WhatsApp Launches Instant Cryptocurrency Payments in the US(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
WhatsApp Launches Instant Cryptocurrency Payments in the US
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/09/whatsapp-cryptocurrency-payments-us/
107 comments
Do you have a source for them only keeping "some" at hand? You brought up PayPal, which holds 100% of users crypto through an intermediary (Paxos).
The Novi site for the Whatsapp partnership says this:
> "When you add money to your Novi account, we convert it to USDP (Pax Dollar), a stable digital currency issued by Paxos Trust Company, a regulated financial institution. USDP is designed to have a stable value relative to the US dollar. So on Novi, 1 USDP is equal to 1 US dollar."
To me that implies it's done on chain...I guess it could just be in their centralized database though.
Curious what the Whatsapp UI does for moments when USPD hits $0.99 like December 1 2021 when it hit $0.989.
Source: https://www.novi.com/WhatsApp
> "When you add money to your Novi account, we convert it to USDP (Pax Dollar), a stable digital currency issued by Paxos Trust Company, a regulated financial institution. USDP is designed to have a stable value relative to the US dollar. So on Novi, 1 USDP is equal to 1 US dollar."
To me that implies it's done on chain...I guess it could just be in their centralized database though.
Curious what the Whatsapp UI does for moments when USPD hits $0.99 like December 1 2021 when it hit $0.989.
Source: https://www.novi.com/WhatsApp
Protip: this is how Tether works but people in the west dont want to believe that people in the east actually deposit fiat into bitfinex.
Multiple US regulators came to the same conclusion. One regulator said “well you usually create tethers 1:1 in response to deposits the vast majority of times and vast majority of amounts, but for the brief few times you didnt at least put a disclaimer up, also here is a fine for not having the disclaimer up”
Multiple US regulators came to the same conclusion. One regulator said “well you usually create tethers 1:1 in response to deposits the vast majority of times and vast majority of amounts, but for the brief few times you didnt at least put a disclaimer up, also here is a fine for not having the disclaimer up”
Here's one blatantly noticeable difference that makes me more trustful of USDP than USDT even without being informed about Pax : total USDP in circulation ("market cap") went down nearly 50% when Bitcoin and cryptos crashed in May-June [0], as you would expect if they indeed offer an off-ramp to USD as people will be bailing out in downturns and if the coin is pegged to cash flows.
USDT? Up and up, it has not once significantly went down [1]. Do people truly believe that they are pegged to treasury and money flows to Bitfinex (despite knowing it is BS) and that they've never been in a significant out-flow period? (Edit: There is one I notice in October 2018 of also nearly 50% from $2.8B, much later than the actual 2017-18 crash. Doesn't take away from the peculiarity of the rest of the chart, but gotta point it out in fairness.)
Anyone with significant money in crypto should be terrified by these sketchy money printers (the irony) rather than complacent of. If and when something like Tether blows up, these are dozens of billions in liquidity that will go poof over night.
[0]: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/paxos-standard/ (click market cap)
[1]: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
USDT? Up and up, it has not once significantly went down [1]. Do people truly believe that they are pegged to treasury and money flows to Bitfinex (despite knowing it is BS) and that they've never been in a significant out-flow period? (Edit: There is one I notice in October 2018 of also nearly 50% from $2.8B, much later than the actual 2017-18 crash. Doesn't take away from the peculiarity of the rest of the chart, but gotta point it out in fairness.)
Anyone with significant money in crypto should be terrified by these sketchy money printers (the irony) rather than complacent of. If and when something like Tether blows up, these are dozens of billions in liquidity that will go poof over night.
[0]: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/paxos-standard/ (click market cap)
[1]: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
Right, the redemptions. The counterpoint to that is how much do people withdraw from their investment accounts? They just go to cash within their investment accounts, while other people are still earning and depositing.
The same standard would apply to Bitfinex. Only explicit tether redemptions for fiat at the issuer cause tethers do be destroyed. People just sitting in database-fiat on the exchange during a risk-off moment wouldnt cause tether redemptions.
If a more respected exchange like say TD Ameritrade issued a stablecoin upon every deposit, it would go up and up and up too, even in market crashes, as people use their investing accounts as value storage even in market crashes, anticipating to buy dips or wait for other market conditions.
The same standard would apply to Bitfinex. Only explicit tether redemptions for fiat at the issuer cause tethers do be destroyed. People just sitting in database-fiat on the exchange during a risk-off moment wouldnt cause tether redemptions.
If a more respected exchange like say TD Ameritrade issued a stablecoin upon every deposit, it would go up and up and up too, even in market crashes, as people use their investing accounts as value storage even in market crashes, anticipating to buy dips or wait for other market conditions.
Maybe tether just hopes to be so entrenched and trusted that they become their own "Central bank of crypto". Doubt it would work considering the whole point of crypto is "minimal trust", but being the money printer could be a valid business model.
An understatement, it's a fantastic business model. As I recall they have less than 12 employees, and they have printed like $80B with zero accountability. There's a saying that a good and strong business has a licence to print money, in their case it is literal.
Frankly I am baffled it is still going, I think it has to do with it being the first, but can't understand it hasn't fallen apart since or been taken over by better designed stable coins. People called Bitcoin fairy dust, but at least its supply is determined by its protocol and its price by a market - poorly regulated as it may be. Tether is proper fairy dust, holding together thru sheer wishful thinking of this tacit agreement that it is worth $1 a pop.
Frankly I am baffled it is still going, I think it has to do with it being the first, but can't understand it hasn't fallen apart since or been taken over by better designed stable coins. People called Bitcoin fairy dust, but at least its supply is determined by its protocol and its price by a market - poorly regulated as it may be. Tether is proper fairy dust, holding together thru sheer wishful thinking of this tacit agreement that it is worth $1 a pop.
> usually create tethers 1:1 in response to deposits the vast majority of times
This as quite often been in whole round billions in the middle of the night on a weekend ...
> people in the east actually deposit fiat into bitfinex
In non-convertible RMB?
I appreciate that the demand for a way round currency controls is a big driver for cryptocurrency, but I'm still not clear how that sustainably functions.
This as quite often been in whole round billions in the middle of the night on a weekend ...
> people in the east actually deposit fiat into bitfinex
In non-convertible RMB?
I appreciate that the demand for a way round currency controls is a big driver for cryptocurrency, but I'm still not clear how that sustainably functions.
Which doesn't inherently imply anything.
Are those country’s financial networks so primitive that a transaction message cant be sent on a weekend like in antiquated networks?
There is also other fiat than mainland RMB
Are those country’s financial networks so primitive that a transaction message cant be sent on a weekend like in antiquated networks?
There is also other fiat than mainland RMB
Perhaps "on hand" means "in a hot wallet?"
> This is fundamentally a centralized system like PayPal.
This is fundamentally a centralized system like wechat pay, an app you can't see in the West. If it's allowed it will be hugely successful.
This is fundamentally a centralized system like wechat pay, an app you can't see in the West. If it's allowed it will be hugely successful.
Or Apple Cash, Cash App, Venmo, Zelle, etc.
I don't think its a given that WeChat is fundamentally the "right" UX and the west is behind.
The cultural/regulatory differences between china and western (free) countries means that (1) different models thrive differently and (2) pressure to centralize delivery through WeChat is there from the gov in china but not for the rest of the world. I think FB would love to be WeChat to avoid the App Store, but i'm not sure users would actually prefer that.
The cultural/regulatory differences between china and western (free) countries means that (1) different models thrive differently and (2) pressure to centralize delivery through WeChat is there from the gov in china but not for the rest of the world. I think FB would love to be WeChat to avoid the App Store, but i'm not sure users would actually prefer that.
curious, why USDP and not USDC or any of the other alternatives?
also, why didn’t libra/the likes work out?
also, why didn’t libra/the likes work out?
One issue with Libra was Facebook. FB has the user numbers and money to roll out a potentially successful cryptocurrency that's marketed as a currency. Regulators got scared and it got critiqued/shut down across almost every market.
why would a successful cryptocurrency scare regulators? bitcoin is "successful". coinbase and popular wallets are "regulated" (reported to IRS, etc.)
Facebook controlling what is equivalent to a central bank is scaring regulators. No one wants Mark in charge of the money supply.
Partnering with a project that isn't Facebook helps with that (at least a little bit)
Partnering with a project that isn't Facebook helps with that (at least a little bit)
When Signal integrated MobileCoin last year (in the UK), there was a lot of uproar here on HN – some well-founded ("Why equip a slick and lightweight standalone app for privacy-preserving messaging with payments, a feature that adds bloat and will likely attract government regulation and oversight?"), some less so ("The Signal developers are just scamming everyone"). Given WhatsApp's move toward a WeChat-like app now, I think some of the criticism against Signal/MobileCoin needs to be reconsidered: Moxie et al. might have seen that coming (which I guess wasn't too difficult in light of WhatsApp's involvement in payments in India) and they are possibly just trying to stay competitive in the long term.
Addendum: Not that I'm a huge fan of the idea of crypto payments in Signal – I am not. But if the market (and especially the network effect of messaging apps) dictates it, what can they do? Moreover, I'm sure the Signal people looked into whether it'd be better/possible to move the payments feature into a second, optional app but there might have been architectural or security reasons not to do so(?)
Addendum: Not that I'm a huge fan of the idea of crypto payments in Signal – I am not. But if the market (and especially the network effect of messaging apps) dictates it, what can they do? Moreover, I'm sure the Signal people looked into whether it'd be better/possible to move the payments feature into a second, optional app but there might have been architectural or security reasons not to do so(?)
You’re sneaking in the presupposition that the market dictates support for crypto payments. But isn’t that a complete fantasy?
No, but the market seems to dictates support for payments. And if you want to support payments while preserving privacy, what options do you have other than looking at crypto currencies?
1. What's the evidence for the market dictating support for payments in messengers? 2. Privacy is exactly not a good selling point for most cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Arguably even Paypal and credits cards offer better privacy.
> But isn’t that a complete fantasy?
It's not when you're invested in cryptocurrency.
As they say, cui bono?
It's not when you're invested in cryptocurrency.
As they say, cui bono?
>Given WhatsApp's move toward a WeChat-like app now, I think some of the criticism against Signal/MobileCoin needs to be reconsidered: Moxie et al. might have seen that coming (which I guess wasn't too difficult in light of WhatsApp's involvement in payments in India) and they are possibly just trying to stay competitive in the long term.
So given that Facebook is also now mining data on every user of Whatsapp, should we reconsider Signal's stance on privacy? Or should the fact a horrible company is further ruining a once great app be irrelevant to what Signal should or shouldn't do?
So given that Facebook is also now mining data on every user of Whatsapp, should we reconsider Signal's stance on privacy? Or should the fact a horrible company is further ruining a once great app be irrelevant to what Signal should or shouldn't do?
This is a strawman. Signal doesn't have to reconsider its stance on privacy, but due to network effects Signal does have to worry about market share or otherwise it will be back to being a niche app. Remember that Signal wants to improve privacy for the masses. It does not attempt to protect individual people targeted by any of the three-letter agencies.
> So given that Facebook is also now mining data on every user of Whatsapp
Is this true? I thought they still had minimal insight into the data on the app.
Is this true? I thought they still had minimal insight into the data on the app.
There's nothing to reconsider, MobileCoin/Signal is still a terrible idea and was responsible for them withholding their open source code, for a year, with absolutely no explanation at the time or in retrospective. It's nothing but a money grab with zero expectation that this is something users want, or will use.
> zero expectation that this is something users want, or will use.
Facebook Messenger already has this feature using fiat, Apple lets you send money via iMessage, Telegram already has this feature. Seems like adding payments is staying competitive with features other messaging utilities has. It might also be a money grab, but something can be two things at once.
Facebook Messenger already has this feature using fiat, Apple lets you send money via iMessage, Telegram already has this feature. Seems like adding payments is staying competitive with features other messaging utilities has. It might also be a money grab, but something can be two things at once.
Sending money is something that almost everyone needs. Sending cryptocurrencies is something almost no one needs. And if you did need it, why wouldn't you just send it directly from your wallet, without the middleman? Isn't that the point of cryptocurrencies?
> And if you did need it, why wouldn't you just send it directly from your wallet, without the middleman? Isn't that the point of cryptocurrencies?
That's a good point but: Do you know the wallets of all your friends? The advantage of Signal is that it knows your social network.
That's a good point but: Do you know the wallets of all your friends? The advantage of Signal is that it knows your social network.
I sign up for a mobilecoin exchange, do aml/ykc, buy cryptocurrency in some way, make a wallet in signal, have my friend make a wallet, then I send them mobilecoin, which is useless to them unless they also sign up for an exchange to turn it back into something something sensible. Yeah that's made so much easier by Signal being in the loop.
Payments in yet another currency is not useful. Apple letting you send payments in iMessage makes sense, MobileCoin in signal absolutely does not. What do you do with them once you have MobileCoins? You have to exchange them, potentially at some wildly varying exchange rate, rather than what Apple is offering which is just USD. Apple's solution not something I would use but it makes some sense given the relative difficulty of sending personal amounts of USD in the United States.
If you just wanted to send cryptocurrency, great, you use your normal method of doing it, making it something built into a chat client is at best nonsensical. It didn't need its own cryptocurrency offering, that part is just a cash grab that taints Signals mission.
If you just wanted to send cryptocurrency, great, you use your normal method of doing it, making it something built into a chat client is at best nonsensical. It didn't need its own cryptocurrency offering, that part is just a cash grab that taints Signals mission.
We can look at the interface for MobileCoin in Signal to get an idea of how bad this is. We're prompted to "add funds" by sending MobileCoin, and the "learn more" button leads to an article telling you to buy a "supported currency" (only MobileCoin) on some exchange. So it's fundamentally useless unless you are already into the cryptocurrency speculation sphere, in which case you almost certainly have something better to use that MobileCoin.
https://a.uguu.se/BWssrjlJ.jpeg
Remember the Signal PIN which is used for recovery of your account? It now lets you recover all of your money too, so that's going to be a great target for spear phishing attacks. That feature got a lot of pushback because nobody could really work out what it was supposed to be adding to the software, turns out, useless cryptocurrency.
https://a.uguu.se/YOGwpUcQ.jpeg
https://a.uguu.se/BWssrjlJ.jpeg
Remember the Signal PIN which is used for recovery of your account? It now lets you recover all of your money too, so that's going to be a great target for spear phishing attacks. That feature got a lot of pushback because nobody could really work out what it was supposed to be adding to the software, turns out, useless cryptocurrency.
https://a.uguu.se/YOGwpUcQ.jpeg
The various cryptocurrencies may all look fairly similar from the outside but there are, actual, material differences between them. Whether or not there was an existing cryptocurrency that met Signal's needs requires more in-depth knowledge of the world of cryptocurrency than I have. Their whitepaper lays some of this out.
If your other complaint is that Signal tried to make money, I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of, like, how capitalism works? If Signal runs out of money, Signal stops working.
If your other complaint is that Signal tried to make money, I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of, like, how capitalism works? If Signal runs out of money, Signal stops working.
> The Signal Foundation, officially the Signal Technology Foundation, is an American non-profit organization founded in 2018 by Moxie Marlinspike and Brian Acton.
> was responsible for them withholding their open source code, for a year, with absolutely no explanation at the time or in retrospective
I fully agree with you here but I'm 50-50 on your other statement:
> [There is] zero expectation that this is something users want, or will use.
I fully agree with you here but I'm 50-50 on your other statement:
> [There is] zero expectation that this is something users want, or will use.
I thought the point of Signal was not go follow every dark pattern of the other apps looking to monetize their userbase. Zuckerberg thinking it's a good idea doesn't help Signal here, because Signal has a different mission than Zuckerberg.
They lasted a couple of years before selling out, which is unfortunately not that impressive.
> Users who are paid this way receive USDP, which can be withdrawn to a bank account in its equivalent value in US dollars.
I feel like I’m missing something. How is this system any different than a centralized system like PayPal or any other traditional payment system, where users have a USD balance and can withdraw it to their bank accounts?
If the company secretly removed the cryptocurrency backend and replaced it with a centralized database, would anything at all change for the users? Or would it be functionally identical?
I feel like I’m missing something. How is this system any different than a centralized system like PayPal or any other traditional payment system, where users have a USD balance and can withdraw it to their bank accounts?
If the company secretly removed the cryptocurrency backend and replaced it with a centralized database, would anything at all change for the users? Or would it be functionally identical?
Pick your middleman. Using a crypto layer internally means you can circumvent traditional payment rails which means if you're in American growth-tech where revenue isn't a thing you can just remove all fee's for a while. Paypal could do the same for sure but chose not to.
Disagree with the notion they won't be shutting people out of the network when needed, that's not grounded in reality.
Disagree with the notion they won't be shutting people out of the network when needed, that's not grounded in reality.
Why did you put an apostrophe in "fee's" but not in "rails"?
This isn't a grammar-nazi criticism because I frequently make similar mistakes with pluralization.
It strikes me that there must be some cognitive explanation for why some plurals seem to need an apostrophe when other plurals don't.
This isn't a grammar-nazi criticism because I frequently make similar mistakes with pluralization.
It strikes me that there must be some cognitive explanation for why some plurals seem to need an apostrophe when other plurals don't.
I'm fine with my English but non-native. Writing anything on the internet usually involves a googling of whatever expression I'm unsure of and if there's a reasonable amount of results that's an ok enough approximation for me. Try it with payment rails. No hate though I'm happy for friendly corrections.
For this, the basic rules of thumb are simple:
#1 Never apostrophe before plural-s.
#2 Always apostrophe before possessive-s.
Some weird possible exceptions noted in sibling comments (like apostrophe before plural-s on acronyms and single letters), but those aren't universal and therefore not mandatory. So if in (even the slightest) doubt, follow rules #1 and #2 and you'll be right far more often than wrong.
Oh yeah, one actually important and non-weird "exception": NO apostrophe "before possesive-s" on possessive pronouns like "his" or "theirs". I think this is because they're actually not ordinary nouns made possessive by adding apostrophe-s, but grammatically their own distinct words which happen to always contain an s at the end. So in that perspective, it's not even an exception; hence the quote marks.
And that ("it's") reminds me of rule
#3 Always apostrophe in contractions.
"Contractions" here means when a verb -- usually "is" or "has"; I don't know if (but don't think that) there are any others -- following a noun or a pronoun is reduced to its final 's' and added to the preceding word, as in e.g. "John's gone". You have to figure out whether the 's' stands for "is" or "has" from context: In "John's gone forever" it's "is", but in "John's gone and done it" it's "has". Usually it's pretty obvious, or doesn't really matter for understanding what's meant.
HTH!
#1 Never apostrophe before plural-s.
#2 Always apostrophe before possessive-s.
Some weird possible exceptions noted in sibling comments (like apostrophe before plural-s on acronyms and single letters), but those aren't universal and therefore not mandatory. So if in (even the slightest) doubt, follow rules #1 and #2 and you'll be right far more often than wrong.
Oh yeah, one actually important and non-weird "exception": NO apostrophe "before possesive-s" on possessive pronouns like "his" or "theirs". I think this is because they're actually not ordinary nouns made possessive by adding apostrophe-s, but grammatically their own distinct words which happen to always contain an s at the end. So in that perspective, it's not even an exception; hence the quote marks.
And that ("it's") reminds me of rule
#3 Always apostrophe in contractions.
"Contractions" here means when a verb -- usually "is" or "has"; I don't know if (but don't think that) there are any others -- following a noun or a pronoun is reduced to its final 's' and added to the preceding word, as in e.g. "John's gone". You have to figure out whether the 's' stands for "is" or "has" from context: In "John's gone forever" it's "is", but in "John's gone and done it" it's "has". Usually it's pretty obvious, or doesn't really matter for understanding what's meant.
HTH!
Style rules used to suggest an apostrophe for initialized items such as C.D.'s for sale. Of course, modern style rules suggest CDs for sale (but don't tell the New York Times).
The Times’ style guide would render more than one compact disc as C.D.s (no apostrophe, but with periods in intialisms).
Do you have a link to any authoritative style guide that suggested “C.D.’s”? The Times' guide (2015) demands apostrophes to pluralize single letters: “the word has two t’s”. I think that’s silly, just as their use of quotation marks rather than italics for book titles.
Here is a quote from the 2015 edition of the Style Guide:
“G.I. The colloquial term, derived from government issue, for American soldiers. The plural is G.I.s”
Do you have a link to any authoritative style guide that suggested “C.D.’s”? The Times' guide (2015) demands apostrophes to pluralize single letters: “the word has two t’s”. I think that’s silly, just as their use of quotation marks rather than italics for book titles.
Here is a quote from the 2015 edition of the Style Guide:
“G.I. The colloquial term, derived from government issue, for American soldiers. The plural is G.I.s”
The Chicago Manual of Style IIRC has this, also perhaps Strunk and White, and apparently the NY Times in 2010:
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/faqs-on-s...
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/faqs-on-s...
Hmm. Either the Time’s guide is inconsistent or they changed their rules between 2010 and 2015.
You’re correct about Chicago (you do RC); at least my 1969 copy.
My 1959 Strunk and White doesn’t seem to have anything about this, but it also doesn’t have an index, so maybe it’s in there somewhere.
You’re correct about Chicago (you do RC); at least my 1969 copy.
My 1959 Strunk and White doesn’t seem to have anything about this, but it also doesn’t have an index, so maybe it’s in there somewhere.
I've probably gotten confused about the single letters and the C.D.s, thanks. (actually, looking at the other response's link, the Times may likely have changed their style guide)
But, then why an apostrophe for t's and not for fees? :D It rhymes, it should be punctuated the same is as good a rule as any!
But, then why an apostrophe for t's and not for fees? :D It rhymes, it should be punctuated the same is as good a rule as any!
> which means if you're in American growth-tech where revenue isn't a thing you can just remove all fee's for a while. Paypal could do the same for sure but chose not to.
PayPal doesn’t have any fees if you send money as a “gift” (that is, forgo any fraud protections) and you don’t use a credit card.
PayPal doesn’t have any fees if you send money as a “gift” (that is, forgo any fraud protections) and you don’t use a credit card.
> Disagree with the notion they won't be shutting people out of the network when needed, that's not grounded in reality
Facebook is the only one with access to write to this chain correct? If so, they can shut people out of their chain by just disabling their Facebook, WhatsApp, or meta accounts. That’s grounded in reality
Facebook is the only one with access to write to this chain correct? If so, they can shut people out of their chain by just disabling their Facebook, WhatsApp, or meta accounts. That’s grounded in reality
[deleted]
Paypal charges 3% and randomly bans accounts.
PayPal fees are zero when money is sent as a “gift” and isn’t coming from a credit card. That seems to be equivalent to this model.
WhatsApp has to play by the same banking rules as PayPal, so they’re not automatically exempted from the same regulations around prohibited transactions. These rules are still enforced at the bank layer.
WhatsApp has to play by the same banking rules as PayPal, so they’re not automatically exempted from the same regulations around prohibited transactions. These rules are still enforced at the bank layer.
Whatsapp sells my data for profit and allows ME to ban innocent accounts for 24 hours.
The timing of this is not accidental and Facebook is not acting on its own accord here. This is a move by the Russian mafia/state to make it easier to evade the imminent cut-off from SWIFT and global financial networks.
Just because Russia is a mafia state doesn't mean they're behind Facebook's payments initiatives.
To make this sound a bit less like mad conspiratorial ravings, could you flesh out how Whatsapp would allow Russian banks, government agencies, companies and oligarchs to move large quantities of money if they're disconnected from SWIFT?
For example, how would Russia get around the fact that Whatsapp is only offering this in the United States? How would Russians get fiat currency in and out? How would Russians circumvent the very low transaction limits?
To make this sound a bit less like mad conspiratorial ravings, could you flesh out how Whatsapp would allow Russian banks, government agencies, companies and oligarchs to move large quantities of money if they're disconnected from SWIFT?
For example, how would Russia get around the fact that Whatsapp is only offering this in the United States? How would Russians get fiat currency in and out? How would Russians circumvent the very low transaction limits?
Oh, but this isn't for the Russian people! It's for the so called "oligarchs" and their families who - surprise - don't actually live in Russia! They like America and western Europe much better.
And if you don't realise that Russian government / KGB is VERY MUCH behind Facebook and its initiatives, I'm afraid you have quite a bit of catching up to do.
And if you don't realise that Russian government / KGB is VERY MUCH behind Facebook and its initiatives, I'm afraid you have quite a bit of catching up to do.
> And if you don't realise that Russian government / KGB is VERY MUCH behind Facebook and its initiatives, I'm afraid you have quite a bit of catching up to do.
Uh, I have to say, this is a new one for me. What's the theory here?
Uh, I have to say, this is a new one for me. What's the theory here?
In real news, Russia (the gov, and affiliates) has made lots of popular fb groups/accounts/pages to attract american attention and spread misinformation.
There have been reports on everything from "Christians for trump" groups to "abortions are a human right" groups. These accounts were used to spread disagreement and angst across the population. they even pit groups they owned against each other IRL [1]...
No evidence that russians were part of facebook but rather that they took advantage of the anonymity of the internet to pretend to be american and cause political divide (esp. during election times).
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelli...
There have been reports on everything from "Christians for trump" groups to "abortions are a human right" groups. These accounts were used to spread disagreement and angst across the population. they even pit groups they owned against each other IRL [1]...
No evidence that russians were part of facebook but rather that they took advantage of the anonymity of the internet to pretend to be american and cause political divide (esp. during election times).
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelli...
Oh Russian troll farms pushing propaganda? I think that’s pretty much fact at this point.
A far cry from what it seemed was being insinuated, as if the Kremlin had something to do with Facebook’s success.
A far cry from what it seemed was being insinuated, as if the Kremlin had something to do with Facebook’s success.
> "oligarchs" and their families who - surprise - don't actually live in Russia!
How would Whatsapp's service with a $300 maximum transaction limit, that's only available in the US, allow them to evade a hypothetical disconnection of Russian banks from SWIFT?
How would Whatsapp's service with a $300 maximum transaction limit, that's only available in the US, allow them to evade a hypothetical disconnection of Russian banks from SWIFT?
Via an American company subject to the Magnitsky act?
Why imminent cut-off? I mean, maybe Putin decides to invade Ukraine and maybe Biden decides to push for the promised cut-off, but why would Meta help them, and how would Meta be exempted from said cut-off?
[deleted]
What? That’s an incredible story if true...
If you think a bit bigger and imagine a worldwide audience (basically the defining feature of whatsapp), the initial killer apps here are remittances and the ability to build out marketplaces and stores.
Assume the goal is global wechat-like commerce. IMHO this is huge.
The regulatory interactions will be formidable because every country will want to get its fingers into this, money and who gets it is ultimately politics.
The crypto bit lets you work around locally broken financial systems, but a lot of negotiating with governments will still be required.
Privacy will necessarily be nonexistent, to get to global reach all transactions will have to be at least as legible as current bank transfers to involved governments. This is not "WhatsApp's fault" per se, it's just the world we live in.
Assume the goal is global wechat-like commerce. IMHO this is huge.
The regulatory interactions will be formidable because every country will want to get its fingers into this, money and who gets it is ultimately politics.
The crypto bit lets you work around locally broken financial systems, but a lot of negotiating with governments will still be required.
Privacy will necessarily be nonexistent, to get to global reach all transactions will have to be at least as legible as current bank transfers to involved governments. This is not "WhatsApp's fault" per se, it's just the world we live in.
What makes it so huge in your opinion? PayPal and Venmo and the like already make this very easy, internationally there are some challenges, but it’s not technical limitations so much as legal/compliance which doesn’t go away with blockchain.
> internationally there are some challenges
"Some challenges" is doing a lot of work there. That's like saying that a hurricane's "a bit of water". If you're in Montana and don't have any family in Florida, you can blindly ignore the hurricane as it won't affect you. But realize that's a position of great privilege. For everyone else that can't get Paypal or Venmo or even US bank account in many case, or anyone who's Internet access is solely WhatsApp and not Venmo (due to Facebook providing free access to their properties and only their properties in certain countries), this is a total game changer.
"Some challenges" is doing a lot of work there. That's like saying that a hurricane's "a bit of water". If you're in Montana and don't have any family in Florida, you can blindly ignore the hurricane as it won't affect you. But realize that's a position of great privilege. For everyone else that can't get Paypal or Venmo or even US bank account in many case, or anyone who's Internet access is solely WhatsApp and not Venmo (due to Facebook providing free access to their properties and only their properties in certain countries), this is a total game changer.
> What makes it so huge in your opinion?
Whatsapp has 2 billion users, PayPal and Venmo probably only small fraction of that.
On Whatsapp you already have your friends in the list, on PayPal I personally have nobody. It's an additional hurdle, I've never actually sent money to friend/family through PayPal.
Whatsapp has 2 billion users, PayPal and Venmo probably only small fraction of that.
On Whatsapp you already have your friends in the list, on PayPal I personally have nobody. It's an additional hurdle, I've never actually sent money to friend/family through PayPal.
Sure, but is this any more interesting than a partnership where WhatsApp lets people PayPal money to other WhatsApp users?
From a individual perspective, if you are in the US and all of your friends are in the US and are able to get PayPal accounts, and you don't personally use WhatsApp and see it as just another messaging service, the practical answer to your question, for you, personally, is no.
However, thinking of this only in terms of this this will affect you is short-sighted, and apes other hot takes that went down in Internet history (HN on DropBox, /. on the iPod). The broader context for this (as discussed in other threads here) is what makes it interesting. Similarly, from a product POV, Twitter doesn't look like much - it's the users that are on there that makes it interesting.
However, thinking of this only in terms of this this will affect you is short-sighted, and apes other hot takes that went down in Internet history (HN on DropBox, /. on the iPod). The broader context for this (as discussed in other threads here) is what makes it interesting. Similarly, from a product POV, Twitter doesn't look like much - it's the users that are on there that makes it interesting.
You’re missing my point. PayPal doesn’t use crypto and it’s easy to use to send money around. WhatsApp, just like PayPal, requires a user to onboard. What makes PayPal complex is the international law around sending money, not the tech stack.
Looking at cryptocurrency as just the tech stack is an incomplete view of the system. For better or worse, using a cryptocurrency is also a mechanism to sidestep international law. (For now. Regulators will catch up with Facebook sooner or later.)
[deleted]
It's huge because PayPal and Venmo have abstracted away a ton of complexity under the hood. Don't believe me? Try building a PP/Venmo as a mental exercise.
With crypto under the hood, it becomes quite easy for competitors to build a remittance product.
With crypto under the hood, it becomes quite easy for competitors to build a remittance product.
> PayPal and Venmo and the like already make this very easy
They make it easy because they abstract away the underlying mechanics. Novi for WhatsApp does the same, but for a much, much larger audience, and does so instantly. While it isn't shackled by the baggage of the financial industry born in an era far removed from the current one, the pace of improvements and deployments can be much faster in face of changing regulations, jurisdictions, and technology itself.
They make it easy because they abstract away the underlying mechanics. Novi for WhatsApp does the same, but for a much, much larger audience, and does so instantly. While it isn't shackled by the baggage of the financial industry born in an era far removed from the current one, the pace of improvements and deployments can be much faster in face of changing regulations, jurisdictions, and technology itself.
Instantly? I’ve come to expect that from Venmo, Zelle, PayPal, etc.
> Instantly? I’ve come to expect that from Venmo, Zelle, PayPal, etc.
International, fee-less, instant payments? With the amount of ecommerce that happens over WhatsApp and Instagram these days, Meta stands a very good chance with USDP to cut out the middle-men (all of the legacy financial infrastructure) and take the product straight to the consumers. Sure, Meta could partner with PayPal, but Novi is a better, if ambitious, bet.
International, fee-less, instant payments? With the amount of ecommerce that happens over WhatsApp and Instagram these days, Meta stands a very good chance with USDP to cut out the middle-men (all of the legacy financial infrastructure) and take the product straight to the consumers. Sure, Meta could partner with PayPal, but Novi is a better, if ambitious, bet.
Considering how many horror stories I've heard about people getting blocked from Paypal with funds in their custody, you can't see any benefit to doing this with crypto?
yes, google lightning network.
Why crypto? WhatsApp users are not particular tech-savvy, why not just use Fiat?
The use of crypto in here just makes it more difficult to understand for the end user, or am I missing something?
The use of crypto in here just makes it more difficult to understand for the end user, or am I missing something?
There are four options for Facebook to add payments:
1. Their own Paypal-like system
2. Partner with a Paypal
3. Their own cryptocurrency (ie Libra)
4. Partner with a cryptocurrency
Do I have that right? And for some reason #4 allows them to be global and not face antitrust concerns in the USA.
1. Their own Paypal-like system
2. Partner with a Paypal
3. Their own cryptocurrency (ie Libra)
4. Partner with a cryptocurrency
Do I have that right? And for some reason #4 allows them to be global and not face antitrust concerns in the USA.
Apparently so. How that works as a matter of law escapes me.
Had you told me in the 1980s that anonymous individuals would create thousands of new currencies backed for the most part by nothing at all, with the stated intent of evading all government regulation (what I would have called "crime" back then), and that the regulatory agencies would simply pretend it didn't exist, I would have laughed.
Had you told me in the 1980s that anonymous individuals would create thousands of new currencies backed for the most part by nothing at all, with the stated intent of evading all government regulation (what I would have called "crime" back then), and that the regulatory agencies would simply pretend it didn't exist, I would have laughed.
[deleted]
For some reason its hard to send money overseas. This seems to be universally true in "real" finance world. Not sure why, probably regulation? If you want to use things like Western Union et al. then you can expect (relatively) high per-tx fees. Crypto doesn't have this property.
why not both? nothing wrong with having both at all.
> Why crypto?
Plausible claims to being exempted from the rules for a while?
Plausible claims to being exempted from the rules for a while?
Sort of frees up Facebook from additional government oversight. Let the crypto people handle that fight.
Hard to understand for the end user, barely regulated, as an international multi billion dollar company what more do you need? Except for even less regulation, but that is a given.
I think this will get some heat from regulators.
Transactions can be either off-chain, or on-chain. With former it’s not much different than a database, with latter it’s becomes scammer/terrorist/drug dealer dream.
Also on-chain transfer costs ~$20 in a quiet hour, e.g here is a transfer of ~$250 for a fee of $20: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7d366b14c99ca6eb457109000f637e59bb...
USDP whitepaper: https://insights.paxos.com/hubfs/USDP-whitepaper.pdf
Contract source: https://github.com/paxosglobal/usdp-contracts
Etherscan: https://etherscan.io/token/0x8e870d67f660d95d5be530380d0ec0b...
Transactions can be either off-chain, or on-chain. With former it’s not much different than a database, with latter it’s becomes scammer/terrorist/drug dealer dream.
Also on-chain transfer costs ~$20 in a quiet hour, e.g here is a transfer of ~$250 for a fee of $20: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7d366b14c99ca6eb457109000f637e59bb...
USDP whitepaper: https://insights.paxos.com/hubfs/USDP-whitepaper.pdf
Contract source: https://github.com/paxosglobal/usdp-contracts
Etherscan: https://etherscan.io/token/0x8e870d67f660d95d5be530380d0ec0b...
I wonder how people will deal with this at the time of tax return, when one has to disclose all crypto transactions. Hopefully since this coin provides no gain, one can just ignore it as much as one doesn’t list all USD transactions. Surely in terms of taxes and transparency this could be a big deal
It's not like FB/Meta can't afford to participate in the US (or any other legal, regulated) payment networks and protect their end users and intermediaries. They could easily cover the cost of fees if this was a product they actually believed in and could make revenue from.
Is this jumping on the bandwagon or genuinely beneficial? I'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt here.
However, I'm a total rookie when it comes to crypto, blockchain etc. and giving a company that permabans via ai with no human fallback control of payments seems like a bad idea to me.
However, I'm a total rookie when it comes to crypto, blockchain etc. and giving a company that permabans via ai with no human fallback control of payments seems like a bad idea to me.
> Is this jumping on the bandwagon or genuinely beneficial?
Considering that to this date blockchains and cryptocurrencies have not solved a single problem better than their "legacy" counterparts, I'd say the former.
Considering that to this date blockchains and cryptocurrencies have not solved a single problem better than their "legacy" counterparts, I'd say the former.
Why would you give FB of all companies the benefit of the doubt?
I'm trying to be a bit more positive these days given all the negativity surrounding us but I'm under no illusion that FB's raison d'etre is data-gathering and advertising at all costs, even to the detriment human life. I get it. I also don't use social media at all so I'm not their customer.
It's a long-shot, I know but I thought I'd chuck it out there. I wanted to find out if there is a potential genuine benefit to this system without all the anti-FB stuff getting in the way.
It's a long-shot, I know but I thought I'd chuck it out there. I wanted to find out if there is a potential genuine benefit to this system without all the anti-FB stuff getting in the way.
> I'm trying to be a bit more positive these days given all the negativity surrounding us
Which negativity has been brought to us by Facebook...
Which negativity has been brought to us by Facebook...
Are there not already tip bots for altcoins on WhatsApp?
Interesting how this is being promoted.
Interesting how this is being promoted.
It would be great if other platforms starts implementing crypto payments.
Can someone explain what’s the difference between this and when Telegram tried to introduce their coin?
Scale. Telegram has 50m users that use it seriously and all of them also use other messaging. Whatsapp has 1-2 billion, and for a majority of them it is their main or only messaging application.
20x larger scale means 20x more clout to bribe/lobby lawmakers and to get around the KYC/AML rules that are the main obstacle in these sorts of things.
20x larger scale means 20x more clout to bribe/lobby lawmakers and to get around the KYC/AML rules that are the main obstacle in these sorts of things.
The other major difference is their use of Paxos USD, a stablecoin that's tied to the dollar.
Signal launched payments worldwide a few weeks ago using MobileCoin. I suggest staying away from Facebook's surveilance coin.
We need a WAP token.
Facebook has been trying to get payments into WhatsApp for a long time. This is just the latest experiment to try to find something that would be acceptable to local regulators while simultaneously extracting some value from the smoking ruins of the Libra/Diem/Calibra/Novi fiasco.