Guys, (some of) you have to be malicious, because if you're saying these things genuinely I have to seriously satrt worrying about the genepool!
There is no secret agenda, and no "attack on crypto". VISA chose to terminate one of its partners (completely, not just the crypto cards they issue) because their partner infringed their contractual obligations. This is standard business practice. It has nothing to do with VISa attacking crypto (keep in mind they choose to accept Monaco as a member). Even if you didn't trust their satements, why would they allow other issuers to operate elsewhere?
The only reason this has had such a big impact is because all these projects were weak and poorly thought out rushes to the market, all relying on the same dodgy single point of failure.
Crypto people are crypto's worst enemy, worse than VISA, thank Banks, and than regulators.
There is no secret agenda, and no "attack on crypto". VISA chose to terminate one of its partners (completely, not just the crypto cards they issue) because their partner infringed their contractual obligations. This is standard business practice. It has nothing to do with VISa attacking crypto (keep in mind they choose to accept Monaco as a member). Even if you didn't trust their satements, why would they allow other issuers to operate elsewhere?
The only reason this has had such a big impact is because all these projects were weak and poorly thought out rushes to the market, all relying on the same dodgy single point of failure.
Crypto people are crypto's worst enemy, worse than VISA, thank Banks, and than regulators.
This is true. Some people are so quick to wave around their pitchforks. I mean, I guess it's easy to assume that Visa wants crypto dead as it's poised to be a challenger in the future, but everyone should do their due diligence of research.
This doesn't mean it was a hostile move by Visa though. According to this article:
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/01/05/spending-bitcoin-with-a-debit-card-just-got-a-lot-harder/
Bitwala came out with a statement saying the change was so sudden they didn't have a chance to notify their customers. But then again, that may have more to do with Wavecrest rather than crypto. It could be considered hostile whether or not it was intended though, as it did cause damage to crypto. Hostile, but not war declaration hostile as some people are quick to say.
