The two prmary parties in a money transfer from P to A can be lumped together as one "family", so the sending and receiving cancel out: the "family" does not lose or gain anything, except some fees, and can be excluded from the analysis. The remaining net money flow is: someone in A gave his money (and got some bitcoin) to someone in P (who parted with some of his bitcoin).
Thus, apart from the implied change of currencies, the situation is the same as when someone buys BTC from someone else, with dollars or any other currency. Any profit that the seller makes comes out of the buyer's pocket. If the seller bought for 500$ and is selling for 200$, then he is keeping 300$ of his initial 500$ loss, and passing the other 200$ to the buyer.
In summary, the matched trades that Bitinka propose to do would be proper use of bitcoin, but by themselves they would not generate much demand: the bitcoins would be kept by Bitinka only for a few days at most. Bitinka will be "good for bitcoin" (i.e. help push the price up) mainly if it encourages people to buy bitcoins and hold them (like that guy in A who bought the bitcoins from the company). And you already know what I think about investing in bitcoins...
Moreover, if Bitinka is successful, it would be "stealing" remittance service customers from the local banks, by undercutting their fees. Good luck getting bank accounts and the necessary approvals from the local governments...
It's getting a bit late for me to totally understand that but if I recall correctly, not so long ago, there was a bit of a fuss because someone in country A that was not the USA was transferring money to someone in country B that was also not the USA but for some reason, the money ended up being routed through a country that was the USA and they gobbled it up. That might be something they need to watch for.
Just before the rockets kick in! (ya it'd be made with rockets too)
