Jesus wept! This is truly the cursed timeline. Visa and crypto. All the inefficiencies of the blockchain and all the centralization, tracking, and lack of control over your money that the big...
Jesus wept! This is truly the cursed timeline. Visa and crypto. All the inefficiencies of the blockchain and all the centralization, tracking, and lack of control over your money that the big banks bring. Truly the worst of all possible worlds.
This was the expected outcome of crypto if it got any mainstream adoption. The diehards who wanted it to be a way around banking have been a small minority for a looong time now. And bluntly,...
This was the expected outcome of crypto if it got any mainstream adoption.
The diehards who wanted it to be a way around banking have been a small minority for a looong time now.
And bluntly, banking exists for a reason, as crypto has so aptly demonstrated. Lot harder to scam people out of money in their account or send it into a blank address so it’s lost forever or a million other issues.
I don't know what visa is doing, but this ('visa and crypto') isn't conceptually a bad idea. Chargebacks and fraud protection are a really good idea. With cryptocurrency 1) I can negotiate a...
Visa and crypto. All the inefficiencies of the blockchain and all the centralization, tracking, and lack of control over your money that the big banks bring. Truly the worst of all possible worlds.
I don't know what visa is doing, but this ('visa and crypto') isn't conceptually a bad idea. Chargebacks and fraud protection are a really good idea. With cryptocurrency 1) I can negotiate a mediator and mediation policy on a per-transaction basis, and 2) the transaction can remain private until or unless mediation is actually required. Both of those—but particularly the second—are big wins over the status quo.
You're a retailer and I'm a customer, and we want to agree on a chargeback policy for some transaction. You don't want me to be able to unilaterally perform a chargeback, and I don't want you to...
You're a retailer and I'm a customer, and we want to agree on a chargeback policy for some transaction. You don't want me to be able to unilaterally perform a chargeback, and I don't want you to be able to unilaterally deny my chargeback request. It makes sense, therefore, to involve a trusted third party—such as, for example, visa—and say that the chargeback can only happen if that party agrees (perhaps alongside some other conditions, e.g. there's a time limit).
Ideally, the technology would be completely oblivious to the choice of mediator. Visa is obviously incentivised to design something that privileges it, so it can continue spying on people and charging exorbitantly high transaction fees. But the technology naturally lends itself to interoperability because you can construct cryptographic proofs and thereby perform inter-chain transactions. And interoperability opens the door to a more gradual levelling of the playing field.
I would guess visa's interest is a combination of 1) fomo and 2) wanting to economise trust with its large corporate partners. Insofar as it's 2, this is completely neutral for consumers (again, I don't buy the efficiency argument—no one's doing bitcoin anymore): it likely isn't going to change anything meaningful for the transactions consumers individually perform; insofar as it's 1, it has the potential to improve matters somewhat.
Visa is a network, which has rules, but the decisions are apparently made by the card issuer, according to this blog post: It seems customers can get a better chargeback policy by going with a...
Visa is a network, which has rules, but the decisions are apparently made by the card issuer, according to this blog post:
For example, in credit card disputes, almost all decisions which matter are made by an entry-level employee of the card issuer, and those decisions vary wildly across issuers even in circumstances which look very similar. As a simplified example, issuers who focus on “premium” card users frequently make a business decision to side with their customer more frequently than, say, mass-market banks do. (They would probably entirely automate “Chargeback sustained!” if the network rules allowed them to do so, but they don’t.)
It seems customers can get a better chargeback policy by going with a "premium" card and it doesn't sound like a retailer can do anything about it. They can decide whether to take Discover. I don't think they can decide to take some Visa cards but not others? It's probably against the rules.
(For Discover and American Express, the card issuer and network are the same company, but for Visa and Mastercard, the issuer is some other company, often a bank.)
Again. What's the point? If you want a payment method that doesn't do chargebacks, just issue a special version of a card that doesn't have that as an option. This all just seems like the work of...
Again. What's the point? If you want a payment method that doesn't do chargebacks, just issue a special version of a card that doesn't have that as an option. This all just seems like the work of a bunch of uncreative lazy executives chasing the latest fad they heard. Next they'll be trying to shoehorn AI into it. Just children chasing after shiny toys.
On a global scale, or why stripe is doing it? For the latter, the answer doesn't go further than they have customers who want it. There's still a lot of crypto startups, and that is their main market.
On a global scale, or why stripe is doing it? For the latter, the answer doesn't go further than they have customers who want it. There's still a lot of crypto startups, and that is their main market.
Stripe supports many payment methods in many countries. They want to allow locals to pay on international websites using whichever methods they are familiar with, and this varies widely by...
Stripe supports many payment methods in many countries. They want to allow locals to pay on international websites using whichever methods they are familiar with, and this varies widely by country.
So I wouldn't read too much into them adding yet another payment method; it could be very niche.
Probably faster settlement and lower transaction fees for global users. Reduce their own OPEX by using an open source global state machine. Same reason Jump, a high-frequency trading market maker,...
Probably faster settlement and lower transaction fees for global users. Reduce their own OPEX by using an open source global state machine. Same reason Jump, a high-frequency trading market maker, is investing so much to build firedancer.
Can read more of Visa’s research on it here: https://usa.visa.com/solutions/crypto/deep-dive-on-solana.html
They actually had blockchain payments a long time ago but had to deprecate it because the fx was too painful/risky. I suppose a stable coin should not have that issue.
They actually had blockchain payments a long time ago but had to deprecate it because the fx was too painful/risky. I suppose a stable coin should not have that issue.
Developed in collaboration with Allium Labs. The Visa Onchain Analytics Dashboard showcases how fiat-backed stablecoins move via public blockchains globally.
Jesus wept! This is truly the cursed timeline. Visa and crypto. All the inefficiencies of the blockchain and all the centralization, tracking, and lack of control over your money that the big banks bring. Truly the worst of all possible worlds.
This was the expected outcome of crypto if it got any mainstream adoption.
The diehards who wanted it to be a way around banking have been a small minority for a looong time now.
And bluntly, banking exists for a reason, as crypto has so aptly demonstrated. Lot harder to scam people out of money in their account or send it into a blank address so it’s lost forever or a million other issues.
Did I miss something? It looks to me like it's just a dashboard?
I don't know what visa is doing, but this ('visa and crypto') isn't conceptually a bad idea. Chargebacks and fraud protection are a really good idea. With cryptocurrency 1) I can negotiate a mediator and mediation policy on a per-transaction basis, and 2) the transaction can remain private until or unless mediation is actually required. Both of those—but particularly the second—are big wins over the status quo.
Inefficiency is not a very big concern.
Sure, crypto has those advantages as a retailer or service provider. But what exactly is the point of involving Visa at that point?
You're a retailer and I'm a customer, and we want to agree on a chargeback policy for some transaction. You don't want me to be able to unilaterally perform a chargeback, and I don't want you to be able to unilaterally deny my chargeback request. It makes sense, therefore, to involve a trusted third party—such as, for example, visa—and say that the chargeback can only happen if that party agrees (perhaps alongside some other conditions, e.g. there's a time limit).
Ideally, the technology would be completely oblivious to the choice of mediator. Visa is obviously incentivised to design something that privileges it, so it can continue spying on people and charging exorbitantly high transaction fees. But the technology naturally lends itself to interoperability because you can construct cryptographic proofs and thereby perform inter-chain transactions. And interoperability opens the door to a more gradual levelling of the playing field.
I would guess visa's interest is a combination of 1) fomo and 2) wanting to economise trust with its large corporate partners. Insofar as it's 2, this is completely neutral for consumers (again, I don't buy the efficiency argument—no one's doing bitcoin anymore): it likely isn't going to change anything meaningful for the transactions consumers individually perform; insofar as it's 1, it has the potential to improve matters somewhat.
Visa is a network, which has rules, but the decisions are apparently made by the card issuer, according to this blog post:
It seems customers can get a better chargeback policy by going with a "premium" card and it doesn't sound like a retailer can do anything about it. They can decide whether to take Discover. I don't think they can decide to take some Visa cards but not others? It's probably against the rules.
(For Discover and American Express, the card issuer and network are the same company, but for Visa and Mastercard, the issuer is some other company, often a bank.)
Stripe is adding blockchain infra to their payments rails too, from the co-founder:
Again. What's the point? If you want a payment method that doesn't do chargebacks, just issue a special version of a card that doesn't have that as an option. This all just seems like the work of a bunch of uncreative lazy executives chasing the latest fad they heard. Next they'll be trying to shoehorn AI into it. Just children chasing after shiny toys.
On a global scale, or why stripe is doing it? For the latter, the answer doesn't go further than they have customers who want it. There's still a lot of crypto startups, and that is their main market.
Stripe supports many payment methods in many countries. They want to allow locals to pay on international websites using whichever methods they are familiar with, and this varies widely by country.
So I wouldn't read too much into them adding yet another payment method; it could be very niche.
Probably faster settlement and lower transaction fees for global users. Reduce their own OPEX by using an open source global state machine. Same reason Jump, a high-frequency trading market maker, is investing so much to build firedancer.
Can read more of Visa’s research on it here:
https://usa.visa.com/solutions/crypto/deep-dive-on-solana.html
They actually had blockchain payments a long time ago but had to deprecate it because the fx was too painful/risky. I suppose a stable coin should not have that issue.
They mention that in the demo and point to Solana fixing the speed issues they ran into years ago, “blink and you’ll miss it.”
TLDR: (for someone as confused as me)
Also from Visa: