Topic: Can Buttercoin achieve their goals with the current market? (Read 449 times)
It seems like a good idea, because it helps people obtain BTC easier. I hope it allows for more adoption!
I have been thinking about Buttercoin's value proposition and I don't know that what they are proposing is a net positive for bitcoin. For anyone who isn't aware, Buttercoin is going after the remittances market by using Bitcoin as a backend for money transmitters. See http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/20/buttercoin/.
From a philosophical standpoint, their solution runs against the very nature of Bitcoin. They take a fundamentally decentralized product and strap on a layer of centralization and control. This has occurred with some technologies in the past, e.g. Napster and Skype. Perhaps this is one of the steps that is necessary to bring Bitcoin into the mainstream and under firm existential footing, and to that end this is a worthy effort. In particular, their efforts to create exchanges in various markets will help Bitcoin liquidity.
However, wrapping a layer of regulation around Bitcoin could end up hurting Bitcoin rather than helping it. Remittances with Bitcoin are already available to anyone who knows how to use Bitcoin, and people should have the ability to remit bitcoins directly to one another within the spirit of the decentralized system. The difficulty, of course, is the ability to convert bitcoins back into local currencies. This is why having trustworthy and accessible exchanges is necessary. I would venture to guess that the exchanges Buttercoin intends to set up will be private to their network, so it wouldn't help the user who doesn't intend to remit money.
If Bitcoin would be legal in the hands of licensed money transmitters, then a more direct solution would be to allow money transmitters to receive bitcoins and give people fiat - essentially become in-person exchanges. People can then send bitcoins directly to each other, and convert them into fiat. In my view, this is more in line with the fundamental philosophy of Bitcoin.
From a philosophical standpoint, their solution runs against the very nature of Bitcoin. They take a fundamentally decentralized product and strap on a layer of centralization and control. This has occurred with some technologies in the past, e.g. Napster and Skype. Perhaps this is one of the steps that is necessary to bring Bitcoin into the mainstream and under firm existential footing, and to that end this is a worthy effort. In particular, their efforts to create exchanges in various markets will help Bitcoin liquidity.
However, wrapping a layer of regulation around Bitcoin could end up hurting Bitcoin rather than helping it. Remittances with Bitcoin are already available to anyone who knows how to use Bitcoin, and people should have the ability to remit bitcoins directly to one another within the spirit of the decentralized system. The difficulty, of course, is the ability to convert bitcoins back into local currencies. This is why having trustworthy and accessible exchanges is necessary. I would venture to guess that the exchanges Buttercoin intends to set up will be private to their network, so it wouldn't help the user who doesn't intend to remit money.
If Bitcoin would be legal in the hands of licensed money transmitters, then a more direct solution would be to allow money transmitters to receive bitcoins and give people fiat - essentially become in-person exchanges. People can then send bitcoins directly to each other, and convert them into fiat. In my view, this is more in line with the fundamental philosophy of Bitcoin.
I love the prospect of introducing bitcoin to international tranfers, but are they too early? Considering the buy/sell walls, do you feel a company would be able to move upwards to millions of dollars for people sending money to relatives? What systems or strategies could they put in place to combat currency loss?
I would guess they will need a couple weeks transfer time where they strategically invest into the market. With a $1mm investment, there will not be enough capital (or in various fiats) on hand to do much internally.
Thoughts?
I would guess they will need a couple weeks transfer time where they strategically invest into the market. With a $1mm investment, there will not be enough capital (or in various fiats) on hand to do much internally.
Thoughts?
Jump to: