> Will this fare better than their ripple partnership where the SEC intervened?
Why not ask MoneyGram? Maybe they can give you a better answer than I or anyone else here could.
> Still, this doesn't address the fact that the op will lose a lot of business with solely crypto.
Solely? I don't think that is what you said originally, was it? [0]
From [0]
> That's not doable in practise.
> - You would immediately take a hit, because crypto payments are not popular.
> - Currency/btc conversion fees are more expensive than any transaction fee.
> Many ecoms added support in 2017 and removed that functionality again.
> There's no interest for buying things that isn't part of the "pump and dump" scheme. NFT's are probably the only thing, since they hope to resell it for more money.
It seems that you have decided to change your argument to 'solely' as soon as you saw my comment disproving your nonsense (with examples) and now you have started splitting hairs to present an illusion that businesses cannot use or accept cryptocurrencies. (and survive)
So OpenSea / Rarible / Dent Wireless are not businesses only accepting cryptocurrencies then?
> This has all happened before in 2017. And shortly after crypto was removed add payment option almost everywhere.
> Nothing fundamentally has changed since 2017. If so, what?
Right so it will happen again in 2021, 2022 then?
So in 2021, MoonPay, BitPay, Coinbase Commerce and Circle.com enabled businesses do not allow their customers like VISA, AMC and Shopify to accept cryptocurrencies and stablecoins like USDC?
OpenSea is not products. Buyers think they will earn money from it and are prepared to put their HODL coin in it to earn more. It's one big piramid scheme.
Rarible is similar. It's not comparable to e-commerce. NFT's in it's current state is literally the perfect product for HOLD'ers if you think about it.
As said before, this all happened in the past. Woocommerce, Steam, Amazon, Stripe, ... All added it and removed it. Only square kept it.
The current hype is just the same that started with failing business trying to jump in it ( eg. Kodak and KodakCoin). Visa and others do want to protect themselves. But even Stripe currently started again a team for crypto with 5 person while they anandoned it in the past. Nothing says it will be important, it's a matter of "what if", just like in 2017.
Either way, this topic is about lowering transaction fees.
Changing to crypto would lose a lot of business. As such, the "patent answer" here is not doable for a business.
What's so hard to understand? You're not going to switch a business to a payment option that only represents 2% of possible transactions.
There's currently a lot of FUD. But it's all going away when BTC drops again.
It only took a pandemic previous time to reverse Bitcoin from a multi-year decline.
> OpenSea is not products... Rarible is similar. It's not comparable to e-commerce.
So OpenSea and Rarible don't qualify as 'e-commerce' because they sell 'NFTs' and domain-names are not products bought and sold on online marketplaces? You are splitting hairs once again.
> As said before, this all happened in the past. Woocommerce, Steam, Amazon, Stripe, ... All added it and removed it. Only square kept it.
First of all, we are in late-2021. Before I ask you to find citations for the reasons behind those removals, all these cases have cited towards the properties of Bitcoin payments and its unsuitability for that purpose, which is my whole point for businesses to use USDC on other cryptocurrencies like Stellar if they were to accept cryptocurrency payments; hence MoneyGram. We are not stuck in 2017 or whatever year you are trapped in.
> Either way, this topic is about lowering transaction fees.
So from "lowering transaction fees" to someone saying "Take payment in crypto" to you saying "That's not doable in practise" and me replying "USDC stablecoin sitting on cryptocurrencies like Stellar" and it ends up with you in denial, moving goal posts, splitting hairs until you now want to go back to "lowering transaction fees" which I already answered?
Where did I mention in my original comment to use Bitcoin for payments? It seems that it is only you having a very hard time ignoring Bitcoin, Look at this constant rambling from you:
> There's currently a lot of FUD. But it's all going away when BTC drops again.
> It only took a pandemic previous time to reverse Bitcoin from a multi-year decline.
What has Bitcoin got to do with USDC on many other cryptocurrencies as a suitable payment option with less fees? Your rambling here is completely irrelevant to that, regardless if Bitcoin goes up or down.
Either way, my answer already has addressed the topic and your previous 'claims' regardless of you being unable to cite your claims or stay on topic. Your whole comment sounds more of a complaint about cryptocurrencies and NFTs than a substantiative argument at this point. Maybe that is what has changed here.
When are you going to realise that your complaint is going round in circles?
Let's simplify it, to explain what "not doable in practice means":
On a normal site, how many % of visitors do you think will/can pay with USDC on stellar?
The example purchase is a computer screen worth 250$, found on a new e-commerce shop ( = you didn't have any purchases yet there)
Note: Most people don't have crypto.
So some basis for estimates:
Let's say that 16 % of Americans have ever bought crypto. Let's be positive and say that halve of them are willing to use it for a purchase instead of considering it as an investment. So 8% - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri... .
Spread of the holdings are taken from an article:
> And it’s true that it is by far the most popular cryptocurrency with 66.7% of crypto investors owning Bitcoin. However, other crypto currencies are catching up with 28.6% of crypto investors holding the popular “memecoin” Dogecoin and 23.9% of investors holding Ethereum.
My guess: 0.001% of visitors. I'll explain why after your guess.
( It's possible that i missed something. I don't do these guesses often and I'm not exactly sure how many of those can pay with USDC on stellar even, but that shouldn't matter for the estimate)
You already explained about what you 'really' meant by 'That's not doable in practise'. No need to change it again or repeat yourself before I commented. Let me remind you before you forget again:
- You would immediately take a hit, because crypto payments are not popular.
- Currency/btc conversion fees are more expensive than any transaction fee.
Many ecoms added support in 2017 and removed that functionality again.
There's no interest for buying things that isn't part of the "pump and dump" scheme. NFT's are probably the only thing, since they hope to resell it for more money.
You did not say 'solely' until I commented, did you? Even after that, I gave examples of crypto-only businesses. Once again, you attempted to change and shift the goal-posts because you knew those examples were true.
Throughout this whole thread. You are saying to everyone here, I cannot open a Shopify / WooCommerce account right now and accept USDC on whatever cryptocurrency like Stellar and accept payments, worldwide and not just in the US or with Bitcoin which your entire comment(s) are assuming.
Have I just proven and caught you changing your complaints once again about 'what you really meant' in [0], since you knew how incorrect you were, rushing to comment and still avoiding all of my questions?
It is evident that you are finding it harder and harder to cope and ignore cryptocurrencies in general and have to resort to changing definitions, meanings, etc to continue to hold up your complaints.
Just a reminder in case you have forgotten what the OP said:
>> Say you’re running an online store, selling something digital or physical.
>> Is it practical to completely avoid the fees of payment processing companies like Stripe?
You:
> You're examples are similar to crypto investments, which is almost the only thing people would spend their crypto on.
And how does that not count? Because you think it is for 'crypto investments', which you don't like? So..
..buying a blockchain domain name on OpenSea, Rarible for low fees is 'not practical' then? So I can't make my own marketplace using Shopify's NFT store then? Nor does any of that qualify as 'selling something digital' either in regards to the OP.
So Shopify is not 'e-commerce' because they allow you do sell NFTs?
So buying limited edition NFT shoes from an online store doesn't count either and they are not 'products'? [0]
Given that, is that why you knowingly edited and deleted your comment about the extremely narrow existence of an popular e-commerce business that solely accepts cryptocurrencies for physical products except for the dark web to make a fallacious point that cryptocurrencies are not ever 'practical' for avoiding 'expensive transaction fees' because 'ecoms added support and removed that functionality again' and that means 'There's no interest for buying things' using cryptocurrencies?
At the end of this day, week, month and year, these companies have still have not given up on it, Stripe included. Maybe you should desperately ask how OpenSea, Rarible, Shopify, Circle.com etc are still able to do this, since you are having a very difficult time in ignoring it whenever another user asks a crypto-related question on Ask HN.
> There's literally no sense in buying anything with crypto when you have to give up the protection that you have as a consumer : chargebacks.
This is the same 'protection' that is open to abuse by users through chargeback fraud or 'friendly fraud' on both Stripe and PayPal in which the merchants will get chargeback fees and their accounts getting closed with tons of fraudulent chargebacks by users, having to fight fraudulent disputes and waiting months for the money to be unlocked by Stripe or PayPal.
> I can ask 1000 people here that i meet and no one will know about USDC on stellar. That won't change either.
This is the problem. Here. on HN. Even when they still care to continue to ask more cryptocurrency questions. Like yourself.
Were you the same person that asked about whether if users on HN knew about cryptocurrencies in 2011? Or if you were to ask a generation born in 1910 if they know about how to use the world wide web in 1990?
This is exactly the same thing here. You and many others have made it clear that you won't use it. The next generation certainly will. Perhaps this is why several HNers are somewhat out of touch of recent trends these days.
> You should ask HN if there is any business owner that cares, lol.
I don't need to, the interest speaks for itself. For example on the front page of HN 31st of December 2021:
Decent (YC W22) Is Hiring a Senior Full Stack Web3 Engineer
You are going to see more of this, like it or not. Are you ready to move the goal posts once again?
Friendly fraud can be faught. Both person's are known to the payment processor. You are still ignoring that it's the customer who decides how to pay. That's why a vendor won't pick crypto when the goal is selling products as in e-commerce.
Moving goal posts?
And you're talking about jobs in fan/artist investing now?
Honestly, i think that could have a chance. Same as Blockchain for voting rights for soccer clubs.
I already said that's possible and it's not related to the topic at hand:
> You're examples are similar to crypto investments, which is almost the only thing people would spend their crypto on.
But if you think any of both are even remotely related to the OP's post, than that's just idiotic.
> Friendly fraud can be faught. Both person's are known to the payment processor. You are still ignoring that it's the customer who decides how to pay.
The merchant is highly likely going to lose more money towards fighting friendly fraud on top of the chargeback fees regardless if the customer knowingly paid for the service, product or not or if both are known to the payment processor. That is irrelevant since it is the bank who decides who wins the dispute and the payment processor sides with them, even when the bank cannot determine if the chargeback is fraudulent or not.
> That's why a vendor won't pick crypto when the goal is selling products as in e-commerce.
So you mean 'running an online store, selling something digital or physical' as in e-commerce?
Didn't stop 'this vendor' from selling limited edition shoes to its customers. [0] nor did it stop this vendor either [1]. Once again, OpenSea, Rarible, etc selling NFTs like domain names, etc. Nor did it stop merchants using Coinbase commerce.
Since you keep forgetting, do I need to repeat the same examples again?
> And you're talking about jobs in fan/artist investing now?
This is you:
>> You should ask HN if there is any business owner that cares, lol.
It seems you forgot already? It was only because YOU asked here on HN for 'any' business owner. I didn't need to ask given this one seems to care.
> But if you think any of both are even remotely related to the OP's post, than that's just idiotic.
So '...running an online store, selling something digital or physical' is not what the OP said? Neither it being related to 'e-commerce' via buying and selling NFTs, domain names, shoes and clothes? That is idiotic because it involves cryptocurrencies, especially those that have low fees?
It is clear that you are still having a hard time accepting that a new generation of merchants and customers are accepting and using cryptocurrencies for payments 'globally' rather than you sitting there saying 'Nothing fundamentally has changed since 2017' or 'Many ecoms added support in 2017 and removed that functionality again.' and 'But it's all going away when BTC drops again.'.
Friendly fraud is allowed to sue in court. The beauty of know your customer.
https://www.pacsun.com/ accepts regular payments options, PayPal and also has BitPay. What's the proof? What's your point?
You have a breakdown of revenue per payment option?
https://rtfkt.com/ became a useless site? 2 forging events 6 months ago? Acqui hire for their AR experience? Who knows.
No take-over price is included. It really says nothing on it's own. They sold virtual sneakers for 10 k. $ per pop, with a total of 621 pairs. Sure, that's 'normal e-commerce', even the price on it's own is 1910 times the median crypto wallet in the US. And to be honest, that's a pretty low sales volume.
I think I have plenty of e-commerce experience ;). The % of crypto interest for selling/buying goods is neglectable to zero for online shops.
The median amount of money in crypto in the US is 191 $. So "the new generation" you're talking about is really poor or just using it as a shot to the moon. Whatever you think is appropriate.
Research that almost no one uses their crypto's: https://archive.is/e5cua ( 2019 ) - if you want to defy this. Just give me newer research, i couldn't find any.
Latest report i could find for Coinbase Commerce ( 2020 ): 200 million $ in processed transactions in 2 years.
> Friendly fraud is allowed to sue in court. The beauty of know your customer.
So cryptocurrency merchants like Coinbase Commerce, BitPay have no KYC checks either?
> What's the proof? What's your point?
Forgotten?
>>> Many ecoms added support in 2017 and removed that functionality again.
>> That's why a vendor won't pick crypto when the goal is selling products as in e-commerce.
So Pacsun is not e-commerce and they are not accepting cryptocurrencies? Why have they (and many others) added it then, even after 2017?
> became a useless site?...
Useless to who? Nike? So the interest is not there and it is still not 'e-commerce' because it isn't 'normal' e-commerce somehow? Oh dear. Maybe Ebay in 1995 is not normal 'e-commerce' because of the purchase price of the bids of limited edition goods.
> I think I have plenty of e-commerce experience ;)
If you did, you wouldn't need to try denying and narrowing your complaints or making absolute comments of 'what you really meant' because someone said use Bitcoin Cash? After every example given, Why change and continue to narrow the definitions of 'e-commerce' in the first place? Then make an absurd correlation between the price of Bitcoin in 2017 vs the price of a stablecoin in which that already addressed your outdated complaints.
Is that why you continue to deny the existence of cryptocurrency payments after 2017 by 'never looking back' but only reading single datapoints and headlines you agree with?
> And please. If you want to refer articles, refer articles where crypto payments were used and researched.
And why would I use that source if the study of users is limited to a single country for you to make the case that 'no-one uses their crypto' globally? You have done the same mistake with all your sources and estimates, thus making your complaint(s) beyond invalid.
So you are telling me the overall trend and interest is going down, and the merchant such as the OP still cannot accept USDC and I cannot do this right now since you said 'nothing has changed'? Are you still stuck in 2017 or are you prolonging your appeal to ignorance?
As multiple times already. I'm saying that e-commerce interest for crypto sad payment option is almost zero compared with other payment options.
I've shown you multiple sources with stats.
You've come up with limited edition virtual goods ( collectibles) and fan based investing which I've already stated is the only thing hodlers would spend there money on ( = 'investing', ugh).
The latest stats found are from 2020, not 2017. You've shown none.
No one in real life cares about crypto payments, because the 20 procent that have a median amount of 191$ did it as a bet/investment.
The US is one of the richest countries where people would buy things with crypto, you haven't given a better country.
Nobody cares in rl cares. Come on with real stats or proof. Then I could consider it for my e-commerce clients where there is 0% interest in crypto ( yes, outside of the US).
Perhaps you are living in 2017 where there was a hype and it went away. It's 2017 all over, but now because of a pandemic..
Note: digital currencies from countries is not what i consider any of the current solutions too. It will be a unrelated coin to the current existing ones.
> You're just reliving the past without acknowledging the end-result.
So that means 'this time' you know exactly what happens after this 'useless FOMO going on' crashes again? So Stripe, Coinbase, Shopify, BitPay, Circle.com are getting into something with low interest in the future because you rushed to Google Trends since you don't have any definitive sources on stablecoins, only Bitcoin? I never mentioned or argued for payments using Bitcoin in the first place and still no-one here has definitive and extensive sources on this for payments with stablecoins as it is extremely early and given the absence of clearer regulations on this as already admitted by you: [0]
'A lot of it is still going to uncharted territory.' [0]
> Note: digital currencies from countries is not what i consider any of the current solutions too. It will be a unrelated coin to the current existing ones.
And what is this 'unrelated coin to the current existing ones' you are mentioning? Do you have sources of its properties or are you speculating like everyone else?
It is another way of saying 'It may or may not be a stablecoin' So no-one knows until the regulations around this are clearer.
The unrelated coin is one that is created by the countries themselves, there are currently 10 k. Coins, it would be naive to think that a country would adopt an existing coin since it's easy to create.
Just read the news, none of them are adopting an existing one... It's also a minimal effort to look it up, if you bothered.
Companies already implemented and removed it before. Bitpay, circle, coinbase is directly correlated to crypto. The other ones have like a 4 person team on it. It's a neglectible effort for the "what if" case. ( Eg. Stripe had > 4 k. Employees and 4-5 people working on crypto)
But i understand, you don't have any resources to show that anyone actually cares outside of the FOMO.
Note: if you consider El Salvador that tweets "bought the dip" every month as a serious comparison to the real world, that's pretty silly. They wanted the first movers advantage, let's see how that plays out in reality.
A long way of saying they are developing their own CBDCs, which again we both know it would be extremely silly to run a Google Trends search and comparison on 'CBDCs' against Bitcoin for something that is also too early, recently launched or still in development to draw definitive conclusions due to the trialing, regulations and uncertainty in all of these projects. (Even already admitted by you.)
So once again, it is too early for both and as this whole thread has revealed, no-one has worldwide substantiative data on this (yet).
> Microsoft credited industry changes and declined interest in the product as the main reasons for discontinuing the marketing of Azure Blockchain.
Dropping your home grown solution and partnering with a dedicated and better one means 'blockchain' in general has failed? So the partner, Consensys (Who is also part of a CBDC technology group in Asia and Europe) has closed down their blockchain offerings too and their customers can't run it on Azure either?
> But i understand, you don't have any resources to show that anyone actually cares outside of the FOMO.
Everyone in this thread has admitted and proven that no-one has definitive and extensive sources on payments with stablecoins or even CBDCs as both are too early, still developing / planning or they are still trialling it? I never brought up or mentioned anything about Bitcoin in this whole thread, yet you cannot and will not ignore it. Everyone is waiting for regulations in all of this.
> Note: if you consider El Salvador that tweets "bought the dip" every month as a serious comparison to the real world, that's pretty silly.
Did I argue that, mention or make a comparison towards El Salvador's Bitcoin buying problem anywhere?
Still, this doesn't address the fact that the op will lose a lot of business with solely crypto.
Therefore, it isn't an answer to his question. So it's not doable in practise.
Except if you want to lose a lot of money if you solely accept crypto.
This has all happened before in 2017. And shortly after crypto was removed as payment option almost everywhere.
Nothing fundamentally has changed since 2017. If so, what?