
What you are saying is a risk endemic to all fiat currencies, including stablecoins.
All symbolically represented forms of value quantization are subject to a failure of confidence. Cryptocurrencies are nothing new in this regard. All money is memetic in nature.
That's like saying "base jumping isn't really more dangerous than flying commercial, after all we're all going to die anyway".
Fiat currencies have militaries. Your stablecoin doesn't.
That’s one of the reason the stablecoins won’t be taking my assets? Idk what your point is but it doesn’t seem like you are debating from a point of rational examination.
Weird, people on the internet spewing BS? Who’d have thought?
Well, losing three months of revenue is going to really hurt when the stablecoin inevitably eats shit: hope you're prepared for that.
The risk is obviously lower because you aren't parking money there. I could certainly see how you might come out ahead in fees for certain international transactions.
But your original claim was that the aggregate risk-cost of dealing in stablecoins is lower than real currencies, and that is absolutely preposterous: you aren't accounting for all the risks.