polynya pfp
polynya
@polynya
The lack of reversibility and dispute resolution is a key tradeoff with crypto payments, because blockchains can only parse strict objectivity. This is the main service that banks, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal etc sell - the tech is very simple and easy. The only "solution" is to add similar traditional subjective layers on top. Given a majority of real-world consumer crypto payments happen through USDT on Tron via Binance/CEXs, "decentralization" is obviously not the value proposition, rather accessibility to US Dollars, so this may be an avenue worth experimenting with. As for non-custodial - definitely important to evolve on even if it'll always be a niche userbase. Some low-hanging fruit are mandatory double-checking of addresses, human readable and savable addresses, blacklists of fraudulent addresses, an escrow/undo period, etc can help greatly. These are the common failure cases in traditional payments, and at least anecdotally in crypto too
5 replies
5 recasts
71 reactions

grin pfp
grin
@grin
historically there've been many swings back and forth between strictness and reversibility. Crystals and Mud in Property Law is a classic paper from 1988 that talks about this. What's new with crypto is that you can have both at once. Want good UX? Use Coinbase Want strictness? Use the blockchain directly
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction