Question #9
Why doesn't Alice accept bitcoins for her API service?
Answer #9
Ease, Discovery, and Competition
Alice could accept bitcoin directly. But unless she wants to do that manually, she will have to set up a payment mechanism, read Bitpay or the like which is extra work for her.
There is also the discovery issue. Yes, Alice sets up API and use BitPay to take in BTC, But how does Bob find Alice's API? He spends time looking through all the websites, seeing which ones offer the API he needs, maybe stumbles upon Alice's API and decides to use it.
Lastly, there is the competition issue. If Bob only has one option for his API provider, then his application is fragile. Every time Alice changes her API (which could be often) then Bob must fix the now broken data coming into his site. If instead Alice, Fay, and Georgia are offering the Bitcoin to Dogecoin price ticker API, then Alice better treat Bob, Charlie, Dan, and Ethan well or they will choose to switch providers to Fay or Georgia instead. In summary, Ease, Discovery, and Competition are really critical here.
A similar example we can look at in the real world is why Overstock.com (a huge company) doesn't just do their own bitcoin merchant services. Why use Coinbase or Bitpay? Overstock could do it themselves. But ease, discovery and competition play similar roles in that decision too. So if Coinbase charges a 1% fee or has me use Coinbase token either way its easier for Overstock than doing everything themselves.
The above is from
https://github.com/APINetwork/FAQI find these explanations unconvincing.
Accepting bitcoin is conflated with fiat payment processing. There is no explanation of why accepting this new cryptocurrency is different from accepting bitcoin. The opening statement about payment processing overhead is spurious and nonsensical.
Discovery is a non-issue. A directory website solves this.
Competition. How does creating a new fiefdom where an immense amount of new currency units are controlled by a small group foster competition? There is also another spurious assertion being made that somehow this platform will remove the possibility of an API changing over time or going offline.
Paying for API access with cryptocurrency sounds reasonable. Doing so with microtransactions makes sense, and this is something to work towards.
I will track this project over time but I am not convinced of its promises or viability, especially considering the content of the above FAQ item.
There is this underlying thread of promotion as sort of a proof of API system that doesn't really make sense. Different proof of resource schemes (proof of storage, proof of bandwith, torcoin, etc.) may very well have credible reasons for the creation of separate cryptocurrencies. I don't see the same holding true for what is essentially an API directory. Anyone with an API can already easily create an automated pay-to-use structure with bitcoin. Your api key is the public address from which you sent payment. Your service turns off when you run out of credits.
Buy XAP address:
https://blockchain.info/address/12Stz3hoF1sY9J12GyMhsAGBa16vWrmufG73 transactions, 61 BTC
Yet their twitter feed states that $5M USD was raised last year:
https://twitter.com/dai_truong/status/404798495669764096I'm sure that there's something I've misconstrued about these two events. Does anyone have insight into what's going on there?
I would also be curious to hear from some investors in the coin IPO as to why you think that this might be a viable platform.
