Topic: Cryptocurrency and Remittences - page 3. (Read 600 times)
Although part of it might engage in remittances, their partners suggest that it would be used, as a stablecoin, as payment to different services that can be connected to the Facebook platform. In addition, we cannot consider Libra as dead, as of now. There are still posssibilities that it would indeed launch. I personally think that when Libra goes live, and innocent ones have been convinced of its convenience, it would become a success. The problem with Facebook is data privacy concerns.
Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).
Libra Association Partners
Judging from above infographic on the members of Libra Association (some of which have already withdrawn), I don't think its really aimed on remittance industry alone, since its partners came from varied industries such as blockchain,payment solutions, fintech, online marketplaces, telecommunications, Non profit NGO's, etc and If I'm not mistaken, non of which came from the remittance industry.
Although it could be used as currency for remittances, I assume that its use case could be far more bigger which could include almost any other industries where it is applicable.
Lastly, if they've really aimed Libra on remittances, then they could have partnered with the biggest names in international remittance in the likes of Western Union and MoneyGram but this has never materialized so far. Imho.
Link: https://libra.org/en-US/partners/
Did you use Bitcoin recently? Segwit adoption has gone up a lot resulting in piss low fees. I haven't paid more than ~$0.08 in fees for my last transactions. In case there is a sudden increase in transactions I use RBF to bump the fee a bit. Times are different now. USDT's shift to ERC20 helped a lot too. Please don't tell me that $0.08 is still too high.
I have. The fees are only low when the price is down. Everytime the price surges, the mempool fills up and the fees climb.
Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).
If the topic is why stablecoin markets attract interest with many wanting a piece of it, I think that dates back to 2018 when tether announced they were destroying $500 million dollars worth of USDT supply.
Quote
Newsflash: Tether Destroys 500 Million Dollars Of USDT
October 24, 2018
Tether Limited, the issuer of the USD-pegged USDT cryptocurrency, has destroyed 500 million units of the embattled stablecoin.
Blockchain data reveals that earlier today, the firm transferred 500 million USDT from the token’s treasury address to this address, which the firm’s website indicates is the official USDT issuing address. Immediately following that transaction’s confirmation, the issuing address revoked the tokens, not only removing them from circulation (as tokens within the treasury are not counted as circulating) but also — once the transaction is confirmed — destroying them completely.
As CCN reported, USDT’s market cap has plunged in October, primarily because token holders have redeemed nearly 800 million USDT since the beginning of the month. Following these redemptions, nearly 1 billion tokens were sitting in the treasury where they remained on-chain but out of circulation. At the time of writing, the treasury continued to hold approximately 467 million USDT.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/newsflash-tether-destroys-500-million-171435354.html
October 24, 2018
Tether Limited, the issuer of the USD-pegged USDT cryptocurrency, has destroyed 500 million units of the embattled stablecoin.
Blockchain data reveals that earlier today, the firm transferred 500 million USDT from the token’s treasury address to this address, which the firm’s website indicates is the official USDT issuing address. Immediately following that transaction’s confirmation, the issuing address revoked the tokens, not only removing them from circulation (as tokens within the treasury are not counted as circulating) but also — once the transaction is confirmed — destroying them completely.
As CCN reported, USDT’s market cap has plunged in October, primarily because token holders have redeemed nearly 800 million USDT since the beginning of the month. Following these redemptions, nearly 1 billion tokens were sitting in the treasury where they remained on-chain but out of circulation. At the time of writing, the treasury continued to hold approximately 467 million USDT.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/newsflash-tether-destroys-500-million-171435354.html
The 2nd paragraph portion about tether holders redeeming $800 million in USDT in a single month is key. It could mean tether generated $800 million in revenue in a 31 day span. Impressive numbers, in my opinion. That could define why there is high interest in the stablecoin market coming from big and established players like facebook.
If I remember correctly, tether can only be directly sold for us dollars. But I think that once bought it can be deposited to some exchanges and traded or sold for other things. In that sense libracoin would merely be following in tether's footsteps if they limited themselves to initial exchange for btc or usd.
If you use a bank for remittance transactions, it will usually take days before it shows up on your account. Even if Bitcoin transactions might get stuck for hours, I do think it's not really a deal-breaker (and this is not true). Lightning would probably become a better choice compared to XRP.
More sectors mean more money. Not a surprise they'll do that.
If you only consider Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and similar companies in the Libra Association, you might see that remittance is the way to go for Libra. But if you take into consideration the likes of Spotify or Uber, you will see that there is in fact a very vast opportunity for the coin as well as the project in general.
More sectors mean more money. Not a surprise they'll do that.
Libra was never aimed towards the remittance market. Facebook don't really like to capture a single market. What they always want to do is disrupting the business environment. That's why they have associated big brands from every type of sector with their Libra project.
Like lobat999 already posted about it, you can literally see remittance sector, telecom sector, transportation, banking, music etc. They are also aiming to multiply these numbers before the actual launch! Remittance is obviously one of the sectors where crypto can be a big help! But that doesn't end here!
Like lobat999 already posted about it, you can literally see remittance sector, telecom sector, transportation, banking, music etc. They are also aiming to multiply these numbers before the actual launch! Remittance is obviously one of the sectors where crypto can be a big help! But that doesn't end here!
Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).
Libra Association Partners
Judging from above infographic on the members of Libra Association (some of which have already withdrawn), I don't think its really aimed on remittance industry alone, since its partners came from varied industries such as blockchain,payment solutions, fintech, online marketplaces, telecommunications, Non profit NGO's, etc and If I'm not mistaken, non of which came from the remittance industry.
Although it could be used as currency for remittances, I assume that its use case could be far more bigger which could include almost any other industries where it is applicable.
Lastly, if they've really aimed Libra on remittances, then they could have partnered with the biggest names in international remittance in the likes of Western Union and MoneyGram but this has never materialized so far. Imho.
Link: https://libra.org/en-US/partners/
Of course, it seems other projects are considering the remittance market. The DIVI project is a classical example because it has collaborated with a remittance company to form the Ridivi. The Ridivi aims to facilitate enhanced money transfer across the globe with cryptocurrency adoption as well. Offices of the Ridivi has started operating in Costa Rica and some being built in US and Africa.
More information Ridivi can be found via https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.diviproject.org/ridivi/amp/
More information Ridivi can be found via https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.diviproject.org/ridivi/amp/
I guess the original plan was more than just a remittance coin. The project has a huge reservoir of possibilities. When I checked the members of the Libra Association several months ago, I was amazed. The project was really huge that it could really change the financial horizon of the world.
If you only consider Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and similar companies in the Libra Association, you might see that remittance is the way to go for Libra. But if you take into consideration the likes of Spotify or Uber, you will see that there is in fact a very vast opportunity for the coin as well as the project in general.
But now it seems they will remain as possibilities.
If you only consider Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and similar companies in the Libra Association, you might see that remittance is the way to go for Libra. But if you take into consideration the likes of Spotify or Uber, you will see that there is in fact a very vast opportunity for the coin as well as the project in general.
But now it seems they will remain as possibilities.
Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittance market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin). If a coin can appear with low fees and no backlogs, and if that coin takes over the remittance business, it should have a good chance to make a breakthrough as the dominant crypto. Zuckerberg was hoping that coin would be Libra, but that dream is dead now.
Yes, there is no question that the remittance market is quite huge and this is expanding at a good rate in the coming years. No wonder that there are big firms looking at this market with some desire to capture a good slice of the sweet pie (or you can make it pizza). There is a good potential with XRP but I think for now its expansion seems to be not so bright (just my opinion) though I am not counting this entity yet as they are still part of the rate as new partnerships are formed and will be acquired.
Quote
According to the World Bank, in 2018 overall global remittance grew 10% to US$689 billion, including US$528 billion to developing countries. Overall global remittance is expected to grow 3.7% to US$ 715 billion in 2019, including US$549 billion to developing nations.
Facebook's Libra is likewise taking a big leap hoping to capture the biggest slice of the market pie due to the resources and the infrastructure backing it up. With Facebook alone, the captured market is already so big that maybe at the time Mark's minions were on the drawing board they salivated at the thought of being the dominant force in the remittance industry.
I would not yet declare that Libra is dead but definitely it is on the ICU. Who knows if Mark and his people can pull some magic tricks and just give us a surprise show...sort of spectacle that can make Libra gain the upper hands from the clutches of regulators. Right, Mark?
Ripple, which was the stablecoin that was supposed to be ideal for remittences seems to be a failure because you can only convert it to bitcoin and USD:
It was never meant to be a stablecoin. The whole idea is that you don't have much more exposure to the volatility of this market than 5-10 seconds in total. An XRP transaction is settled in 4ish seconds, and then selling it for x/y/z currency will take a few seconds on top of that. On paper it actually looks quite good, but the main obstacle is indeed liquidity.Quote
The report notes that Western Union has trialed Ripple’s products, but have steered clear of xRapid, the solution which uses XRP. The report states, this is because “there is not enough liquidity, depth, nor enough on-ramps and off-ramps for it to work as intended.”
The whole hype around Ripple's partnerships are used by heavy bag holders to make it seem there is a lot demand for the XRP based services, but what most financial institutions have pledged to is the use of xCurrent and some other fiat based products.
The only problem with bitcoin is the fees and the delays when the price rises and the mempool gets backlogged.
Did you use Bitcoin recently? Segwit adoption has gone up a lot resulting in piss low fees. I haven't paid more than ~$0.08 in fees for my last transactions. In case there is a sudden increase in transactions I use RBF to bump the fee a bit. Times are different now. USDT's shift to ERC20 helped a lot too. Please don't tell me that $0.08 is still too high.
Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).
It's worth looking at other attempts of cryptocurrencies to break into the remittence market, and George Harrap, the CEO of Bitspark (Hong Kong based remittence company) did a useful assessment of the viability of different coins:
https://blockgeeks.com/news/bitcoin-outruns-ripple-at-global-remittances-says-new-report/
The biggest issue is liquidity:
Ripple, which was the stablecoin that was supposed to be ideal for remittences seems to be a failure because you can only convert it to bitcoin and USD:
The only problem with bitcoin is the fees and the delays when the price rises and the mempool gets backlogged.
If a coin can appear with low fees and no backlogs, and if that coin takes over the remittence business, it should have a good chance to make a breakthrough as the dominant crypto. Zuckerberg was hoping that coin would be Libra, but that dream is dead now.
It's worth looking at other attempts of cryptocurrencies to break into the remittence market, and George Harrap, the CEO of Bitspark (Hong Kong based remittence company) did a useful assessment of the viability of different coins:
https://blockgeeks.com/news/bitcoin-outruns-ripple-at-global-remittances-says-new-report/
The biggest issue is liquidity:
Quote
There are no liquid Nigerian naira (NGN) and Ethereum (ETH) market, EOS and Vietnamese dong or XRP and Philippine peso markets,” Harrap observes. “The only market which has sufficient liquidity and people willing to provide a local currency in exchange for a cryptocurrency is usually bitcoin.”
Ripple, which was the stablecoin that was supposed to be ideal for remittences seems to be a failure because you can only convert it to bitcoin and USD:
Quote
The report notes that Western Union has trialed Ripple’s products, but have steered clear of xRapid, the solution which uses XRP. The report states, this is because “there is not enough liquidity, depth, nor enough on-ramps and off-ramps for it to work as intended.”
The majority of remittance payments are sent to developing countries, whose currencies lack liquid markets with XRP. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has been out there for a long time and has more market approval along with some level of regulatory recognition.
Bitcoin also supports direct exchanges to almost all the local currencies. Even though there are approximately 20 tokens that provide support for remittances, they have all failed to establish reliable liquidity channels with smaller fiat currencies.
As of February 2019, 99.9% of all cryptocurrency money transfers are in Bitcoin.
The majority of remittance payments are sent to developing countries, whose currencies lack liquid markets with XRP. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has been out there for a long time and has more market approval along with some level of regulatory recognition.
Bitcoin also supports direct exchanges to almost all the local currencies. Even though there are approximately 20 tokens that provide support for remittances, they have all failed to establish reliable liquidity channels with smaller fiat currencies.
As of February 2019, 99.9% of all cryptocurrency money transfers are in Bitcoin.
The only problem with bitcoin is the fees and the delays when the price rises and the mempool gets backlogged.
If a coin can appear with low fees and no backlogs, and if that coin takes over the remittence business, it should have a good chance to make a breakthrough as the dominant crypto. Zuckerberg was hoping that coin would be Libra, but that dream is dead now.
Jump to: