by kuba-orlik on 2/6/24, 2:23 PM with 261 comments
by paxys on 2/6/24, 11:15 PM
by seanwilson on 2/6/24, 3:39 PM
Are there any promising avenues towards microtransactions that gets around small card transactions getting a hefty fee? Or an approach that doesn't require one company to have a monopoly over it?
I'm really curious how the internet would change if there was a fast and easy way for site visitors to give something like $0.10 to unlock content or just to say thanks.
by latchkey on 2/7/24, 1:50 AM
I went to a popular VN crypto website, put in their name and bank account number and how much I wanted to send them (and on what crypto network and token, as they support a bunch of them). The site spit out an address to send the tokens to with my wallet.
The transaction cost me $0.05, the conversion rates were totally fair and actually quite good, it only took a couple hours, and as an added bonus, didn't even require any sort of KYC because it was just a small amount of money.
For those of you dumping on crypto, I can tell you that it doesn't get any easier than that. There is no way that I can do something like that otherwise. We need more of this, not less.
by TotempaaltJ on 2/6/24, 3:18 PM
by efitz on 2/6/24, 6:16 PM
I don't see any solution that was based on customer goodwill ("that was cool, here's $1") as something that there is much demand for.
What we need is a browser-mitigated micropayment ecosystem. Maybe browser vendors could come up with a standard where you can "charge up" your account like a prepaid phone card, and then when you browse to a URL you get the option of an ad-ful experience like today or a micropayment option, e.g. "nytimes.com requires a subscription or a $0.50 payment to view this page OK/Cancel". Micropayments would avoid the fee overload of the credit card companies and your browser could display your balance in the toolbar. The server could be provided with a cryptographically signed receipt and there could be a periodic reconciliation.
Note that there is no need for the complexity of a blockchain anywhere in this; IMO a blockchain just complexifies the solution and turns off people who don't trust cryptocurrencies.
by myfonj on 2/6/24, 4:05 PM
In situation when "all" users are being in fact "logged into" their service anyway, then features such as - pay to hide ads on this particular web (basically "overpay the advertiser"), - pay to keep ads and support the author of this particular web, - pay for extra features but remain anonymous for web's author, - provide data about yourself that the company gathered about yourself to the web's author, then it sounds like quite low-hanging fruit.
Web authors would gain "auth" for free, integration would allow some "serverless" features for otherwise basic webs and so on. My initial idea was (probably akin to Brave(?)): - pay advertiser one centralized "ransom" to disable X ad impressions, so they can be distributed to websites authors as I go, just the same way as if I was exposed to a real ad.
For favourite websites I could either top that by also allowing ads again, or paying them more, obviously with certain share ending up as a fee for that mediator.
I guess there was/is some blatant obstacle that prevented this (perhaps advertisers would all bail out when the could be legally "overpaid" by users?) or it in fact had been implemented somehow in the past (distant enough I missed it completely), but it was a fun thought exercise anyway.
by hubraumhugo on 2/6/24, 3:31 PM
by AndrewStephens on 2/6/24, 3:45 PM
Dealing with money is a real pain due to fraud, security, and legal compliance and those problems don't go away when the amounts are small.
by pdubouilh on 2/6/24, 3:40 PM
website: https://lagom.org whitepaper: https://lagom.org/docs/lagom-whitepaper.pdf
by Devasta on 2/6/24, 10:39 PM
by nickdothutton on 2/6/24, 6:09 PM
by EGreg on 2/6/24, 4:47 PM
Notice that almost none of the above is “Web3”, but it can use Web3 (or other means) to do periodic settlements between websites.
by chupchap on 2/6/24, 11:00 PM
by npoc on 2/8/24, 10:42 AM
Right now we already have proof of concept of a decentralised micro-payment network with Lightning. But it won't gain widespread adoption until more people have bitcoin, so much that they'd like to start spending it rather than buying/holding it (see Gresham's Law), its value has stabilised to a point that it can be used as a unit of account, and shops are therefore willing to price their goods/services in it.
by solardev on 2/6/24, 9:16 PM
I want a centralized, safe way of sending small amounts of money to some content producers, microtransactions, etc., but with basic banking guarantees. Like being able to charge back a transaction if the merchant fails to deliver, or not being liable for fraudulent uses (as opposed to losing my entire wallet, oh well, too bad).
Decentralized crypto actively hurts instead of helps my confidence in being able to conduct a safe, easy transaction online. One wrong move and I lose all my funds to some scammer. How is that even remotely enticing?
Instead, I wish there was something as easy to use as a credit card, but without the exorbitant fees (for the merchant) and interests rates (for me). I just wish we had a financial organization like Visa/Mastercard but run as a nonprofit (or at least a credit union) so they can provide similar services with similar guarantees but just make less money on the returns.
Services like Privacy.com kinda do that, but merchants still get dinged with the Visa fees, so it's not entirely practical for microtransactions. So so far the best thing I've found is still just using Google or Apple to temporarily hold transactions and batch process them at the end of a month. (Lyft also does something similar, I think, batching rides and tips until the end of the day or week or something).
by martindale on 2/7/24, 5:11 AM
I participated in these meetings for some time, during the rise (and rise) of Bitcoin. It's clear that the landscape of the financial web has shifted significantly at this point (for better or worse, in many ways), but standards, as usual, lag the market.
by tdeck on 2/6/24, 6:19 PM
by redder23 on 2/6/24, 6:01 PM
Completely disagree with this. Fiat money is riddled with scams and crime more then cryto ever was and can be at this point. Because the world operates on fiat and. Arguing that giving central banks the Monopoly over this is a good thing is just stupid. But OF COURSE Google will not dare to bring anything cryto into the web browser. It could be the opportunity for something really revolutionary with a private coin connected into this.
People with this mindset are just horrible gatekeepers. Cryto has so much scams BECAUSE its moving fast and its easy to trick people who are after fast money. Its a sign that crypto actually works and is valuable!
by two_handfuls on 2/6/24, 3:29 PM
As much as in the past I wanted cryptocurrency to succeed, I agree.
by lofaszvanitt on 2/6/24, 5:29 PM
by temp0826 on 2/6/24, 5:17 PM
by carlosjobim on 2/6/24, 4:05 PM
The top up could even be a recurring payment if the user wants.
by peteforde on 2/6/24, 4:42 PM
by ok123456 on 2/6/24, 6:49 PM
Cryptocurrencies get us a little closer, maybe. But we're ultimately still having the same discussions.
by ysofunny on 2/6/24, 4:33 PM
see also (somewhat of a jump, but the same monetary system) FedNow
by cyberax on 2/6/24, 5:56 PM
The only successful model so far was Scroll, and it got bought up by Twitter and killed off. With Scroll you paid for a small monthly subscription and it got distributed between the sites that you visited.
by nerdo on 2/6/24, 4:35 PM