 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
|
I would add that there isn't an easy way to change crypto into fiat. When the time comes that I can send crypto to someone on the other side of the world, or across town, and they can receive that and easily change that to fiat, or vice versa crypto will boom.
I agree that if there is an easy and fast way to buy (on-ramp) and to sell (off-ramp) on the cryptocurrency "super highway" that helps in at least these important ways: 1) it makes it safe for sellers to accept it because they know they can easily and quickly convert it into fiat currency 2) because the amount of time between when a buyer purchasing a cryptocurrency to spend it and when the seller converts this into fiat currency can be small 3) because this time can be small (a few seconds) the exposure to price volatility is also small I emphasize "fast" because presently there isn't a fast way to do this. It can take over a week to buy a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin (e.g. CoinBase takes 10 days!). It takes several days to sell cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
|
Adding "rules of the game" helps stabilize the market. Stability helps the market because it makes the market more predictable. Investors like predictability.
Still, cryptocurrencies are like commodity trading in that while they are predictable they are still subject to wide swings in price due to unforeseen changes in market conditions.
|
|
|
|
SEC expresses such an opinion to all crypto-currencies. Now there are big manipulations with the market and this can not be called fair trade.
The SEC can and should control the rules of the game
They ARE trying. It's challenging because blockchain and cryptocurrencies are so new. There are many aspects that are unclear, and these ambiguities impact the market. So, one by one, they are addressing these aspects. With each ruling it establishes a "rule of the game". This helps stabilize markets. Declaring that cryptocurrencies are NOT securities is an essential ruling to allow them to become a medium of payment. |
|
|
|
This ruling makes sense, and is an important ruling because it makes a clear distinction between an existing cryptocurrency, which has utility inherent within it, versus an initial coin offering that raises capital for a yet to be created cryptocurrency, which until it exists, has no utility. It doesn't make sense to me. Explain why Ethereum is any different from the other ICO's which were outlawed? They raised capital the same way too, and offer whatever service, service expectations being meet or not. Ethereum has already failed to meet "code is law" expectations.
Ethereum isn't an ICO; instead, it is a blockchain network and development platform. It has a cryptocurrency, ether, associated to this blockchain. The Ethereum ICO ended several years ago, where it raised scores of millions USD so that the Ethereum Foundation could create the software that is the Ethereum Platform. An ICO is a fund raising method where investors buy rights to a specified number of tokens in the future. These "rights" are a security for several reasons according to US Law. First, on issuance they have no inherent value because you can't use them as a medium of payment, can't trade them, or can't exchange them for fiat currency. Second, and perhaps most importantly, according to the US Securities and Exchange Commission or "SEC" because the reason investors buy these rights is they expect it to go up in value over time resulting in a profit when they can trade them or exchange them, that by definition in US Federal Law makes an ICO a security. The reason why some ICOs are outlawed, at least in the United States, is because they don't follow US Federal Law for securities. These laws protect unsophisticated investors from scams, where the organization offering the ICO defrauds investors. ICO scams are prevalent. Thus why the SEC is investing a lot of energy into enforcing US Federal Law.. So, there is a HUGE difference between Ethereum and ICOs. Now, what is less of a distinction, and the reason why the SEC ruling is so important, is the difference between a cryptocurrency such as ether and a security, like commodities such as gold, oil, and silver. Presently, most purchases of ether, and other cryptocurrencies, is as a store of value with the intention to hold it until it goes up in value. In this way it is a security per US law. Here is the key distinction... some cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether can be used as a medium of payment. This means they have inherent value because sellers are willing to trade a cryptocurrency for goods or services. Further, there are currency exchanges that will exchange a cryptocurrency for fiat currency. This means they are liquid. The is gist of this ruling. |
|
|
|
Multiple problems right now with using any crypto for payment.
First, requires an easy way to purchase crypto. Then a better understanding
by the public of what crypto even is. And it'd require instant transactions plus
stability. Plus of course it must be scale.
Kind of the opposite of the situation now. Maybe one day a stablecoin could take
that role, but right now using crypto for purchases is like using the worst credit
card in the world... or if paypal was schizophrenic.
I agree that the user experience for purchasing cryptocurrencies is cumbersome... too cumbersome for most people to be willing to try it, well enough, use it regularly. This is an obstacle for the public to understand it because if they would use it would help them understand how it works. Most people I know have heard of Bitcoin, because it is often in the news. None of them know what cryptocurrency is. So, getting people to understand what it is, how it works, and why they trust it is huge obstacle to overcome. And, of course, a successful cryptocurrency needs to have performance similar to other successful payment networks such as the Visa International network. That means there is still a lot of work to design and build a cryptocurrency and its associated blockchain network capable of this performance. I agree that a huge obstacle is price volatility. Presently, cryptocurrency acts only as a store of value because there so little use as a medium of payment. This means it is like a security, even though the SEC just ruled that cryptocurrencies aren't a security, where they are traded. This leads to the price volatility. |
|
|
|
The global economy is nearly 80 trillion USD per year. Payments using any type of cryptocurrency as a medium of payment is a tiny fraction of this total.
What are some of the reasons preventing cryptocurrency from being more successful as a medium of payment?
It is actually the start of the cryptocurrencies that is why you are seeing like this and even in the start you can see that how much faster the process of adoption is going. The cryptocurrency itself is being used as asset too by the traders which make the price of it fluctuating which also made the process a little slower but that is not a hurdle it will spread all over the world as payment sooner. So, an obstacle is cryptocurrencies are used as store of value, like a security, instead of a method of payment, which is an attribute of a currency. The result is because it is a security there is a lot of price volatility. Price volatility makes it difficult to act as a method of payment. This is another "Catch 22 Problem" in that until there is widespread use of cryptocurrencies as medium of payment it will largely be a security, which means price volatility. Price volatility is an obstacle to adoption as a method of payment. |
|
|
|
|
It depends on what is meant by a "$20 Trillion <USD> Market".
In the quoted article it means the Market Capitalization of all cryptocurrencies. Presently, cryptocurrency is a store of value, like a security. So, this is how most people think about them.
I'm interested in cryptocurrency as medium of payment. The global economy is about 80 trillion USD per year. The amount of payments in cryptocurrency is a tiny percentage of this amount.
Cryptocurrency will someday have much more the 20 trillion USD in payments. I'm not certain how far that day is away.
|
|
|
|
I think you are thinking pessimistic about the future of the cryptocurrency market. For the next 10 years, cryptos will become famous and become the global currency of the entire world. At that time, cryptocurrency will replace real money to become the most popular currency in the world.
Actually, my thinking quite optimistic. Cryptocurrency will change the world because it will dramatically improve the efficiency and fairness of global commerce. I have been involved with global payments for over 20 years having created several global payment platforms including being the designer of one of the largest, most successful global B2B platforms, Concur Pay. I can see clearly how cryptocurrency will someday replace traditional payment technology. I started this thread because I'd like to learn how the cryptocurrency community (bitcointalk.org being the most respected community) perceives the obstacles preventing it from being more successful as a medium of payment. |
|
|
|
You might not see cryptocurrencies being used on day to day basis on the train or movies as a medium of payment but they are increasing in amount and transactions for international medium of payment. The international transactions are costly, and larger transactions are subject to paperworks which cryptocurrencies have successfully solved.
I agree that the best use case for cryptocurrency as medium of payment is cross-border payments. While a SAP Concur, I designed Concur Pay, a global B2B payment platform allowing businesses located in nearly 100 countries to reimburse their employees and pay their vendors. Concur Pay can do only in-country payments where the payee is located in the same country as the payer. We did this because cross-border payments are complex and expensive. Now, what makes cryptocurrency revolutionary is what I call, Instant Value Transfer. It can move any value of money from anywhere to anywhere in the world in moments for essentially no cost. For those in global B2B payments that seems like magic! |
|
|
|
The global economy is nearly 80 trillion USD per year. Payments using any type of cryptocurrency as a medium of payment is a tiny fraction of this total.
What are some of the reasons preventing cryptocurrency from being more successful as a medium of payment?
Mostly it comes down to some of the same reasons as to why bitcoin is so popular compared to a majority of the coins that exist today. The other method came first, more people use it, and thus there is a general consensus to use the currently existing system rather than something else. Plus cryptos aren't exactly the most intuitive payment system compared to what everyone else can do, but that's just part of the territory. So, perhaps one of the most important obstacles to overcome is delivering a user experience that allows consumers to easily understand how to use it. Perhaps a close second is a user experience that allows retailers and other sellers use it, and integrate payments with their financial systems. It has to be an experience that is similar to paying with a credit/debit card. That requires a series of applications designed for both consumers and retailers. |
|
|
|
The reason is that they have appeared recently and the market has not developed the payment infrastructure yet, while it could be in the following years.
If bitcoin were less used as a means of accumulating value, and more as a means of payment, there would be less price shocks and problems. However, now the functions of bitcoin are distorted and because of this, we have many problems with autumn both bitcoin and crypto currency in general. So, there is a bit of the "Catch-22 Problem" because for it to be more widely used there must be payment infrastructure such as Point of Sale or "POS" systems enabled to accept cryptocurrency; retailers, merchants, vendors, and other sellers won't add such infrastructure until consumers or buyers demand it. |
|
|
|
The global economy is nearly 80 trillion USD per year. Payments using any type of cryptocurrency as a medium of payment is a tiny fraction of this total.
What are some of the reasons preventing cryptocurrency from being more successful as a medium of payment?
So, what seems to be the largest obstacle to overcome is making cryptocurrency regulator friendly. Until governments, more specifically, their regulators who operate their trade laws allow, and, perhaps more importantly, enthusiastically support cryptocurrency it will be difficult for it to be widely used. I don't see much discussion about what is necessary for a cryptocurrency to be "regulator friendly". |
|
|
|
the first thing that becomes a problem is the public understanding of crypto is very little and there are still many misunderstandings about crypto. the government is also not fully supportive and the banking or other financial companies are also very opposed to crypto and they think that crypto could harm and take over their business.
Yes, there is a lot of work needed to help the public understand what cryptocurrencies are, how they work, and why they should be trusted. I agree that governments need to support it. So, far, cryptocurrencies have been hostile toward regulators, which explains why some governments are against their use. Financial institutions may never support them because they see cryptocurrencies as competition to traditional banking services. On the hand, some banks see the opportunity to use cryptocurrencies as an alternative to automated clearing house technology as a way to move money, especially across national borders. |
|
|
|
Would you say getting governments and their regulators such as tax authorities and custom agencies to support crypto payments is a requirement before there will be widespread use?
Without a doubt, uncertainty about regulations is one of the reasons why many businesses do not dare to accept cryptocurrencies as a means of payment. When everything is clear and the rules are established, it's possible that the process will accelerate as happened in Japan. So, would creating a cryptocurrency that is "regulator friendly" help make that happen? |
|
|
|
|
This ruling makes sense, and is an important ruling because it makes a clear distinction between an existing cryptocurrency, which has utility inherent within it, versus an initial coin offering that raises capital for a yet to be created cryptocurrency, which until it exists, has no utility.
|
|
|
|
|
Would you say getting governments and their regulators such as tax authorities and custom agencies to support crypto payments is a requirement before there will be widespread use?
|
|
|
|
|
The global economy is nearly 80 trillion USD per year. Payments using any type of cryptocurrency as a medium of payment is a tiny fraction of this total.
What are some of the reasons preventing cryptocurrency from being more successful as a medium of payment?
|
|
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency will change the world because it will make global commerce dramatically more efficient and fair resulting in spreading wealth to everyone. There is still a lot of innovation necessary for it to deliver on this promise.
|
|
|
|
|
As a method of payment, bitcoin, and all cryptocurrencies combined for that matter, are only a tiny fraction of payments in global commerce. That suggests there is an opportunity for a new cryptocurrency to emerge a successful method of payment. Such as cryptocurrency could easily replace bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been studying initial coin offerings for several months. My sense is ICOs offer investors that are savvy about blockchain a great opportunity. My advice is first understand what about blockchain makes it revolutionary, and armed with this understanding, seek ICOs where the project has a firm grasp of how to leverage these aspects of blockchain technology. Is the project solving a real problem, and is the solution leveraging blockchain technology in a way that only blockchain can solve?
|
|
|
|
|
