The only correct solution is something like the Brasilian pix. No fee paid for by taxes and the central bank just like the management of cash.
A digital alternative to cash offered by the central banks which are the ones responsible to enable financial transactions. Since so many are moving to cashless it is important for the central bank to retain control of the currency alternative to cash.
We can not allow this explosion of middle men all taking a cut of something they should not be part off especially since they now have such power that they decide what you can and cannot buy instead of the laws of the land.
Yep. The EU has also enacted various regulations to enable cheap bank to bank transfers and online payments but pix seems even better - haven't use it though. 3% transaction fees are ridiculous and only possible because Visa/MC have successfully - until now - lobbied against any good alternative in the US.
Privatizing water supply is an awful deal for citizen - ask the UK - since the incentives are anti-consumer and public infrastructure is more often than not a monopoly by definition. I'd count transferring money online as public infrastructure and it should get the same treatment.
I think it’s even possible without having the central bank manage the whole thing. In Canada we have Interac e-tranfer which is managed by a consortium of Canadian institutions.
It is far from perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good.
In 2018, Patreon almost got kicked off of Stripe because Mastercard objected to NSFW content (probably because of PACs and/or “moralizing busybodies”). Patreon booted most of the NSFW creators and OnlyFans scooped them up. OnlyFans is now significantly bigger than Patreon.
American hate for wire transfers will never sound anything other than irrational to me. Why don't you have an equivalent of Europe's Instant Payments?
The author mentions the storefront pocketing the money, that seems implausible? If an unscrupulous storefront can pocket money that would be wired, it could also pocket money that would be paid by CC.
And then there's the weird thing about payment volumes...that's been a solved problem for half a century?
US banking has wire transfers, but they cost $15-$40 and can only be reversed with the cooperation of the receiving bank. We use them to transfer large sums of money and for transfers that need to be settled immediately; most often for house purchases where both apply.
We do have ACH (single nightly batch), same day ACH (four? batches throughout the day), and the new FedNow (immediate). But all of those involve providing account numbers and we don't like to provide those (both payers and receivers prefer not to give the other participant their ach numbers). Also, there's not a consistent way to link a payment/debit with an invoice, because memo fields don't necessarily show up with the payment.
Also, credit card purchases can be reversed without the cooperation of the merchant. Most issuers are generous with chargebacks (at least historically). You could take a merchant to court if you did a wire transfer, but that's expensive and time consuming.
>American hate for wire transfers will never sound anything other than irrational to me.
I'm assuming "wire transfer" means something different to you than what it means in America. In the US, a wire transfer is when you call up your bank, give them a routing number and account number, tell them to wire however much money to it, agree to pay like $20 or something for the transfer, and then they tell you the transfer will happen tomorrow morning because it's 3:30 PM and the last batch gets handled at 3:00. They're not so much hated as pretty much entirely irrelevant to everyone. I've made one wire transfer in my life, and that was for buying a house.
Because it would cost money to upgrade our financial infrastructure and processes.
Americans aren't opposed to it. Like so many problems with America, our institutions are simply opposed to anything other than maximal profit extraction at any and all costs.
Americans are, however opposed to the kind of national ID system you'd want for this kind of national banking scheme. For some reaon, they think it's more private or secure to use a 9-digit number assigned at birth.
I’m going to assume this is a good faith comment, but I encourage you to understand that Europe and the US are different places, with significantly different ecosystems.
I also encourage you to read about Chesterton’s Fence. Make sure you understand why something exists before you think about how to replace it, then maybe you won’t see Americans’ use of credit cards as “irrational,” but instead, reasonable under the circumstances that exist.
That said… the US did roll out FedNow (similar to SEPA) but because the US banking ecosystem is more fragmented, adoption takes a while.
Wire transfers here are expensive and don’t provide consumer benefits (cash back, credit options, consumer protections like fraud and chargeback, or merchant coupons). In your example, if an unscrupulous store pockets the credit card payment, the credit card / issuer will often reimburse your purchase. (This is a law in the US.)
Zelle is starting to be a thing and those transfers are pretty instant in my experience. No fees, no delays, no chargebacks, it's amazing. I use it to cover living expenses for a couple friends that don't have jobs or disability benefits.
>it could also pocket money that would be paid by CC.
No.
The card processor will return the customer's funds for various reasons. In many cases, "no reason" is sufficient for a chargeback, especially if you are dealing in intangibles, such as software licenses or digital media. In addition to returning the customer's funds, the merchant is typically penalized a "chargeback fee". This means as a merchant, if your chargeback fee is $25 and the product is $5, one chargeback can set you back 6 sales.
For these reasons, as well as other minimum rates, certain price levels are untenable. Consequently, many products are either not sold at all or sold at a much higher price.
The conditions make it more sensible for the merchant to sell high priced items to less troublesome customers. The percentage of the card processor's fees are relatively less. The probability of a chargeback is lower. As you have less customers, you can more easily provide support and contact them directly.
> In short, just making your own payment processor is hilariously difficult and far beyond the means of Valve let alone Itch. Depending on what the speaker means by "Payment Processor", they may be suggesting making your own bank, or somehow convincing a bank to let Itch shove payments through them; who will eventually do the exact same thing as what happened here. There's no winning play there.
PCI-DSS compliance wasn't even mentioned and it is easily able to overwhelm organizations like Valve and Itch on its own. The hardest part of payment processing is the network. Connecting the acquirers to the issuers in such a way that everyone is happy with the arrangement. Just like the hardest part of the power grid is the transmission infrastructure. The endpoints are far more trivial to replace. If you want to use the existing network, you have to play by all of the rules. The only real way out of this system is to use a completely different kind of currency.
While I'm not the biggest fan of crypto overall this is definitely one instance where you could actually use it in a way that makes sense by offering people to pay with it instead. Only issue is converting it afterwards into fiat currency.
That's not actually the only issue, unfortunately. Steam did in fact accept Bitcoin for a while, but it was dropped in 2017, with Newell stating:
> “We had problems when we started accepting cryptocurrencies as a payment option. 50% of those transactions were fraudulent, which is a mind-boggling number. These were customers we didn’t want to have.” [1]
The solution to this issue is regulation, pure and simple. It doesn’t even have to be a complicated bill, either:
“Financial institutions and financial services providers are barred from blocking, interfering with, restricting, or refusing any consensual transaction that complies with laws regarding content, materials, goods, or services.”
Admittedly in the USA this tees up a 1A case over whether companies have freedom of speech (they shouldn’t), but in other jurisdictions it could be the game changer needed to unshackle commerce from the control of a handful of boardroom puritans and risk-adverse compliance departments. If porn has a high rate of chargebacks, then stop allowing them without a higher burden of proof on the person requesting them, for instance. There’s ample room to enforce accountability on consumers and processors without upending the proverbial produce cart.
Unfortunately the US has a history of doing the opposite, and using regulation of payment processors to prevent them from allowing some business to operate, when the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to directly limit those businesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf...
There are two main reasons companies will block types of payments: material downside, like high chargeback risk, and reputational damage. It completely makes sense that certain things should be relegated to working with pmt processors who have structures designed to manage and be compensated for that risk. We shouldn’t socialize those costs onto the processors or, via higher fees, everyone who accepts credit cards. Instead, we should expect the companies who engage in those activities to shoulder their own burdens rather than pushing that risk off to others.
Instead of tailoring this to financial service providers, create conditions for essential service operators that must ensure service delivery neutrality. That way, the legislation applies to all kinds of infrastructural services, and you don’t even open up the can of worms that is freedom of speech, since the affected companies don’t get to have a say in who they want to do business with.
Just to be noted, we are in this situation especially because there are a lot of terrible regulation in banking that force them to police every single use of your money or take very big risks.
I think you really need to make a card that isn’t a Visa or MasterCard or a QR payments system that’s wired to common banks. I don’t think anyone has suggested creating a payment processor without this, because the issue is with Visa/MasterCard, not with the middleman.
I think Valve could actually find a bank to work with to run a QR payments scheme for the gaming industry (SteamPay perhaps?) that’s “topped up” via ACH. Just ignore the whole card part, since it’s online you don’t even need it. Require biometrics and you can make the fraud burden easier.
Of course this would cost a lot of money, but it’s at least in the realm of possible versus a PayFac etc.
I highly doubt banks would choose some completely new payment processor (or card, etc.) over Visa or Mastercard: Visa and Mastercard can just put in their terms of service that you're not allowed to use that payment processor and that'll kill them real quick. Highly unlikely any existing bank would give up Visa or Mastercard just for that.
I've built a payfac before, and while I think this author is overstating the difficulty of doing so in 2025, I agree that it wouldn't help Valve to do so. We weren't the ones that decided it was too risky to deal with specific merchant categories; our processor did that for us. It wasn't even a discussion. (Nevermind such policies like "all of Puerto Rico is too risky to deal with.")
I built and ran a site that allowed users to upload a stable diffusion model and generate images with them. I originally received money via stripe, and then promptly got kicked off after about 9 months. They threatened (via a clearly automated message), that the fines could be as high as 400k, ended up paying a 4k fine and getting off ASAP.
While we were on stripe though, the charge back rate was probably ~2-3%, which, I think is probably fine.
Moved over to Coinbase commerce and sales dropped from ~5k / month to 1k / month.
That was an interesting read. The core issue unfortunately appears to boil down to being a deeply complex of net of trust and risk distribution.
The issue being a "human"/societal problem, instead of technology, makes me wonder if this could be slowly changed over a few generations. The amount of momentum required would be quite high tough.
I enjoy reading others' complaints about payments and only after the correct person gets frustrated enough, shunning the buyout greed, will a feasible domestic solution manifest.
Having written all the code and founded my own "Payment Processor" twice in the last few decades, this is an interesting space that demands subject matter expertise 24/7/365. Having lived through many global events of all kinds, that the general public never saw since being in payments at the inception of the internet, I learned things not possible today. I recall vividly those that laughed at me in the 90's when responding to inquiries about what I did for a living. After stating that I was building a payment server for the internet all balked stating no one would pay for anything online and then PayPal became our client followed by many other well known brands. Is anyone still paying online?
> If you're making your own PayFac, you're suddenly responsible for getting and securely storing that information and handing it up to your sponsoring Acquirer. You're also responsible for verifying it, ...
My understanding is that steam already has to do this? Like when I buy a game on steam it goes to steam, who then redistributes the funds to themselves, developer and tax man. Since they are holding the money, are they not defacto already a Payment Facilitator?
Most of the companies store tokens for CC numbers etc., apart from not beeing allowed to store the number itself, it doesnt bring any good to you since every hacker will be pleased to stop by; If someone is stealing the tokens, they can't use it for much.
afaik games are not considered money. and steam points are not considered money either. only withdrawable credits (casinos/online payment apps) are considered as money
I remember working on POS for a non-porn industry also shut out by payment processors, and the increasingly obtuse hoops and loopholes they had to navigate were wild to hear about after working in more traditional SaaS and eCom. Reverse ATMs, cash-to-crypto, cash-to-barter, all different state-to-state and between nations. This shit is hard when you're arbitrarily frozen out of access. Really made me rethink how I pay for things, especially at in-person retail.
There's an avalanche of money waiting for more competition to Nvidia too....
The problem is, many folks have absolutely no comprehension of how difficult it is to build a payment processor that can serve lots of customers they don't personally know. The fraud is just insane. The regulation is insane. The card network rules are insane.
Look at India, the UPI generates a billion+ transaction per day. Just amazing how to include mom and pop merchants into digital economy and not to suck up to Master/VISA networks.
Cryptocurrencies are many different things to different people. Putting aside the speculative mania, the payment processor problem is one of the main problems private cryptocurrencies solve.
Stablecoins are not without issues, but they've largely solved the problem of price volatility. Objections around issuance and backing might be raised, but this is more interesting for trading and less relevant for merchant transactions.
Yes, there are no chargebacks with cryptocurrencies. This is an advantage for the merchant. Before anyone goes off the deep end here, let's recall the context of the discussion: one time payments to reputable merchants for trivial amounts. Game purchases do not require life changing amounts of currency to change hands. Steam and Itch are well known brands.
So what is left to object to? My impression is that there is excessive cultural and political baggage.
From the article:
>Capitalism sucks. The economic ecosystem sucks. People unrelated to transactions in any way except "They have the tech to facilitate them" deciding that entire industries don't get to make money and feed their staff because "It's risky to handle these payments" suck. That these entities can also be attacked by PACs and shamed into being the morality police sucks.
...
>But I still hate crypto.
Note that even though the author correctly observes the high regulatory overhead and political, non-market forces, they still manage to blame "Capitalism".
Problem with accepting crypto is the on-ramp/off-ramp to fiat
Everybody, except for the few that are holding crypto and expect it to irrationally keep rising forever, are looking to convert it into ironically fiat money which they swear is the enemy.
This means other than bordering purely illegal or prohibited businesses that payment processors cannot handle (remember there are adult processors too), crypto will never become mainstream replacement for fiat.
Right now liquidity is there to absorb the ramping process but long term observers will note how fragile and quickly this can go away. Already, the number of new wallets being created on Bitcoin is plummeting. Search terms for bitcoin has tapered off. There is almost no real interest in it being a replacement for fiat or gold.
I wish gold could become more accepted but we all know the history of e-gold and many of us know its connection to Bitcoin and its curious proximity of origin.
It's just not a good look for companies selling mainstream products to suddenly accept a medium which is clearly being used for pump and dump and laundering of money for transnational crime and no amount of gaslighting or pushing crypto will change it, in fact it achieves the opposite of their goals.
We might at some point see a digital currency but this would be completely different from the crypto in existence today and all stablecoins that isn't issued by the government runs the risk of reporting what is different than what is there in the vaults as if governments haven't been caught doing this in the past. ex) Tether's reserves unaudited unverified mystery
Seems possible that on/off-ramps are leveled up in the next few years as Stripe and other large financial institutions all try to launch and dominate stablecoins.
[+] [-] sschueller|7 months ago|reply
A digital alternative to cash offered by the central banks which are the ones responsible to enable financial transactions. Since so many are moving to cashless it is important for the central bank to retain control of the currency alternative to cash.
We can not allow this explosion of middle men all taking a cut of something they should not be part off especially since they now have such power that they decide what you can and cannot buy instead of the laws of the land.
[+] [-] Voultapher|7 months ago|reply
Privatizing water supply is an awful deal for citizen - ask the UK - since the incentives are anti-consumer and public infrastructure is more often than not a monopoly by definition. I'd count transferring money online as public infrastructure and it should get the same treatment.
[+] [-] mhh__|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] philistine|7 months ago|reply
It is far from perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good.
[+] [-] always_imposter|7 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] meagher|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] FinnKuhn|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] meindnoch|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] elric|7 months ago|reply
The author mentions the storefront pocketing the money, that seems implausible? If an unscrupulous storefront can pocket money that would be wired, it could also pocket money that would be paid by CC.
And then there's the weird thing about payment volumes...that's been a solved problem for half a century?
[+] [-] toast0|7 months ago|reply
We do have ACH (single nightly batch), same day ACH (four? batches throughout the day), and the new FedNow (immediate). But all of those involve providing account numbers and we don't like to provide those (both payers and receivers prefer not to give the other participant their ach numbers). Also, there's not a consistent way to link a payment/debit with an invoice, because memo fields don't necessarily show up with the payment.
Also, credit card purchases can be reversed without the cooperation of the merchant. Most issuers are generous with chargebacks (at least historically). You could take a merchant to court if you did a wire transfer, but that's expensive and time consuming.
[+] [-] thfuran|7 months ago|reply
I'm assuming "wire transfer" means something different to you than what it means in America. In the US, a wire transfer is when you call up your bank, give them a routing number and account number, tell them to wire however much money to it, agree to pay like $20 or something for the transfer, and then they tell you the transfer will happen tomorrow morning because it's 3:30 PM and the last batch gets handled at 3:00. They're not so much hated as pretty much entirely irrelevant to everyone. I've made one wire transfer in my life, and that was for buying a house.
[+] [-] appease7727|7 months ago|reply
Americans aren't opposed to it. Like so many problems with America, our institutions are simply opposed to anything other than maximal profit extraction at any and all costs.
Americans are, however opposed to the kind of national ID system you'd want for this kind of national banking scheme. For some reaon, they think it's more private or secure to use a 9-digit number assigned at birth.
[+] [-] Esophagus4|7 months ago|reply
I also encourage you to read about Chesterton’s Fence. Make sure you understand why something exists before you think about how to replace it, then maybe you won’t see Americans’ use of credit cards as “irrational,” but instead, reasonable under the circumstances that exist.
That said… the US did roll out FedNow (similar to SEPA) but because the US banking ecosystem is more fragmented, adoption takes a while.
Wire transfers here are expensive and don’t provide consumer benefits (cash back, credit options, consumer protections like fraud and chargeback, or merchant coupons). In your example, if an unscrupulous store pockets the credit card payment, the credit card / issuer will often reimburse your purchase. (This is a law in the US.)
[+] [-] LoganDark|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] palmfacehn|7 months ago|reply
No.
The card processor will return the customer's funds for various reasons. In many cases, "no reason" is sufficient for a chargeback, especially if you are dealing in intangibles, such as software licenses or digital media. In addition to returning the customer's funds, the merchant is typically penalized a "chargeback fee". This means as a merchant, if your chargeback fee is $25 and the product is $5, one chargeback can set you back 6 sales.
For these reasons, as well as other minimum rates, certain price levels are untenable. Consequently, many products are either not sold at all or sold at a much higher price.
The conditions make it more sensible for the merchant to sell high priced items to less troublesome customers. The percentage of the card processor's fees are relatively less. The probability of a chargeback is lower. As you have less customers, you can more easily provide support and contact them directly.
[+] [-] bob1029|7 months ago|reply
PCI-DSS compliance wasn't even mentioned and it is easily able to overwhelm organizations like Valve and Itch on its own. The hardest part of payment processing is the network. Connecting the acquirers to the issuers in such a way that everyone is happy with the arrangement. Just like the hardest part of the power grid is the transmission infrastructure. The endpoints are far more trivial to replace. If you want to use the existing network, you have to play by all of the rules. The only real way out of this system is to use a completely different kind of currency.
[+] [-] FinnKuhn|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kaishiro|7 months ago|reply
> “We had problems when we started accepting cryptocurrencies as a payment option. 50% of those transactions were fraudulent, which is a mind-boggling number. These were customers we didn’t want to have.” [1]
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steam-co-founder-reveals-why-...
[+] [-] tonyhart7|7 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Almondsetat|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] stego-tech|7 months ago|reply
“Financial institutions and financial services providers are barred from blocking, interfering with, restricting, or refusing any consensual transaction that complies with laws regarding content, materials, goods, or services.”
Admittedly in the USA this tees up a 1A case over whether companies have freedom of speech (they shouldn’t), but in other jurisdictions it could be the game changer needed to unshackle commerce from the control of a handful of boardroom puritans and risk-adverse compliance departments. If porn has a high rate of chargebacks, then stop allowing them without a higher burden of proof on the person requesting them, for instance. There’s ample room to enforce accountability on consumers and processors without upending the proverbial produce cart.
[+] [-] dlcarrier|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] landl0rd|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 9dev|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] greatgib|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Shank|7 months ago|reply
I think Valve could actually find a bank to work with to run a QR payments scheme for the gaming industry (SteamPay perhaps?) that’s “topped up” via ACH. Just ignore the whole card part, since it’s online you don’t even need it. Require biometrics and you can make the fraud burden easier.
Of course this would cost a lot of money, but it’s at least in the realm of possible versus a PayFac etc.
[+] [-] tmcz26|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] LoganDark|7 months ago|reply
I highly doubt banks would choose some completely new payment processor (or card, etc.) over Visa or Mastercard: Visa and Mastercard can just put in their terms of service that you're not allowed to use that payment processor and that'll kill them real quick. Highly unlikely any existing bank would give up Visa or Mastercard just for that.
[+] [-] debo_|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] czhu12|7 months ago|reply
I built and ran a site that allowed users to upload a stable diffusion model and generate images with them. I originally received money via stripe, and then promptly got kicked off after about 9 months. They threatened (via a clearly automated message), that the fines could be as high as 400k, ended up paying a 4k fine and getting off ASAP.
While we were on stripe though, the charge back rate was probably ~2-3%, which, I think is probably fine.
Moved over to Coinbase commerce and sales dropped from ~5k / month to 1k / month.
[+] [-] llsf|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] TZubiri|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] c0balt|7 months ago|reply
The issue being a "human"/societal problem, instead of technology, makes me wonder if this could be slowly changed over a few generations. The amount of momentum required would be quite high tough.
[+] [-] bokohut|7 months ago|reply
Having written all the code and founded my own "Payment Processor" twice in the last few decades, this is an interesting space that demands subject matter expertise 24/7/365. Having lived through many global events of all kinds, that the general public never saw since being in payments at the inception of the internet, I learned things not possible today. I recall vividly those that laughed at me in the 90's when responding to inquiries about what I did for a living. After stating that I was building a payment server for the internet all balked stating no one would pay for anything online and then PayPal became our client followed by many other well known brands. Is anyone still paying online?
Stay Healthy!
[+] [-] NoahZuniga|7 months ago|reply
My understanding is that steam already has to do this? Like when I buy a game on steam it goes to steam, who then redistributes the funds to themselves, developer and tax man. Since they are holding the money, are they not defacto already a Payment Facilitator?
[+] [-] ta12653421|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Crackula|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] gavinray|7 months ago|reply
Got as far as several emails to vendors who all replied they wouldn't facilitate the payments, and saying "Good luck" trying to find one that would
Absolutely stupid system if you ask me.
[+] [-] ta12653421|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] starkparker|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] elevenoh4|7 months ago|reply
i've seen too many businesses destroyed by sudden "your account is closed" with no human contact
[+] [-] danielmarkbruce|7 months ago|reply
The problem is, many folks have absolutely no comprehension of how difficult it is to build a payment processor that can serve lots of customers they don't personally know. The fraud is just insane. The regulation is insane. The card network rules are insane.
[+] [-] Keyframe|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Gurunanak|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lovelearning|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] palmfacehn|7 months ago|reply
Stablecoins are not without issues, but they've largely solved the problem of price volatility. Objections around issuance and backing might be raised, but this is more interesting for trading and less relevant for merchant transactions.
Yes, there are no chargebacks with cryptocurrencies. This is an advantage for the merchant. Before anyone goes off the deep end here, let's recall the context of the discussion: one time payments to reputable merchants for trivial amounts. Game purchases do not require life changing amounts of currency to change hands. Steam and Itch are well known brands.
So what is left to object to? My impression is that there is excessive cultural and political baggage.
From the article:
>Capitalism sucks. The economic ecosystem sucks. People unrelated to transactions in any way except "They have the tech to facilitate them" deciding that entire industries don't get to make money and feed their staff because "It's risky to handle these payments" suck. That these entities can also be attacked by PACs and shamed into being the morality police sucks.
...
>But I still hate crypto.
Note that even though the author correctly observes the high regulatory overhead and political, non-market forces, they still manage to blame "Capitalism".
[+] [-] djfobbz|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jjangkke|7 months ago|reply
Everybody, except for the few that are holding crypto and expect it to irrationally keep rising forever, are looking to convert it into ironically fiat money which they swear is the enemy.
This means other than bordering purely illegal or prohibited businesses that payment processors cannot handle (remember there are adult processors too), crypto will never become mainstream replacement for fiat.
Right now liquidity is there to absorb the ramping process but long term observers will note how fragile and quickly this can go away. Already, the number of new wallets being created on Bitcoin is plummeting. Search terms for bitcoin has tapered off. There is almost no real interest in it being a replacement for fiat or gold.
I wish gold could become more accepted but we all know the history of e-gold and many of us know its connection to Bitcoin and its curious proximity of origin.
It's just not a good look for companies selling mainstream products to suddenly accept a medium which is clearly being used for pump and dump and laundering of money for transnational crime and no amount of gaslighting or pushing crypto will change it, in fact it achieves the opposite of their goals.
We might at some point see a digital currency but this would be completely different from the crypto in existence today and all stablecoins that isn't issued by the government runs the risk of reporting what is different than what is there in the vaults as if governments haven't been caught doing this in the past. ex) Tether's reserves unaudited unverified mystery
[+] [-] meagher|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|7 months ago|reply