"HN is weirdly inconsistent about digital currencies. Generally pro encryption, net neutrality, open-source software, VPNs, etc. But mention "Bitcoin," and suddenly half the commenters lose their shit about the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.
Then they go back to commiserating with another Ask HN startup founder whose PayPal account was frozen."
It's not because of aversion to cryptocurrency per se, it's because the crypto space is absolutely full of blatant shills and they are extremely annoying people. A comment like 'I think cryptocurrencies help to mitigate this, but the flip side is that it can lead to money laundering' is insightful. Personal testimonials are basically just ads.
I agree. The industry needs to do a better job of weeding out the shills.
That said, every advertisement I get for a bank or financial institution, doesn't seem much different. Instead of individuals, it is big organizations trying to shill us into letting them manage our money for us.
All industries around finance attract shady actors. In Vietnam, you get the best exchange rate for VND, by going to the gold dealers. Paypal doing shady things is par for the course. Banks going under because 97% of their deposits are over the FDIC limits is normal behavior.
Simultaneously ignoring the benefits of cryptocurrencies and the problems they are trying to solve, while only looking at the negative edges that are covered by mainstream media, seems short-sighted at best. That's the inconsistency.
That's the one use case that I think almost everyone agrees is valid, so it may be that people react that way because it isn't really educating anyone. It just feels more like evangelism.
Just speculating. I'll never downvote or argue against anyone pointing out that use case, personally.
To be fair here, they are handy if the bank wakes up one day and decides you are a wrong 'un for no good reason.
Or if you are transacting with someone with a funny sounding name, or who lives in a developing country (especially in MENA).
You can conduct your business without worrying about intermediary risk.
Hell, I've had bizarre issues in the past trying to make transfers between some large American banks and a number of European banks, the transactions just get "stuck" for a couple weeks, then get refunded, because somewhere in the middle something goes tits up.
A comment I saw yesterday that seems oddly relevant.... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35320208
"HN is weirdly inconsistent about digital currencies. Generally pro encryption, net neutrality, open-source software, VPNs, etc. But mention "Bitcoin," and suddenly half the commenters lose their shit about the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse. Then they go back to commiserating with another Ask HN startup founder whose PayPal account was frozen."
It's not because of aversion to cryptocurrency per se, it's because the crypto space is absolutely full of blatant shills and they are extremely annoying people. A comment like 'I think cryptocurrencies help to mitigate this, but the flip side is that it can lead to money laundering' is insightful. Personal testimonials are basically just ads.
I agree. The industry needs to do a better job of weeding out the shills.
That said, every advertisement I get for a bank or financial institution, doesn't seem much different. Instead of individuals, it is big organizations trying to shill us into letting them manage our money for us.
2 replies →
It might have more to do with the cryptocurrency space appearing more than a little shady than any sort of inconsistency.
All industries around finance attract shady actors. In Vietnam, you get the best exchange rate for VND, by going to the gold dealers. Paypal doing shady things is par for the course. Banks going under because 97% of their deposits are over the FDIC limits is normal behavior.
Simultaneously ignoring the benefits of cryptocurrencies and the problems they are trying to solve, while only looking at the negative edges that are covered by mainstream media, seems short-sighted at best. That's the inconsistency.
25 replies →
mention a valid use case = "plugging crypto"
never mention any = "there are no valid use cases for crypto"
And this is a fairly common one. For example it's how GrapheneOS pays their developers, because TradFi (especially cross-border) is too capricious.
That's the one use case that I think almost everyone agrees is valid, so it may be that people react that way because it isn't really educating anyone. It just feels more like evangelism.
Just speculating. I'll never downvote or argue against anyone pointing out that use case, personally.
To be fair here, they are handy if the bank wakes up one day and decides you are a wrong 'un for no good reason.
Or if you are transacting with someone with a funny sounding name, or who lives in a developing country (especially in MENA).
You can conduct your business without worrying about intermediary risk.
Hell, I've had bizarre issues in the past trying to make transfers between some large American banks and a number of European banks, the transactions just get "stuck" for a couple weeks, then get refunded, because somewhere in the middle something goes tits up.
I forgot to mention that also of the above applies at unlimited amounts
Instead of arbitrarily low amounts
It solves the friction for the person I replied to, and anyone that wants to avoid that particular kind of friction