At this point, they have to stop pretending that "eventually everyone will recognize blockchain like they recognized the internet" and "everyone questioning us is like those who scoffed at the...
At this point, they have to stop pretending that "eventually everyone will recognize blockchain like they recognized the internet" and "everyone questioning us is like those who scoffed at the early internet". It sounds like all the quacks who consistently say "they also believed Galileo was a fraud, so you should buy my snake oil".
Overall, it's a way dismissing legitimate criticism without having to address that criticism.
Yeah. In the article it mentions Visa is piloting a program on Solana. IMO this is the real test for figuring out which criticisms are valid, and which lack evidence. Some KPIs I imagine they are...
Yeah. In the article it mentions Visa is piloting a program on Solana. IMO this is the real test for figuring out which criticisms are valid, and which lack evidence. Some KPIs I imagine they are looking for:
Lowered OPEX by using Solana vs their own in-house infra
Solana especially is going to be interesting to see really tested. It's controversial to say the least, but if chains CAN'T hit the metrics Solana claims, then they're DOA for a lot of uses. There...
Solana especially is going to be interesting to see really tested. It's controversial to say the least, but if chains CAN'T hit the metrics Solana claims, then they're DOA for a lot of uses.
There are some use cases in fincance for block chain, but I don't think the majority of it is a front end "buyable token" thing so much as "yes these 45 entities agree you are owed $4500". Offsetting the cost of processing by making the proof of process a currency is an interesting concept, but I'm pretty sure it's not needed for every single situation, and commingling the two limits your use cases tremendously (and that's before you get into legal ramifications)
Right. I think the public view is that tokens are the big part of blockchains, but imo they're the most narrow usecase. If you can't identify the growth loop that the token rewards will...
Right. I think the public view is that tokens are the big part of blockchains, but imo they're the most narrow usecase. If you can't identify the growth loop that the token rewards will incentivize, and that loop already doesn't have PMF, don't launch the token. But for something like USDC, where there is PMF (users get and send USDC as if they are dollars, Circle gets to park your real USD in short-dated treasuries), I think this is where interesting rails for Visa to test comes in.
For a provider like Visa, I think they either need to see if Solana usage lowers their OPEX, thus getting a bigger margin on their (I think) $0.12 per transfer, or higher volume of cross-border users.
Idk what their current margins are, but if they can scalp 99% of the $0.12 per transfer that seems like it would be a large win for them without adding cost to the users.
I would think Visa still enforces compliance with which counterparties you transfer funds to regardless of which payment rails they happen to use under the hood but could be wrong.
I would think Visa still enforces compliance with which counterparties you transfer funds to regardless of which payment rails they happen to use under the hood but could be wrong.
Going forward, we imagine a future where Visa’s network of networks involves more than just multiple currencies and bank settlement rails, but also multiple blockchain networks, stablecoins, and CBDCs or tokenized deposits. We expect traditional fiat and legacy settlement rails to co-exist with tokenized fiat running over global 24/7 real time blockchain networks for a long time.
Which sounds great on paper…and their margins but defeats the entire purpose of this technology. I did not live through the inception of visa and master card, nor am I old enough to be hiding...
Which sounds great on paper…and their margins but defeats the entire purpose of this technology.
I did not live through the inception of visa and master card, nor am I old enough to be hiding money under the mattress but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a similar argument made when these companies tried to convince the general public to use their services.
I see blockchain having two possible routes for its future: grow to compete on its own against existing networks or be forced into those existing networks that claim to provide financial security.
While this article may not be the make all our break all, I think we already missed the opportunity for blockchain to become its own thing. Too many big players have invested in it.
We are not going to get away from trust, because trust has too much value, and a world in which you don't trust anybody is an absurd hypothetical anyway. Insofar as a trust-free distributed...
We are not going to get away from trust, because trust has too much value, and a world in which you don't trust anybody is an absurd hypothetical anyway. Insofar as a trust-free distributed consensus mechanism like a 'blockchain' has value, it is not as something that can be used to realise a pseudo-libertarian ideal of hiding digital dollars under your digital mattress; rather, it is as a common substratum and a mechanism and something which can be used to institute policies that effectively economise trust in interesting and specifically targeted ways. This mirrors what jaron lanier has said about the topic, as well as anoma's heterogeneous security models.
I like your spirit but what is your opinion on big players incorporating blockchains if they can be improvements to existing payment network infrastructure? My thinking is that if open source...
I like your spirit but what is your opinion on big players incorporating blockchains if they can be improvements to existing payment network infrastructure? My thinking is that if open source technology happens to work better than existing proprietary tech, it makes sense for businesses to adopt them.
Of course, for personal usage, if I can send someone dollars on Solana directly, then in 99% of cases I'll do that over Visa on Solana (or whatever, venmo on Solana etc).
Another possibility might be that it evolves into a boring payment network technology and people don't realize they're using it. How many logos are there on your ATM card? Or the business stuff...
Another possibility might be that it evolves into a boring payment network technology and people don't realize they're using it. How many logos are there on your ATM card?
Or the business stuff dies out. Which seemed to be what was happening, for a while.
There's no obvious product, so I'm wondering why this article was written. Are they looking to hire? Is it some enterprise thing I don't get?
At this point, they have to stop pretending that "eventually everyone will recognize blockchain like they recognized the internet" and "everyone questioning us is like those who scoffed at the early internet". It sounds like all the quacks who consistently say "they also believed Galileo was a fraud, so you should buy my snake oil".
Overall, it's a way dismissing legitimate criticism without having to address that criticism.
Yeah. In the article it mentions Visa is piloting a program on Solana. IMO this is the real test for figuring out which criticisms are valid, and which lack evidence. Some KPIs I imagine they are looking for:
Solana especially is going to be interesting to see really tested. It's controversial to say the least, but if chains CAN'T hit the metrics Solana claims, then they're DOA for a lot of uses.
There are some use cases in fincance for block chain, but I don't think the majority of it is a front end "buyable token" thing so much as "yes these 45 entities agree you are owed $4500". Offsetting the cost of processing by making the proof of process a currency is an interesting concept, but I'm pretty sure it's not needed for every single situation, and commingling the two limits your use cases tremendously (and that's before you get into legal ramifications)
Right. I think the public view is that tokens are the big part of blockchains, but imo they're the most narrow usecase. If you can't identify the growth loop that the token rewards will incentivize, and that loop already doesn't have PMF, don't launch the token. But for something like USDC, where there is PMF (users get and send USDC as if they are dollars, Circle gets to park your real USD in short-dated treasuries), I think this is where interesting rails for Visa to test comes in.
For a provider like Visa, I think they either need to see if Solana usage lowers their OPEX, thus getting a bigger margin on their (I think) $0.12 per transfer, or higher volume of cross-border users.
Idk what their current margins are, but if they can scalp 99% of the $0.12 per transfer that seems like it would be a large win for them without adding cost to the users.
How about also "Ability to facilitate and profit from black market transactions with plausible deniability?"
I would think Visa still enforces compliance with which counterparties you transfer funds to regardless of which payment rails they happen to use under the hood but could be wrong.
Interesting segment:
Which sounds great on paper…and their margins but defeats the entire purpose of this technology.
I did not live through the inception of visa and master card, nor am I old enough to be hiding money under the mattress but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a similar argument made when these companies tried to convince the general public to use their services.
I see blockchain having two possible routes for its future: grow to compete on its own against existing networks or be forced into those existing networks that claim to provide financial security.
While this article may not be the make all our break all, I think we already missed the opportunity for blockchain to become its own thing. Too many big players have invested in it.
We are not going to get away from trust, because trust has too much value, and a world in which you don't trust anybody is an absurd hypothetical anyway. Insofar as a trust-free distributed consensus mechanism like a 'blockchain' has value, it is not as something that can be used to realise a pseudo-libertarian ideal of hiding digital dollars under your digital mattress; rather, it is as a common substratum and a mechanism and something which can be used to institute policies that effectively economise trust in interesting and specifically targeted ways. This mirrors what jaron lanier has said about the topic, as well as anoma's heterogeneous security models.
I like your spirit but what is your opinion on big players incorporating blockchains if they can be improvements to existing payment network infrastructure? My thinking is that if open source technology happens to work better than existing proprietary tech, it makes sense for businesses to adopt them.
Of course, for personal usage, if I can send someone dollars on Solana directly, then in 99% of cases I'll do that over Visa on Solana (or whatever, venmo on Solana etc).
Another possibility might be that it evolves into a boring payment network technology and people don't realize they're using it. How many logos are there on your ATM card?
Or the business stuff dies out. Which seemed to be what was happening, for a while.
There's no obvious product, so I'm wondering why this article was written. Are they looking to hire? Is it some enterprise thing I don't get?