> Nine months later, the next version of her favorite sneaker drops. Her digital wallet has a new offer reminding her of their availability at your store, along with a personalized offer on new laces she can’t find anywhere else.
Oh good, that's what I want - a currency that includes spam as a feature. That was really missing from cash.
> We believe this will pave the way for a future where digital currencies are prevalent and digital money moves through the internet like data – uncensored and without intermediaries taxing every transaction.
Chargebacks and anti-money laundering rules are features. "crypto is a tax avoidance scheme" is not a sales pitch, it's conspiracy to commit a crime.
> settling immediately with costs measured in fractions of a penny
So like an intermediary party charging a tax?
> this is about a vision where all currencies – including U.S. dollars – are on-chain
Convenient for tracking people! Also terrible for the environment.
> When a customer buys something, it’s a vote of support. A merchant should reward that support with personalized offers, on-chain loyalty programs, and unique virtual goods to accompany physical purchases
I'd really settle for just getting the widget I bought and not being spammed. Really. I promise. Please stop spamming me.
> Merchants should benefit from all of the advantages that on-chain decentralized payments can provide, such as network cost savings, DeFi yield generation, zero fraud liability, instant settlement, and ownership of the customer relationship.
Merchants should have fraud liability. If you are enabling fraud and money laundering, you need to pay for that - potentially with jail time.
> Help us bring to life a decentralized payments network that will define this next era of payments.
Another clueless middleman who wants a piece of the pie by helping others commit crime and avoid liability for their actions. Adding funny new words does not make your thing not a security. Ignoring regulations does not make you immune to punishment. Lofty ideas do not make you a hero.
"By the end of 2021, the Foundation plans to introduce a program to help make Solana’s validator network carbon neutral and offset the footprint of the ecosystem."
Does anyone know if they've accomplished this yet since the report states by the end of 2021?
Maybe it's a silly question but I don't know the answer and I'd love some pointers/links.
How is Solana so much less energy than eth2? and how is that less than eth1, and that less than btc? I'm guessing it's not just "bad coding" or "it's electron so it's feeding on ram" or something. or is it?
Bitcoin and Ethereum in its current implementation uses Proof of Work, which is a very energy intensive process, and the energy used helps protect the network by ensuring its very costly for bad actors to attack the network.
For newer blockchains like Cosmos, which uses Proof of Stake and Solana which uses Proof of History, they have other mechanisms to protect from a 51% attack, and so does not need the validator/miners to consume energy like the Proof of Work consensus systems.
Proof of Stake protocols typically use variants of BFT consensus, which support only up to 33% malicious voting power. So no, they do not protect against 51% attacks like Nakamoto consensus protocols do.
Solana is pretty centralized, it was designed to be an efficient version of a blockchain. So, it works more like a traditionally engineered HA service would, but with some blockchain bits attached. This makes it fast and cheap, but it isn’t very decentralized as a result.
There are < 1500 validators on Solana at the moment. That is about a single row in a datacenter. If Solana wants to continue avoiding a majority attack, that node count will have to scale. Solana is PoS which is better than PoW but still has way more power usage as it's still a blockchain than Visa.
Sometimes I forget that the Gell-Mann amnesia effect exists, which is concerning given how much weight I give to HN's comment section. I implore you to read the article for yourself at least if you haven't yet.
All you did was sarcastically reply though, with a dismissive/pessimistic lean on basically every point. Given that there isn't a character limit, why not try and provide a more nuanced perspective? This isn't Twitter.
Even if you just really fundamentally dislike the project, I think it'd be to your benefit in convincing people by expanding on your commentary.
Let's say this sales pitch is one we believe. We actually, totally think the things being promised here can be achieved by Solana.
Do.. you actually want stores to be able to push ads to you through your wallet? Please take a moment and open your email and check your spam folder (or your inbox if you're unlucky) and see how much junk you get. How many of those offers are actually "valuable?" They are of course extremely valuable to the business - they might get you to spend more money - but they are of no value to you as a consumer. They are spam.
Have you ever watched Youtube and thought "I wish this had more ads! What about those valuable offers I could be missing!?" No. No, you have never thought that. Why do you think your wallet is any different?
Now, maybe you hate Visa and think they don't deserve their $0.30, but also I bet you've either: 1. Had your credit card stolen and/or 2. Had a company refuse to refund/cancel a service and you needed to call your card operator.
The whole reason why businesses give some semblance of at least pretending to let you cancel services, of giving you returns and not hassling you too much, is that if they don't, Visa will fire them. They will lose the ability to accept credit cards (or get charged a really high rate ala Porn companies).
This is good. You, alone, as a consumer who spends maybe $300/year at some random online shop can't do anything if they screw you over. Visa however can get the problem fixed in a very permanent way.
Cutting out Visa (and Mastercard/Amex/etc) is really saying, "Well, we don't think consumers should be able to have recourse. If we want to abuse customers, we should be able to do that".
So, let's recap:
Solana is great because you can spam customers, and if you rip them off they can't do anything about it.
And remember, that is the SALES PITCH. That's the point we are supposed to be cheering and saying "hurrah" at.
What our dear article author is also saying is that payments shouldn't be censored. Now, sometimes credit card companies do bad things and make it hard for legitimate (but maybe controversial) companies to get paid, like OnlyFans and Pornhub. That is bad and undesirable. However, if payments have no controls, that is a great boon to people like the Taliban who enjoy blowing up markets with women and children, Mexican cartels who engage in murder and rape in bulk, and so on.
Now, it could be that the author of our article just genuinely does not understand why anti-money laundering laws are thing. They are so naive they literally just don't understand that bad people exist and use money to do bad things.
Yeah right, get real. I don't believe there is actually a possibility that a CEO of a major financial company with a history of working at other financial companies doesn't understand the basic underpinnings of anti-money laundering law either. Which leaves us with the alternative: they either are morally ok or don't care that bad things like that happen. They are totally fine with criminal gangs that kidnap women and forcibly prostitute them washing their money and continuing to fund their efforts. Even if they were critical of anti-money laundering law ("this hurts a lot of innocent people by association..") then they'd push for reform but not bypassing it.
You may start to understand why this gets such a scathing response. This is not merely tone deaf or a bit naive. It is selling features which are directly harmful. This would be like you going to the supermarket and getting a box of brownie mix advertising "now contains more lead!" The harm is literally what is being sold and advertised.
Let's try to provide a defense.
"Well, maybe those offers might be useful if they are personalized! And, you can choose your own wallet software - you could ignore the spam. And, consumers might get ripped off once, but they could make their own lists of bad businesses and choose to not do business with them. This would get sorted - and without the centralized and sometimes bad choices that companies like Visa make. Sure, some money will go to bad people, but it would mean innocent people aren't being harmed by sanctions and there are other ways of dealing with bad people."
We have to ask ourselves, is this actually better than the current world?
Let's analyze from a third direction. Why was this written? I mean, what beliefs does this CEO have that would cause him to write this? Even if we think the ends here are evil, people don't usually intend to do evil - they have some good they think they are achieving.
This kind of analysis means I am trying to determine someone elses mental state. People, myself included, are categorically bad at this. Let's give it a shot anyways.
"Threading the needle on a cohesive payment experience that rewards loyalty, drives repeat visits, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg simply never happened. " and from a few paragraphs later: "This embeds loyalty, offers and rewards in the same messaging scheme and become true building blocks for the future of commerce. "
Please imagine my face staring at your screen and whispering "enhance".
"Merchants have long sought an opportunity to leverage deep engagement with their customers, but multiple intermediaries involved in e-commerce or brick-and-mortar transactions makes that difficult."
Enhance.
"When a customer buys something, it’s a vote of support. A merchant should reward that support with personalized offers, on-chain loyalty programs, and unique virtual goods to accompany physical purchases. "
Enhance!
"...and ownership of the customer relationship"
Do you see it? In case not, let me translate. I bet the store you shop at has a loyalty program - you type in your phone number and you get a few cents off. Why? Why do stores do that?
It's so they can sell your data. They link up all your delicious, delicious data like your purchases, when you purchase, what you buy, the prices you paid, etc, and then they sell that. That works best when.. you buy repeatedly from the same store. For lots of reasons, it's hard to glue together disparate records from different stores. When you force everyone to buy through you, it's real easy! That data is valuable - like, _real_ valuable. I mean, not for the customer, you don't get that money, but it is for the business.
Solana pay would like to be that business. Solana pay would like to have your delicious, delicious data. Solana pay would like to sell that and become Solana rich.
So, let's recap:
1. Consumers lose their protectors for things like.. canceling recurring payments or getting a refund
2. Businesses aren't confined anymore by pesky things like anti-money laundering laws, or financial sanctions
3. Solana pay gets sweet, sweet money by selling all your purchasing habits so you can get more spam (on top of the extra spam you are already getting by using their product)
Do you feel like this is a product that respects you as a person? Do you get an overwhelming sense that this is "good" for you or your fellow people?
There is nothing in crypto that fundamentally makes it a scam. I truly, genuinely believe it started from a true hacker ethos. Just like how every neat political movement ever gets hijacked by crappy politicians, crypto gets hijacked by discount scammers hoping to make a buck off the unweary by stripping their protections, taking their money and data, and leaving them confused and unable to get help.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of seeing crypto scams on every bus stop and billboard. I'm tired of ads that target people who don't understand banking or can't get credit cards because they're easy targets. I'm upset that intelligent people who should be better stewards get swept up with common conmen and discount thieves. It is the duty of every capable person to call the spade plainly.
Oh good, that's what I want - a currency that includes spam as a feature. That was really missing from cash.
> We believe this will pave the way for a future where digital currencies are prevalent and digital money moves through the internet like data – uncensored and without intermediaries taxing every transaction.
Chargebacks and anti-money laundering rules are features. "crypto is a tax avoidance scheme" is not a sales pitch, it's conspiracy to commit a crime.
> settling immediately with costs measured in fractions of a penny
So like an intermediary party charging a tax?
> this is about a vision where all currencies – including U.S. dollars – are on-chain
Convenient for tracking people! Also terrible for the environment.
> When a customer buys something, it’s a vote of support. A merchant should reward that support with personalized offers, on-chain loyalty programs, and unique virtual goods to accompany physical purchases
I'd really settle for just getting the widget I bought and not being spammed. Really. I promise. Please stop spamming me.
> Merchants should benefit from all of the advantages that on-chain decentralized payments can provide, such as network cost savings, DeFi yield generation, zero fraud liability, instant settlement, and ownership of the customer relationship.
Merchants should have fraud liability. If you are enabling fraud and money laundering, you need to pay for that - potentially with jail time.
> Help us bring to life a decentralized payments network that will define this next era of payments.
Another clueless middleman who wants a piece of the pie by helping others commit crime and avoid liability for their actions. Adding funny new words does not make your thing not a security. Ignoring regulations does not make you immune to punishment. Lofty ideas do not make you a hero.