Topic: Cryptocurrency and Remittences (Read 600 times)

Here is how HelloBit’s co-founder and CEO Ali Goss summarizes this conundrum in the insightful article by Bitcoin Magazine:

    “With bitcoin, you’re adding a third currency,” Goss said. “You go from U.S. dollar to bitcoin, and then from bitcoin to whatever the local currency is. You’re adding an extra FX move right there alone. That increases friction. On top of that, small startups don’t have a big FX department, and they don’t have the big abilities that come with such a department … they’re generating more costs for themselves, not less.”

The spreads are so high that even die-hard crypto cross-border players are using non-blockchain rails to complete transfers for those destinations. Yeap, you heard this right, EVERY so-called Bitcoin/blockchain money transfer startup pays banks to process a large portion, sometimes a majority, of its cross-border transfers. Here is ZipZap in this interview to CoinDesk:

    “ZipZap uses a combination of traditional (Swift) bank payment rails and blockchain technologies to find the least expensive and most efficient transfer option…”

But why would MoneyGram use Ripple/XRP and lose money on a double & more expensive conversion? Because Ripple now owns 10% of MoneyGram equity, because “scaling Blockchain” might fool some investors, and because it gets paid by Ripple to create an XRP liquidity in Mexico:



Therefore, rather than disrupt cross-border players or at least help them to serve unbanked, Blockchain players are using those firms to prop up their own printing press – any PR is a good PR as long as more naive consumers buy the made-up currency with otherwise no intrinsic value. Now you also understand why Facebook folks and their Silicon Valley friends were looking at this scheme and wanted in on the action with launching Libra.

That is the problem, if you want to use something small from altcoin list to have a faster and cheaper movement, you are not going to cash it out to fiat that easily, whats the point of changing money from person A to person B using something like nano first but then the person who gets the money turns that nano into bitcoin and then cashes out, it doesn't work unless you can cash out nano to fiat directly and easily.

It is why I feel like there is absolutely no reason to use anything other than bitcoin and ethereum, ethereum is usually capable of turning into fiat in many places as well so that works but that's about it, only a few places have litecoin as well because of the back in the day popularity of it but most new places don't have that neither.

Among altcoins, I have only seen ethereum that has survived so far and has some good number of investors too. Though it is not as potential a coin as bitcoin but a trustworthy one. No other altcoin has been able to replace it. Comparatively, bitcoin is a way too fast and profit promising, and the main purpose of dealing in coins is money. SO it is best to invest in bitcoin and not waste time here and there.

I believe so, that's one reason that Congress was a bit hard on it. If it wasn't for scandals like Cambridge Analytica, they probably wouldn't have scrutinized it as closely.

Not to mention it's election season. These politicians likely saw how the public reacted to Zuckerberg and want to capitalize on that.

I understand you and the rest of the huge populace that are seemingly afraid of what the name Facebook could bring to their wallets, information, location, etc. I even believe that the biggest factor why this project is like a dud from the very beginning is that it is being started by Facebook. It is the reason why the project is going to be a hard sell not just to the governments and their regulators but also to the rest of the common users.

Thank you. Yeah, I just read that all of their partners are backing away from it. I just don't trust facebook so I'm glad.

Nothing so far has been said from the Libra association yet whether they will disassociate each other because of what is happening. I can only think of the lobbyist  facebook had hired to make some negotiations. One congress has expressed his support already for Libra, this is a sign that they may really be continuing what was planned.

There seem to have two parties not wanting facebook to pursue though, One is the crypto community itself and the government which they could easily come to terms. For crypto community, they can ignore all of us once they are approved. That's the only we can do but of course we can still convince the mass not to use libra.

Not all actually. I think only less than half of the members of their association have left out of heavy nudges by the governments. But it is enough for the others to lost interest in pursuing what they have started, at least for now. So far, I would conclude that the dream of the team will remain to be a dream, far from reality. There is no reason for them to force themselves into the market which is showing signs of repugnance to it.

Thank you. Yeah, I just read that all of their partners are backing away from it. I just don't trust facebook so I'm glad.

Maybe because it's backers are withdrawing from the project and Facebook's prime market US doesn't like Libra's concept.
For the use of remittance, bitcoin could still be a good option. Though it's fee seems large for small transactions, it's much better than swift fees or western union fees for sending remittance. There are other options like lightning network or the BEP2 token from binance but it would depend on the parties involved more than the choice of currency.

Why is the Libra dream dead? (Which I hope it is.)

They've ruined their reputation with all those info dumps so no wonder everyone's ganging up on them. It seems to be "cool" to diss the company.

People also fear that their Libra wallets could just be as easily locked down like how an FB account can get locked for expressing "wrongthink" or being mass reported by bots. Certainly doesn't inspire confidence. I'd also like an alt that is better integrated with various platforms to easily perform things that bitcoin can be currently inefficient with but I wouldn't like it to be by Facebook.

In terms of potential, Libra has a lot to be honest. If a certain project with limited funding has vast possibilities and potentials, Libra has much more of them with all their partner companies. Facebook alone has what it takes to create a coin full of potential. Together with their wealthy partner companies, they could hire the best people in the world in terms of blockchain technology development and programmers. But all these potentials are now fading with the project getting attacked by governments all over the world. 

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 fees climbing up when the network is crowded is like the nature of blockchain and if Libra is about to use blockchain aswell they will definitely face the same problem. it is not like paypal that is a centralized company basically all the transaction doesn't need hash power and no need confirmation aswell blockchain is different to that and I think that's what you lose when you are expecting something decentralized. Crypto is indeed quite behind in term of remmitances but there are plenty of cryptos out there that can be used for remmitances and still fast anyway. About Libra, it's not even released yet so we can only wait.

I think Libra will be an altcoin that has functions for several other platforms and may compete in the XRP and XLM classes, but I heard a number of issues stating that Libra was rejected as an alternative payment so I feel Libra still has no potential certainty resulting from.

I think Libra will be an altcoin that has functions for several other platforms and may compete in the XRP and XLM classes, but I heard a number of issues stating that Libra was rejected as an alternative payment so I feel Libra still has no potential certainty resulting from.

I think remittances is one area wherein Libra was put into works, It's a billion dollar industry and Mark wanted to take a slice out of that big pie that remittance company are serving between themselves. And as per WB this year alone, it could reach around $500 - $500 billion globally. And Facebook wanted to disrupt it by joining the picture in 2020. However, with so many backlash, we don't know if they can release it as per schedule or might be some delays because of companies dropping out their partnership even before the said launch.

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 really liked the idea of that Facebook Libra, though not more than I like Bitcoin, but I think it was a really good idea and I don't like that it wasn't a success. Last time I checked the news PayPal has pulled off and a week after, other companies: Visa, MasterCard and eBay all said they were pulling off from the project. The Facebook Libra is now facing Exodus of partners, before you know what's happening, they are all gone.

Judging from the graphics you have posted here it seems like most of them have already given up on the project. But I know for sure that they will start dragging for a seat on the table once the project becomes a success. Let's watch and see. Libra is just another stablecoin whereas these partners are having lots of other options for a stablecoin. It means Libra may have lots of competitors when considering its core purposes.

The problem is that they are comparing Bitcoin's fees and delays to the perfection that Bitcoin could become.

Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).

what's the basis for comparison? moneygram typically charges 2% or more for international transfers, plus a hefty currency conversion fee. if you try to send $100 from america to thailand you'll pay $2 in fees and the recipient will get $95 worth of THB.

that's a 7% fee. and that's with online bank transfer = 3-4 days processing time. if you want instant processing, debit/credit or cash dropoff will cost you an additional 3-7%!

i'm pretty sure bitcoin can compete with that......

The only problem with bitcoin is the fees and the delays when the price rises and the mempool gets backlogged.

But you'd be really surprised to learn that Bitcoin remittance is already a thing. It's how I send money home (not directly, but selling my bitcoin instead, for example, is soooo much cheaper than sending dollars home). In fact, choosing to accept Bitcoin as payment and using that to send money home? It's not just saved me on fees, the sell rate is so good I end up sending home a bit more that I sold.

I really agree with idea of Libra tapping into remittance market.

I have. The fees are only low when the price is down. Everytime the price surges, the mempool fills up and the fees climb.

I really agree with idea of Libra tapping into remittance market. Indeed Bitcoin is very much convenient in that regard and cheaper too. With the size of Facebook and its wide usage. If they are to get regulatory approval in future. These initiatives are most likely to take the market by storm which ever strategy they choose to adopt regarding Libra coin.

But you'd be really surprised to learn that Bitcoin remittance is already a thing. It's how I send money home (not directly, but selling my bitcoin instead, for example, is soooo much cheaper than sending dollars home). In fact, choosing to accept Bitcoin as payment and using that to send money home? It's not just saved me on fees, the sell rate is so good I end up sending home a bit more that I sold.

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.

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. 

Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).

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

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. 

Facebook's Libra was really aimed at the remittence market (which is why they proposed a stablecoin).

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.