El Salvador passes its Bitcoin Law – and it's a Tether scam(davidgerard.co.uk)
davidgerard.co.uk
El Salvador passes its Bitcoin Law – and it's a Tether scam
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/06/11/el-salvador-passes-its-bitcoin-law-and-its-a-tether-scam/
18 comments
> Why can't the family continue to use Western Union
They can, but this is a bad remittance channel.
> Why on earth would someone in the US send Tether as a remittance?
Per the article, this is literally the supposed use case that the CEO of Strike puts forward.
> over time El Salvadorans may come to prefer remittances to be sent in Bitcoin and used immediately to pay for things.
It's possible, but the past ten years of bitcoin failing at the merchant use case suggests otherwise. I won't say it can't happen; but given bitcoin's past repeated failure, I'd want to see it happening.
They can, but this is a bad remittance channel.
> Why on earth would someone in the US send Tether as a remittance?
Per the article, this is literally the supposed use case that the CEO of Strike puts forward.
> over time El Salvadorans may come to prefer remittances to be sent in Bitcoin and used immediately to pay for things.
It's possible, but the past ten years of bitcoin failing at the merchant use case suggests otherwise. I won't say it can't happen; but given bitcoin's past repeated failure, I'd want to see it happening.
>>It's possible, but the past ten years of bitcoin failing at the merchant use case suggests otherwise
Taxes might actually the only 'commerce' bitcoin is good for - fairly high value, low frequency. Bitcoin/Eth are both too expensive/slow to really use for everyday shopping/etc.
Taxes might actually the only 'commerce' bitcoin is good for - fairly high value, low frequency. Bitcoin/Eth are both too expensive/slow to really use for everyday shopping/etc.
david are you confusing Strike.org (denominates trades in tether) for Strike.me (bitcoin lightning network) ?
Please avail yourself of publicly available sources of information
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210605005045/en/Str...
Please avail yourself of publicly available sources of information
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210605005045/en/Str...
No he is not. The Strike in question is the one run by Jack Maller and the description of using USDT for remittances to ES comes from Miller’s own Medium article.
https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b90...
https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b90...
I've addressed this in my reply to david below.
The author provides /r/buttcoin as a source for some of the claims, so... yeah...
Despite the name, it's probably Reddit's best crypto-skeptic sub.
Yes, but the best cryto-sceptic sub on Reddit is faint praise. It is filled with arrogance, hate and, ignorance.
literally the only one not overrun by shills or cultists
> I'm not sure I follow the argument here. Why can't the family continue to use Western Union or one of its competitors to send USD remittances if Tether bothers them and Tether would in fact be involved?
This is a little like if I asked you, "well, what's the problem with a Ponzi scheme? If it bothers you so much, just invest in a different fund instead."
This is a little like if I asked you, "well, what's the problem with a Ponzi scheme? If it bothers you so much, just invest in a different fund instead."
Except you'll know very quickly it was a "Testher scam" because there's no way for you to get your USD out.
A Ponzi keeps stringing its victims along, but a family receiving a remittance will want spend it quickly.
A Ponzi keeps stringing its victims along, but a family receiving a remittance will want spend it quickly.
>Strike, the payment network that El Salvador is working with, runs on tethers
I'm not sure where the author is getting his information but Strike runs on Lightning Network, this is the first I've ever heard this claim and doubt it's legitimate.
Is it possible the author has confused Strike.org for Strike.me ?
I'm not sure where the author is getting his information but Strike runs on Lightning Network, this is the first I've ever heard this claim and doubt it's legitimate.
Is it possible the author has confused Strike.org for Strike.me ?
no - per literally the text of the article, Jack Mallers says, in this article that I linked from the article, that the LN Strike uses USDT for its remittance channel:
https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b90...
https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b90...
"Strike runs Lightning Network"
https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-p...
https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-p...
Um what? Confusing the lightning network with a tether trading platform?
No, read Jack Mallers from the LN Strike's direct statement that they're using USDT: https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b90...
I'm looking at it right now and am struggling to understand how you interpreted his statement as Strike running on Tether. I see exactly one mention of Tether in the article:
>Strike then takes the bitcoins and automatically converts them back into USDT (synthetic digital dollar known as Tether) using its real-time automated risk management and trading infrastructure.
So the user has an *option* of Tether if the prefer, how does that equate in your mind to "a tether scam"?
Followed immediately by:
>What if an El Salvador user wants local currency in exchange for their Strike USDT balance? Are they stuck with synthetic digital dollars? Nope.
>Remember, Strike remains interoperable with the Bitcoin and Lightning networks. We don’t need to install Strike network tellers and ATMs around the world, we are built on top of an open network, the work has already been done for us.
So are you just choosing to ignore statements that do not conform to your narrative or did you skip this portion? As it directly contradicts your previous statement of Strike not running on Bitcoin / Lightning.
>Strike then takes the bitcoins and automatically converts them back into USDT (synthetic digital dollar known as Tether) using its real-time automated risk management and trading infrastructure.
So the user has an *option* of Tether if the prefer, how does that equate in your mind to "a tether scam"?
Followed immediately by:
>What if an El Salvador user wants local currency in exchange for their Strike USDT balance? Are they stuck with synthetic digital dollars? Nope.
>Remember, Strike remains interoperable with the Bitcoin and Lightning networks. We don’t need to install Strike network tellers and ATMs around the world, we are built on top of an open network, the work has already been done for us.
So are you just choosing to ignore statements that do not conform to your narrative or did you skip this portion? As it directly contradicts your previous statement of Strike not running on Bitcoin / Lightning.
I'm not sure I follow the argument here. Why can't the family continue to use Western Union or one of its competitors to send USD remittances if Tether bothers them and Tether would in fact be involved?
> Well, that’s easy — you can cash out your USDT balance as US dollars at a Strike-operated Bitcoin ATM!
> How many Bitcoin ATMs are there in El Salvador?
> Two. ...
I guess it's possible, but this sounds rather speculative. Why on earth would someone in the US send Tether as a remittance? Unlike bitcoin, which will be treated as legal tender, tether will enjoy no such status.
If Tether can't be converted to USD easily, it won't be sent as a remittance. There may be some initial confusion, but I suspect that word of mouth about bad experiences would spread quite quickly given what's at stake.
The author also seems to be completely discounting the possibility that over time El Salvadorans may come to prefer remittances to be sent in bitcoin and used immediately to pay for things. No need to invoke tether at all in that case.