Doubt it, how else will Onlyfans funnel money ... elsewhere?
post

If this really does drive people to crypto then I hope it goes to monero or a fork of it. Try blocking or tracking transactions then.
Bitcoin is really bad for using as currency, due to the fact that there is a permanent, public ledger of all transactions. Why would you want anyone you pay to be able to see and trace every transaction you've ever made? Pay rent in bitcoin, now your landlord can calculate your spending and who you do transactions with. And yes, there are services that aggregate and obfuscate transactions in order to make them less traceable, but now you've just reinvented the same centralized payment processor system that the whole thing is supposed to be replacing... so... what's the point?
Cash is good for using as currency.
so... what's the point?
The point isn't anonymity, but independence and autonomy. It's hard to shut down and hard to tax. The banks/governments can't freeze your bitcoins, nor can they simply print more or regulate the value otherwise.
Just ban it worldwide and have the police arrest anyone running a node
oh wow, it's that easy? we should do it with other things like piracy, human trafficking, tax evasion, insider trading, bribery, cyberattacks and environmental violations as well. oh wait, we did? it didn't stop it? i'm shocked. /s
The banks/governments can't freeze your bitcoins, nor can they simply print more or regulate the value otherwise.
You're just listing reasons why bitcoin sucks lol. Oh no!!! Flight risk criminals and terrorists had their accounts frozen!!! Oh no, ReGuLaTiOn BaD!!! Grow up.
Finite currencies (like gold/silver/bitcoin) are deflationary currencies and are genuinely absolutely terrible for an economy. That's why we don't use gold anymore.
It wasn't my intention to come off as supporting it. I was simply giving the objective reasons for its creation. I see it as a tool that can be useful in some situations, but can be problematic in others.
"Flight risk criminals and terrorists had their accounts frozen!!!"
Yes, those criminals, for example, LGBT people who conservatives believe are pornographic simply for existing. God forbid LGBT artists want to have a way of earning a living. Crypto is relied on by a lot of marginalized groups. It's used by artists who make perfectly legal art, but whose content conservatives object to. Crypto is used by many queer content creators as they face being cut off from payment processing systems, as again, conservatives consider queer people pornographic simply for existing. Crypto is used by sex workers, often people with few other employment options. Oh, and crypto is used by trans people to get access to healthcare that is quickly being criminalized.
How insane do you have to be, in 2025 Trump's America, to fall back on the idea that anything criminal is bad. Republicans are trying to criminalize the existence of entire swathes of the population. And those people face being cut off from the banking system entirely, if folks like you, who blindly consider legality=morality, have their way.
Ah yes, that's why the Trump administration is one of the biggest proponents of crypto, right?? 🙄 did you even try?
How are those related? It is possible for some conservatives to want to purge LGBT voices from the internet at the same time other conservatives want to advance crypto. These are not mutually exclusive goals.
It does however look really bad that such a massive criminal organization (trump and co) are pushing for it so hard.
All of this before getting into just how insanely wasteful and terrible for the world that crypto is.
Sorry that it helps a few artists, but the cost for everyone else is significantly higher to embrace what crypto is.
Finite currencies (like gold/silver/bitcoin) are deflationary currencies and are genuinely absolutely terrible for an economy.
Myth. Deflation is just negative inflation, and that's been fine.
It's a fact.
Deflation is just negative inflation
Yep, that's a major problem. The total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy. Take a first year econ course before speaking
It's a myth.
The total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy.
Go on, back up that statement with references from your first year econ course notes.
Under your model, how was the economy able to grow before 1976?
Under your model, how was the economy able to grow before 1976?
Gold can be mined.

Ah. So the rate of gold extraction exactly matches the expansion of the economy.
Oh, it doesn't.
Try again.
Hurray! You've correctly identified the problem! Congratulations.

So we agree you've proved your statement that "The total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy" is false?
Excellent. Glad I could help.
That's not what that proves lol, but it does prove that the gold standard does not work and is not sustainable.
You should probably read up a little bit on history, the facts disagree with you. The US government had to use regulations and policies to influence the supply of gold: grants for gold mining, setting the reserve rates, hoarding gold to keep out of circulation. Until the gold standard dropped, there was even a limit on the amount of gold one could legally own. On top of this, other gold producing nations had the power to directly influence US monetary value and undermine US sovereignty.
Throw in implications and challenges of being a global reserve currency (Triffin dilemma), and you end up having a really bad time with an unhealthy economy.
Foolish people that don't know history want to pretend that the gold standard magically creates some kind of natural currency free of "government meddling", but the reality is that even more meddling and government control was required under the gold standard than compared to fiat currency.
That's not what that proves lol, but it does prove that the gold standard does not work and is not sustainable.
If the economy grew at the rate of mining pre1976 and had no relationship post1976 then your hypothesis would be proven. Data shows this is false.
Yes the FED wanted full control over the US money supply, which is impossible under the gold standard. This desire was unrelated to inflation or deflation.
If the economy grew at the rate of mining pre1976 and had no relationship post1976 then your hypothesis would be proven.
Ahhh! I understand what you are misunderstanding, now. You think that I said that the change in size of the pool of currency IS the change in the size of the economy itself. Here's what I said:
The total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy.
The pool of currency and the economy are two separate things that can grow at two separate rates. It just creates serious economic problems when they are not aligned with each other. Homework assignment: read up on the Great Depression.
If it is true that total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy then the rate one variable grows must be linked to the rate the other grows. If there is no link then there is no relationship.
The great depression was caused by a stock market over inflated with leverage. This has nothing to do with the gold standard.
And notice how we have deviated from the topic of deflation. It's a topic built on myth and misunderstanding that easily slips out of focus.
There is absolutely no evidence that deflation itself is bad. The great depression occurred because there was too much debt. Japan suffered in the 90s because it had too much debt. Deflation/inflation just measures who gains more over time, debtors or lenders.
If it is true that total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy then the rate one variable grows must be linked to the rate the other grows.
You're just repeating the same mistake. We both agree this is not true, as in the economy can grow while the currency pool stays constant. They change independent from each other. It's just really bad when they both don't grow on a similar scale. They only need to grow at the same rate in order to maintain a healthy growing economy. The relationship/link between them is that when they get too out of sync, there will be a correction.
The great depression was caused by a stock market over inflated with leverage. This has nothing to do with the gold standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Attempts_to_return_to_the_Gold_Standard Again, facts and history disagrees with you. It's literally the very first on the list of causes lol
And notice how we have deviated from the topic of deflation.
You're certainly trying to, but I have not.
The great depression occurred because there was too much debt.
LOL. YES!!! DING DING DING! And how does deflation impact debt? Does it increase or decrease debt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation 😊
Kind of wild that you can admit that the worst economic downturn of all history was caused by debt, that deflation and inflation impact the way debt works, and in the very same paragraph say that "There is absolutely no evidence that deflation itself is bad." without a shred of self-reflection or irony. So, you understand that debt causes depressions, but simultaneously think an economic force that amplifies debt is totally harmless?? Make it make sense!!
During World War I, many countries suspended their gold standard in varying ways
It's in the first line. The cause here is WWI, not the great depression. These are countries going broke and abandoning the gold standard because of war, not because they are experiencing deflation.
Exactly. The quantity of debt relative to GDP is what is of concern. You are linking to the right things. Go back, reread them and then take a long walk and have a good think.
The cause here is WWI, not the great depression.
Huh? Your reading comprehension needs some work. This is a list of causes of the Great Depression. Of course the Great Depression is not a cause of the Great Depression. The first cause of the Great Depression in the list is... (drum roll, please): the effects of the gold standard!!!
abandoning the gold standard because of war
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm what about war causes deflationary currency to be unsuitable? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 And are those conditions exclusive to war? Checkmate. That was easy!
The conditions mean that debts cannot be repaid. Thats the fear. Not because the gradual increasing purchasing power of the underlying currency that actually benefits the bondholders.
Take a walk. Have a think.
The conditions mean that debts cannot be repaid
Does deflation make debt easier or harder to repay? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Again, an econ 101 class would really help you
Deflation makes debt harder to repay and it rewards the debt owners with greater purchasing power.
This means deflation is actually a good thing for half of the economy (the bond holders). Not the monster it is always made out as being.
Again. The amount of debt is the worry, not the gradual change in value of the denomination.
Again. The amount of debt is the worry
Does deflation increase or decrease the amount of debt? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
I could literally do this all day lol its effortless to just be correct. It must be exhausting to need to constantly spin the argument and futily reconcile the inconsistencies and mental gymnastics of your position.
Does deflation increase or decrease the amount of debt? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Neither. If you currently owe $100 (interest free) then next year you still owe $100.
I could literally do this all day lol its effortless to just be correct.
Of course it's effortless. You are asking questions and not thinking for yourself. I'm the only one giving explanations and providing the correct responses.
Wrong, good try though. Yes, you owe $100, but each dollar is worth more, meaning you owe a greater "real value" (that's an econ 101 term you should look up), or in otherwords, the debt increased.
and providing the correct responses
😂
Nope. The debt is still $100. There is no increase.
Being slightly harder to pay back is irrelevant if there are now only $50 of assets in the economy.
The inability to repay debt caused the great depression, not deflation.
Nope nope! You're just denying deflation exists, now?? 😂 That'll work. This is where mental gymnastics gets you. Sad!
Well, looks like I've won.
Why is deflation bad?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915/why-deflation-bad-economy.asp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation

Dude. Read what you post.
A little bit of deflation is a product of, and good for, economic growth. But, in the case of an economy-wide, central bank-fueled debt bubble followed by debt deflation when the bubble bursts, rapidly falling prices can go hand-in-hand with a financial crisis and recession.
Deflation isn't bad. It is a symptom that occurs after an economy-wide, central bank-fueled debt bubble. That's the bad part. The debt that's not being repaid.
This takes us right back to the start of the discussion. In a crypto economy a central bank doesn't even exist, so crypto deflation is never bad.
The debt that's not being repaid.
Does deflation make debt easier or harder to repay? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
In a crypto economy a central bank doesn't even exist, so crypto deflation is never bad.
😂😂😂😂
If you are expecting $100 and are only going to get back $50, are you happy that your purchasing power has increased and you are really getting $51 back, or are you angry that you've actually lost $49.
The crisis is the default, not the deflation.
That's not an economy.
Also LOL at the change in value being $1. Bitcoin is finite, permanently, forever. 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, bitcoin will continue to deflate year after year. At least gold can be mined, although at some point we will have extracted it all. The 2% deflation in your example is an absurd underestimation. Percentages in the hundreds to thousands is more realistic.
Deflationary currency is a great way to kill an economy, there's no motivation to invest and accept any risk when all you have to do to increase your wealth dramatically is wait, risk free. Economic activity comes to a grinding halt.
bitcoin will continue to deflate year after year. At least gold can be mined.
You know bitcoiners will still be mining for over 100 more years.
there's no motivation to invest and accept any risk when all you have to do to increase your wealth dramatically is wait, risk free.
Another lazy myth regurgitated. You were obviously an exam crammer, not a thinker.
People choose more over less. They will still invest in risk free bonds paying an interest rate because they will end up with more money. They will still invest in risky assets for the same reason if there were no deflation. More money.
You know bitcoiners will still be mining for over 100 more years.
Technically "mining" does not end because there will always need to be more blocks if there are new transactions. Minting new coins that get awarded to miners is what ends in a bit over 100 years. And then what happens? My point stands.
Another lazy myth regurgitated. You were obviously an exam crammer, not a thinker.
It's fact. You can't even refute it besides desperate name calling and just stating the opposite. 😂 Sorry that reality isn't fun for you.
When your system entirely hinges on people not considering risk... 🤣 denying that risk is a factor in risk-reward calculus because "PeOpLe WaNt MoRe" is totally convincing, big winner of an argument. They want more, and they can get more... by doing absolutely nothing... so that's exactly what they'll do to get the more they want. They could get more by robbing a bank or selling their kidney!!!! Oh wait, that's right, risk... 🤦
desperate name calling
I'm not calling you names. I'm saying you have demonstrated no ability to think independently. I don't think you are a LLM but likely you are copy pasting from one.
You can't even refute it
I did. You seem unable to process the responses I write or even the links you post.
When your system entirely hinges on people not considering risk.
I wrote the opposite. That under deflation people will still make risky investments because it will make them money. Yet again you demonstrate an inability to comprehend.
They want more, and they can get more... by doing absolutely nothing...
-
Money under the mattress earns deflation
-
Money invested earns deflation + interest.
The second is more than the first.
I think we've reached your limits in this topic.
Ah yes, accusing one of using an LLM, a sure sign of winning the argument 🤣
- Money invested earns deflation + interest.
That's incorrect, money LOANED earns deflation + interest, not money invested. Money invested loses out on the deflation.
You have 1BTC. You exchange the 1BTC for 1 unit of an investment. As BTC deflates, it's buying power increases. When you go to sell your investment, you find that 1BTC still buys 1 unit of the investment, even though your investment grew in value during the same period of time. You could have done nothing to get the same result, without risking the volatile investment losing value instead of gaining. The higher the return needed to outpace deflation, the riskier the investment needs to be. Deflation worked against the investment, not with it.
Inflationary currency motivates investment and consumption. When your money is going to lose some value anyway, you might as well take a risk and invest it for a potential reward. You might as well make that large purchase today, because your money will buy a little less tomorrow. This is healthy for the economy.
You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive. This stifles an economy by decreasing demand/consumption and the flow of money through the economy. When loans are more expensive to pay back, people are discouraged from taking a business loan and starting a new business or taking out a loan and investing it or using it to make a large purchase.

I think we've reached your limits in this topic.
Lol I'm literally giving you a free education. You should be paying me for this. It's something that you're still responding after your argument has been torn to shreds with my every reply, without fail. The name calling and LLM accusations creep in as you start to realize you're wrong and desperately cling to denial. The cracks are already showing lol. Getting tired of trying to spin inconsistencies? Like I said, it's effortless to just be correct.
In order to loan out money and charge interest, someone needs to agree to the terms on the other side of the exchange.
Agreed.
-
When there is inflation a higher amount of interest is accepted by the lender to compensate this loss.
-
When there is deflation a lower amount of interest is accepted by the lender.
The economy doesn't grind to a halt. People don't horde cash. Consumption still occurs. Services are still performed.
Even if deflation means the value of money increases every year, people will still lend out their money because they would like to have more than money than if they did nothing.
find that 1BTC still buys 1 unit of the investment instrument, even though your investment grew in value during the same period of time.
So you made a bad investment in something that wasn't needed. Invest more wisely. This is basic economics.
It's impressive that you're still responding after your argument has been torn to shreds
It's good practice and helps hone my ideas.
Deflation is the answer to the infinite growth required by capitalism. It should be embraced, not avoided.
The economy doesn't grind to a halt. People don't horde cash. Consumption still occurs. Services are still performed.
Again, facts and history disagree with you. See the great depression and other economic downturns.
people will still lend out their money because they would like to have more than money than if they did nothing
Again, risk exists and is half of the risk-reward calculation. When your system entirely hinges on risk not existing... big sign that you're wrong lol.
So you made a bad investment in something that wasn't needed. Invest more wisely. This is basic economics.
It's a demonstration of the relationship between deflation and investment. And yes, it is basic economics. 😂
Invest more wisely
Invest with less risk? More risk? Or you're saying "just predict the future correctly" 🤔 I wonder if you'd learn something about this in an econ 101 class.
Deflation is the answer to the infinite growth required by capitalism. It should be embraced, not avoided.
Gee, you're literally dead wrong, and the experts agree with me. It's inflation, not deflation, that is required for growth. There's a reason the government targets a rate of 2% inflation per year.
Inflationary currency motivates investment and consumption. When your money is going to lose some value anyway, you might as well take a risk and invest it for a potential reward. You might as well make that large purchase today, because your money will buy a little less tomorrow. This is healthy for the economy.
You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive. This stifles an economy by decreasing demand/consumption and the flow of money through the economy. When loans are more expensive to pay back, people are discouraged from taking a business loan and starting a new business or taking out a loan and investing it or using it to make a large purchase. This is bad for the economy.
Again, facts and history disagree with you. See the great depression and other economic downturns.
Read the links you posted. Debt default was the crisis. Deflation was a symptom.
When your system entirely hinges on risk not existing... big sign that you're wrong lol.
I have no idea why you claim my "system" has nothing risk. Reread this thread to correct your misunderstanding.
I have no idea why you claim my "system" has nothing risk. Reread this thread to correct your misunderstanding.
You need a higher return on investment in order to outpace deflation and make investing worth your while. Do assets with a higher potential return have more risk or do they have less risk?
Also I'm just going to keep posting these 2 paragraphs every comment until you actually address them lol:
Inflationary currency motivates investment and consumption. When your money is going to lose some value anyway, you might as well take a risk and invest it for a potential reward. You might as well make that large purchase today, because your money will buy a little less tomorrow. This is healthy for the economy.
You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive. This stifles an economy by decreasing demand/consumption and the flow of money through the economy. When loans are more expensive to pay back, people are discouraged from taking a business loan and starting a new business or taking out a loan and investing it or using it to make a large purchase. This is bad for the economy.
You need a higher return on investment in order to outpace deflation
No, in an inflationary environment you demand a higher return on investment in order to outpace inflation. Look at Argentina if you are confused.
Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Keep up.
Nope, you literally have it backwards. No wonder you've got this all wrong.
If your money increases in value at a 5% rate (deflating), and a share of stock also increases in value at a 5% rate, then there's no reason to exchange your money for the stock. The stock needs to increase in value at a higher rate in order to make it worthwhile to give up the currency and possess the stock instead.
Inflation is opposite. For example, if your money is decreasing in value at a 2% rate (inflating), the stock doesn't even need to increase in value for it to be better. It would be worthwhile to exchange the money for the stock even if it was just holding a stable constant value.
Which is riskier, a stock that has a potential return of +5% or a stock that holds a stable value?
Rate of return needs to beat/outpace deflation. Technically you're half right, because rate of return ALSO needs to beat inflation, it's just easier to do because inflation is negative, so even investments that don't grow and just hold a stable value beat inflation. Which is why inflation encourages investment and stimulates and grows the economy.
As promised:
Inflationary currency motivates investment and consumption. When your money is going to lose some value anyway, you might as well take a risk and invest it for a potential reward. You might as well make that large purchase today, because your money will buy a little less tomorrow. This is healthy for the economy.
You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive. This stifles an economy by decreasing demand/consumption and the flow of money through the economy. When loans are more expensive to pay back, people are discouraged from taking a business loan and starting a new business or taking out a loan and investing it or using it to make a large purchase. This is bad for the economy.
When your money is going to gain some value, you might as well take a risk and invest it for an even greater potential reward.
People always want more money.
Deflation does encourage delayed consumption of none staples and big ticket items. This is a feature not a bug.
You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive.
No. There is less interest charged on loans in a deflationary environment. Loans are cheaper. Remember the Argentinian counterexample ? Inflation high, interest rates high.
If you're an individual investor, given the choice between the 2 scenarios, would you rather exist in a world with 2% deflation, where you have to make more than a 2% return on investment in order for it to have been worthwhile, or a world with 2% inflation, where you don't even need to correctly pick a growing investment, and even an investment that just holds a stable value is worthwhile.
The choice is obvious, of course the individual would rather have the deflation scenario, because then they don't even need to invest or take any risk to grow their wealth. They can literally just sit around and do nothing, and their wealth grows for free without any risk.
But this is naive and childish to think that an environment where you just get free wealth for no reason by doing nothing is healthy for an economy as a whole.
Argentina had very high inflation, and I agree that's bad. The amount of inflation is key. What dictates the amount of inflation that is healthy? Hint: you'll have to scroll all the way to the beginning of this lesson in order to know. (jk I'll just tell you here, it relates to the growth rate of the economy). Argentina's inflation was out of sync with its economic growth.
Technically, deflation isn't always theoretically bad and inflation isn't always theoretically good, but we live in a reality of moderate economic growth, so therefore moderate inflation is required to maintain it.
And now we've circled back to the start and my position has remained entirely self-consistent, while yours has been easy to poke full of holes and point out the inconsistencies.
If you're an individual investor, given the choice between the 2 scenarios, would you rather exist in a world with 2% deflation, where you have to make more than a 2% return on investment in order for it to have been worthwhile, or a world with 2% inflation, where you don't even need to correctly pick a growing investment, and even an investment that just holds a stable value is worthwhile.
Deflation world. Invest $100 in a 2% risk free bond for a year. End up with $102 nominal ($104 real)
Inflation world. Invest $100 in a 2% risk free bond for a year. End up with $102 nominal ($100 real)
As an investor, the deflation world looks better to me.
But this is naive and childish to think that an environment where you just get free wealth for no reason by doing nothing is healthy for an economy as a whole.
You are literally describing the current world of investment. You have to go full communist to live in your "healthy" world.
I suspect this is not at all what you meant to write, but it's hilarious that came out like this.
we live in a reality of moderate economic growth, so therefore moderate inflation is required to maintain it.
This is not true. But you may be referring to the money supply rather than price inflation so I'll let it pass.
Technically, deflation isn't always theoretically bad and inflation isn't always theoretically good.
Agreed. We could leave the discussion here and part amicably.
You are literally describing the current world of investment. You have to go full communist to live in your "healthy" world.
The current world of investment involves returns without risk? 😂
Given you're demonstrated lack of understanding of even the most basic fundamentals of economics, I can already tell you can't actually correctly describe communism. Seems like at this point you're just typing words that you think sound smart. There wasn't really any coming back from when you mixed up loans and investments, and got deflation and inflation entirely backwards lol.
This is not true.
But it is true, and expert economists agree with me. Sorry! You're wrong again.
you may be referring to the money supply rather than price inflation
Duh. I can't believe you're only getting this at this point in the conversation, but at least you're starting to figure it out?
You can make intermediate wallets to obfuscate transfers, like throwaways, so the wallet that pays your rent is different from the one ordering a dragon dildo and it's hard to say if it's the same person, but it's a hassle and you'll get extra transaction fees.
It's trivial to trace the funding of these "throwaways" to link them together... unless this entire system is supposed to just rely on using a standard bank account to fund them, which.... circling back to "so what's the point?" you could pay from that account directly to get the same benefits. Using bitcoin is completely redundant in that scenario
Obfuscation is not security.
Cash is good for using as currency.
But so insanely annoying to handle and carry with you.
That's a bad argument. Visa, MasterCard, etc. know who you're transacting with anyway. That is functionally equivalent to just paying from a Coinbase Bitcoin wallet. On the public ledger, it'll only show a transaction from a Coinbase wallet. No one would know it's you other than Coinbase and the porn provider
Woth crypto you could at least send it to your wallet, throw it through Tornado Cash, then put it in another wallet, making it extremely difficult to track
In general though, if the government wants to know who made a digital transaction, they'll be able to find out. Doesn't matter if you use a credit card or crypto
What makes Bitcoin bad as a currency is the slow, expensive transaction times
I'm cool with not trying the money that isn't money but instead is an environmental disaster wrapped in explosive deflation.
Looks like Bitcoin does indeed suck, but Etherium and one called Avalanche(?) Are more environmentally friendly.
Oh cool. Minor environmental disasters wrapped in explosive deflation.
It takes one wind turbine to run all of Ethereum.
Deflation is not relevant for a transaction.
Deflation is not relevant for a transaction
What are you trying to say with this? Cause I'm stuck between the very literal and wildly confusing.
I will say, regardless of your further explanation, that deflation makes transactions less likely to happen, which is the whole point of a currency to begin with. Would you rather pay a debt to a friend off with dollars or a cryptocoin? Cause my money is that most people would say the dollars since the crypto could grow, whereas the dollar is always shrinking. A speculative asset is not something most people would give away like they would money.
If you are storing money in a certain currency then inflation is a problem.
If you owe money in a certain currency then deflation is a problem.
If you are quickly moving money from one currency to another then making an instant one off payment, the time span is too small for either inflation or deflation to have an impact.
The price of the service can be quoted as fixed in USD and adjusted in real time on the crypto side.
Cool. So why would I ever want that? Why would I willingly buy a crypto to pay for a transaction when doing so is always detrimental to me over the person who I am paying? I'll spend more than the amount of debt I have (thanks to various fees) in order to give the person I'm buying from an asset that's more likely to gain value than lose. Instead of a dollar, a thing made to do the actual job of a currency that everyone already has and accepts.
Cool. So why would I ever want that?
So that anyone can buy what they want from whoever they want. So that payment processors cannot hold or be held by certain groups for ransom.
You know, the whole point of this thread.
Okay, so. First comment made this argument, to which I fired back that I'm not interested because:
Crypto is not a currency Is an environmental disaster Has massive deflation
And since this thread has begun we've changed that to:
Is not a currency (you ceded this when you said that transactions would be in USD, just with the crypto as the value carrier) Are mostly environmental disasters Has massive deflation (you ceded this again with your transactional argument)
Damn, your powers of persuasion are beyond my comprehension. /s
Seriously, the fuck are we doing here? You just wanna talk about nothing? I rather think daisies are pretty. What're your thoughts?
Crypto is not a currency Is an environmental disaster Has massive deflation
My first response delt with this. Only bitcoin is an environmental disaster. Deflation is only relevant if you hold a currency long term. Irrelevant for payment processing.
Seriously, the fuck are we doing here?
We are discussing how to counter the monopoly stranglehold of payment processors. Crypto is a possible solution that is viable today.
Alright. Here's an argument why crypto doesn't do that.
Today: Me Payment processor Vendor
Crypto tomorrow: Me Payment processor Crypto Crypto fees Payment processor Vendor
So not only am I paying the payment processor twice as much for the interaction (it doesn't matter which processor, since the issue at hand is their monopoly) thus rewarding their censorship, I also wasted a whole bunch more money for the privilege.
Yes, the round trip is more expensive.
But if you receive some income in crypto and park it in a stablecoin (like USDC) then you can avoid the price volatility risks and round trip fees. The crypto fees are much less than 2% and this also avoids rewarding censorship.
VISA and MasterCard get to build the digital dollar so they don't care how any of it is manipulated so long as their position as middlemen is secure.
Probably simpler than all that, at least in the US. The Puritans get something like so passed. Fine. Now who in their right mind is going to stand up and say STOP. Imagine the political smear campaign. And it will all be "for the children".
Speed running the porn companies making their own payment processor
So, this means that pretty much any paid adult content can't accept visa, right? Or are they just stomping in the small creators for not being profitable enough?
Looking at you, OnlyFans..
For now, they are targeting more niche “taboo” kinks like incest and bdsm. But as we’ve seen time and time again with bigoted, puritanical christofascists, they will not stop there. Next, they come for the queer content. My guess is furry stuff is next under the bad faith argument of “bestiality”, then more standard queer content, including tame non-erotic content. Finally, all erotic content.
Remember, everything sexual is sinful and evil unless its a straight white cis Christian married couple having joyless missionary sex for the purposes of procreation only.
They're already attacking furry content featuring "animal-esque genitalia", as there were people who thought that was "zoophilic". However, I still remember how much anime fans needed to fight, so that kemonomimi (catgirls, etc.) wouldn't been labeled as "zoophilic", which might be the source for the furry/anime divide in the west.
Valve has changed their content guidelines due to the requirements of the credit card processors. Itch.io, too. I wouldn't call Valve niche.
OnlyFans felt the pressure not too long ago. It's just when they announced they were banning porn, they realized they didn't have anything else. So they reversed course and somehow can still take payments.
top 96 comments