@letitroll No harm to point out some of the stuff that you've pointed out in your last post. Some of it, I agree with, some of it, I don't. Let's go through it 
So whether they can see what's coming down the tracks (and in the case of companies involved with payments I believe that's likely) OR they're doing what you have pointed out - you know what? Who cares? Go back to my previous post - where I explained that they're now making crypto A. more acceptable to mass market folks and B. they're enabling ME in being able to pay for a much broader range of stuff (I don't know - like everything?) with crypto and C. they're enabling mass market folks because now if presented with a scenario of whether or not to take a payment in crypto, why the hell not - because it can be spent and used just as easily.
You talk of 3 and 4D chess. Well there's a point in the much longer term where there is no dependence on Mastercard. They can do it or not - because effectively every payments company will offer it some way or other. Why wouldn't they? You mean as a payments company you're going to make yourself less useful and deprive your customers from taking money from their customers when there's some off the shelf API that takes care of all of that?
Presumably you believe that MasterCard - having introduced what they're about to introduce - will take it away again, right? If so, when do you think they will take this option off the market?
Secondly, when markets start out from a standing start - of course fees are high. Fees were a lot higher than they are right now. As markets grow, fees go down. They may still be fat but they're going down the whole time and they will continue to decrease. When analysts appraised Coinbase when it IPOed, the cannibalization of fees was the first thing they all identified. Coinbase is a key example (I have not used them for years mainly because of fees). The company knows that this will be an issue. They know they will need to innovate once more or pivot in some way. The last I heard was that they were thinking about a subscription model. The example proves that as markets both grow and mature, fees are cannibalized.
Now, I'm talking about exchange fees. In this example, we're talking about using MasterCard to pay with a debit/credit card. Now, do you have the low down on MasterCard fees in this respect? What are the fees? And if they are higher than normal, that is in no way surprising to me. As the market gets bigger the cut gets smaller. This is not rocket science.
So the establishment (both TradFi and governments) can do the full court press re. crypto. I'd prefer if they didn't - as although they won't destroy it, they will hold it back. Now with governments, I've never seen them all get on the same page on anything. You might get most of them - but not all of them. Some here might think but we only need the important ones. But that won't shut crypto down. The genie is out of the bottle and it won't be going back in.
And yes, there is also opportunity to make $. That will keep things legal for the most part. Will there be attempts made to 'capture' crypto and tame it? All day long. Those games are ongoing and in play right now - and will continue to play out over the next few years. Last week I warned about Gold being captured by the powers that be. I think Bitcoin has the right characteristics so as not to be pinned down.
There are concerns with regard to a whole host of DeFi protocols right now (unrelated to Bitcoin) and whether they really cut the mustard when it comes to decentralization and censorship resistance. But whatever has to play out - let it play out. I have no doubt that robust products can be built. I do have some concerns about some constituencies not realizing the importance of a certain minimum level of decentralization - but let it play and let's see how we go.
And the third point - I referred to governments not being on the same page. You think it's smart for a government to drive innovation overseas? You'll say there is no innovation - and we'll disagree - but let's suppose for a second that you're wrong. Then there will be winners in terms of the governments that nurture the development of this tech (and the products being built out on top of it) and losers in terms of those that don't. Like I said - divide and conquer.
See above for the caveats that I've attached to my thinking on this all along. MasterCard and Visa can't stop this. Kodak led with the digital camera, then tried to burry it - and it buried them. Blockbuster passed up the opportunity to buy Netflix and went on to be destroyed by them. See number 3 on that list in that last article I've linked to. I'm not close enough to Visa or MasterCard to know what the nature of their engagement is - but maybe they've considered that point number 3. But I'm not a Visa/MasterCard shareholder - so I don't give a tuppence either way.
Delighted to hear that. Teach away. I've been hanging out here in what has been less than partisan territory where crypto is concerned so that at some stage, someone could help me challenge my own thesis re. crypto. I'm still waiting but I live in hope and every day is a school day.I have so much to teach you....but we'll get you out of this Crypto cult yet :0 Only joking, I'm just pretend gas lighting you (all in good fun).
I'm not sure whether that is MasterCard's specific approach or not - although I'm quite happy to believe that it may be (on the basis that there are definitely some tradfi companies doing that). I think it's important to be aware of it. If we take this particular example - I think you can't see the forest for the trees. I don't give a <futon> about MasterCard. However, that doesn't mean to say that there can't be some upside from whatever they're doing here.
So whether they can see what's coming down the tracks (and in the case of companies involved with payments I believe that's likely) OR they're doing what you have pointed out - you know what? Who cares? Go back to my previous post - where I explained that they're now making crypto A. more acceptable to mass market folks and B. they're enabling ME in being able to pay for a much broader range of stuff (I don't know - like everything?) with crypto and C. they're enabling mass market folks because now if presented with a scenario of whether or not to take a payment in crypto, why the hell not - because it can be spent and used just as easily.
You talk of 3 and 4D chess. Well there's a point in the much longer term where there is no dependence on Mastercard. They can do it or not - because effectively every payments company will offer it some way or other. Why wouldn't they? You mean as a payments company you're going to make yourself less useful and deprive your customers from taking money from their customers when there's some off the shelf API that takes care of all of that?
Presumably you believe that MasterCard - having introduced what they're about to introduce - will take it away again, right? If so, when do you think they will take this option off the market?
Firstly, good for them. Secondly, you already provided the counter point to what you've laid out there. TradFi fees used to be fat. Now they're so thin on these big platforms that there practically isn't any fee. What do we know about services that cost nothing? YOU'RE the product. Your data is being sold a la order flow.
Secondly, when markets start out from a standing start - of course fees are high. Fees were a lot higher than they are right now. As markets grow, fees go down. They may still be fat but they're going down the whole time and they will continue to decrease. When analysts appraised Coinbase when it IPOed, the cannibalization of fees was the first thing they all identified. Coinbase is a key example (I have not used them for years mainly because of fees). The company knows that this will be an issue. They know they will need to innovate once more or pivot in some way. The last I heard was that they were thinking about a subscription model. The example proves that as markets both grow and mature, fees are cannibalized.
Now, I'm talking about exchange fees. In this example, we're talking about using MasterCard to pay with a debit/credit card. Now, do you have the low down on MasterCard fees in this respect? What are the fees? And if they are higher than normal, that is in no way surprising to me. As the market gets bigger the cut gets smaller. This is not rocket science.
I've referred on previous occasions to the perils of Wall Street involvement. There's both good and bad in it. Of course these greedy pigs won't turn down the opportunity to make money. And yes, there is an opportunity to divide and conquer in that respect. Let's put government in there as well and the whole regulatory deal.
So the establishment (both TradFi and governments) can do the full court press re. crypto. I'd prefer if they didn't - as although they won't destroy it, they will hold it back. Now with governments, I've never seen them all get on the same page on anything. You might get most of them - but not all of them. Some here might think but we only need the important ones. But that won't shut crypto down. The genie is out of the bottle and it won't be going back in.
And yes, there is also opportunity to make $. That will keep things legal for the most part. Will there be attempts made to 'capture' crypto and tame it? All day long. Those games are ongoing and in play right now - and will continue to play out over the next few years. Last week I warned about Gold being captured by the powers that be. I think Bitcoin has the right characteristics so as not to be pinned down.
There are concerns with regard to a whole host of DeFi protocols right now (unrelated to Bitcoin) and whether they really cut the mustard when it comes to decentralization and censorship resistance. But whatever has to play out - let it play out. I have no doubt that robust products can be built. I do have some concerns about some constituencies not realizing the importance of a certain minimum level of decentralization - but let it play and let's see how we go.
And the third point - I referred to governments not being on the same page. You think it's smart for a government to drive innovation overseas? You'll say there is no innovation - and we'll disagree - but let's suppose for a second that you're wrong. Then there will be winners in terms of the governments that nurture the development of this tech (and the products being built out on top of it) and losers in terms of those that don't. Like I said - divide and conquer.
See above for the caveats that I've attached to my thinking on this all along. MasterCard and Visa can't stop this. Kodak led with the digital camera, then tried to burry it - and it buried them. Blockbuster passed up the opportunity to buy Netflix and went on to be destroyed by them. See number 3 on that list in that last article I've linked to. I'm not close enough to Visa or MasterCard to know what the nature of their engagement is - but maybe they've considered that point number 3. But I'm not a Visa/MasterCard shareholder - so I don't give a tuppence either way.
Last edited:
