First they came for the incest/rape games, which most people somewhat agree with (although the principle is still wrong) Next up is all nsfw games. After that, it’ll be mainstream and indie games altogether. This never stops with just one “victory” for these groups.
Everyone should read the open letter that’s linked in the itch statement, to have a fully informed opinion.
There definitely is a line. Everyone can choose were they draw it. You don’t have to draw it in a way where you end up defending things that are kinda messed up.
There is definitely a hill worth fighting on in that area. I don’t think it’s this exact one.
I am specifically saying this, because my democratic country has laws that would also cover these things the letter mentions and would also deem them wrong. The people normally charged with upholding that law, are just dumb, “not from the internet” and overworked with other stuff.
Please check what laws your country has around the topic of glorification of crime and violence.
We also don’t know what the payment processors told itch and steam.
Itch and steam are doing what they are doing as a blanket move, to create a situation where they can stay in business for now and deal with the problem at all.
My bet would be that they “allowed nsfw stuff”, turned a blind eye, and now suddenly noticed they actually have a really big legal problem, with actual laws and the fact that it was an NGO and not an official legal institution that started this, was dumb luck and now they mostly need time and cover their own arse.
And I fully support the opinion that it shouldn’t be the payment processors forcing these sorts of things. But reality is messy and if this was the path of least resistance to get something done, such is life.
If GTA V is allowed, I’m pretty certain most of what we’ve seen from NSFW games is as well. Regardless, a payment company should not be acting as judge for such things, just as media companies should not act as judge on copyright infringement on YouTube.
I feel like there is nuance that is really getting lost on some people and that is the way that people engage with these games. Let me try to explain: I like playing NSFW games - even with tags like Rape, Corruption or the occasional Incest. Without trying to go into too much detail, it’s simply erotic to me in the correct context.
Now, do I know that these topics are incredibly taboo and/or offensive in real life? Yes, of course. I keep these things private and never put them out in real life. I would rather noone knows about what I do privately in my own time at my own PC. The way I see it, I simply paid an artist to draw something erotic and write a good story and/or program some gameplay attached to it. And once I stop engaging with the videogame, I also do not have any desire to recreate anything in real life. The same way that I don’t go around killing people after playing GTA, I also don’t go around assaulting women because I played a videogame where these things happen.
And that’s exactly what worries me - the people pushing this narrative, genuinely think I would want to start reenacting something I’ve seen in a videogame happen. That is complete nonsense.
The idea that what you see online has an effect on what you do offline, is not that far fetched is it? I mean, I don't know if it's true and I guess you could argue it could work in both directions too. Do people blow off steam online so they don't have to enact their darkest fantasties IRL. Or does the online material encourage or normalize these things? It could also be so that this works different for different people. It let's one person blow of steam, while it pushes someone else over the edge to do something horrendous. And if that is the case, is it fair to take it away from those who are not negatively influenced by it, to prevent those in whom it inspires bad actions from seeing it. I guess we'd need research on the matter, I don't know if it exist or how reliable it is. But I don't think it's a nonsensical question to ask what the effects are.
Jesus Christ we can’t be back to this old chestnut.
We cannot, and do not, standardize society’s guard rails around the most extreme edge cases.
Leave it back with Jack Thompson in the late 90s-early 00s where it belongs. The horse has already been jellied by repeated blunt force trauma more than a decade ago. You’re just punching a horse shaped divot into the dirt at this point.
The question is if it's edge cases. People suffer sexual trauma in very large numbers and working in psychiatry has taught me how incredibly harmful it can be. If this kind of material could help prevent sexual trauma, we should definitely allow it. If research shows that it makes problems far worse, we should consider limiting access to it. I am not saying either is the case, I am saying I don't understand what is wrong with the question itself.
This restated question is not the problem directly.
The problem is the entire discussion/concept of “exposure to a dangerous idea in a pretend context maybe might maybe make someone more likely to emulate it in reality” when there has been little to no evidence found supporting that concept. Additionally the non-proportional amount of concern given to videogames in relationship to this concept as compared to literally any other form of media.
If there was even one iota of connection between “exposure to horrible things in media” (or even “pretending to do horrible things in a pretend context”) and “doing horrible things in real life”, the world would already look considerably different than it does. Militaries would be using these games as “exposure therapy” for soldiers. We’d be seeing crime rates of all sorts shifting in accordance with the media industries. There would already be measurable impacts after the decades of these things existing.
And more so than any of that: This discussion has literally been happening for longer than any of us here have been alive. I’m tired of having it.
Please stop letting the vague idea of “but it might help” override the logic of “but there’s no evidence to support that except a vague gut feeling”.
The same way that I don’t go around killing people after playing GTA, I also don’t go around assaulting women because I played a videogame where these things happen.
Right. That’s fair and I’ll believe it.
Do you generally think there is any limit at all, in any type of media that crosses lines and shouldn’t exist? Think “liveleak” stuff from when that was around.
Or do you consider this game topic just not crossing that line?
My line is: any kind of fictional content is ok. If nobodies hurt, then there is no crime. And in practice being maniac in games doesn’t translate to being maniac irl. There might be some exceptions of crazy people being inspired by games to do crimes, but they should be dealt with on case-by-case basis using just regular law and law enforcement.
Moral judgement or suppression of fiction/artistic expression is deeply and profoundly unethical. How you or I or anyone else feels about something that isn’t “real” is inconsequential. If you allow any line to be crossed in this, then every line can and will be crossed.
I’m pretty sure I can find fictional things immoral? Why would it be unethical to have an opinion on fictional things?
Factually, all the lines that you allow to be crossed are crossed and all lines that are collectively defended are usually not crossed. That’s culture. It’s arbitrary and not absolute.
There are specific games in steam’s case I’m very ok with getting removed, but at the same time its very fucked up that we’re in a situation where the world is beholden to payment processors. Ideally this would be a case where they go directly to Valve and say “hey we think you should take a look at your content policy and at these specific games” and Valve makes the call from there on where they want to draw the line.
The main stuff I saw removed was related to incest and rape, not in a “it contains it” way. Somehow Corruption of Champions 2 escaped the ban hammer which makes me think those games probably took things pretty far, or were basically built to simulate assaulting people.
For reference, CoC2 is uh… Well when you lose in combat the enemy fucks you, and vice versa. It’s like a lot of fetish stuff too. So not that I know exactly what’s in the games, but I feel like you have to really be trying to outdo CoC2.
Edit: I’m not criticizing CoC2 btw, it’s fine. Its… I don’t wanna say tasteful but non con is like one of 90 things you can or cannot opt into. Idk how to put it. It’s an actual game that happens to have non con content I guess is what I mean.
In childhood and teenage years I played a lot of games like Carmageddon, Postal, Grand Theft Auto. In first two games slaughtering innocent people en masse is part of gameplay loop. Yet I somehow didn’t grow up to be maniac, and mostly didn’t even hurt anyone physically in my whole life. It’s games, fiction, you’re not supposed to take any of that seriously or to project it onto your real life.
I’m aware, I promise you that, I’m not saying games make you violent or awful. That argument has been annoying me to hell and back my whole life. To be honest I’ve not heard the argument for video games made for porn games before, but yeah, fair. So yeah. I don’t like those specific rape/incest games, they’re kinda yuck to me, but you do you.
Out of curiosity do you think there should be a line? Where would it be? Maybe like only explicitly illegal content is ever removed? (I wanna say thats how ao3 works) Or is steam having final say your preference? What if steam decided to make changes on its own?
If I had my way, I’d just have filters and tags, and let steam manage their storefront. I might disagree on how they do it, but that’s up to them(or it should be). It just feels weird and loopholey that a payment processor is making this sort of overarching decision.
Out of curiosity do you think there should be a line? Where would it be? Maybe like only explicitly illegal content is ever removed?
For me the line would be fictional-vs-non-fictional. So if a game contains photos or videos of actual people being hurt or abused IRL, that is illegal. But anything fictional is fine. For shocking/kinky stuff, there might be some special tags, and tag-based extra warnings like “this game contains scenes of …, do you want to open the page?”. So when you find and open any game with certain tag you get a warning corresponding to this tag. After confirmation it might remember your consent and enable some flags in the options to not bother you next time. But you can go into the options any moment and hide it all again if you decide you don’t want to see this kind of stuff in future. Also, before you enable/consent to this content, it probably shouldn’t be randomly recommended to you.
So I think that’s all pretty fair, of course including the fact that it should all be legal too.
Does the paradox of tolerance concern you at all? The idea that if you let shitty people have a say they’ll eventually use the bit of tolerance you give them as a tool to take away tolerance of others.
Basically, in theory if you let the nazis have a political party they might win and ban all the other parties, so to keep it fair arguably you should ban them first.
Now applying that to games that are pretty obviously hate games, like the ones the other commenter mentioned, the raping women into obedience game, or a game where you kill a bunch of gay people, the implication is that those games should be banned.
I kinda just wanted your thoughts on the concept. Like for example a game where you play as a school shooter. All good?
Sorry if this is a little philosophical, I just honestly wonder where the line should be for the least amount of harm.
Does the paradox of tolerance concern you at all? The idea that if you let shitty people have a say they’ll eventually use the bit of tolerance you give them as a tool to take away tolerance of others.
Basically, in theory if you let the nazis have a political party they might win and ban all the other parties, so to keep it fair arguably you should ban them first.
I personally feel the correct way to deal with this in current society is to counter propaganda takes instead of trying to silence them. But even better would be to move away from nation-states altogether to more decentralized forms of societies. Compared to even 100 years ago, nowadays we have a lot of technology that makes off-the-grid living much more accessible: efficient solars, modular building, biotoilets, 3d printing, starlinks, etc. The biggest thing that still requires a lot of infrastructure and governing is healthcare imo.
Now applying that to games that are pretty obviously hate games, like the ones the other commenter mentioned, the raping women into obedience game, or a game where you kill a bunch of gay people, the implication is that those games should be banned.
I kinda just wanted your thoughts on the concept. Like for example a game where you play as a school shooter. All good?
Those are not necessarily hate games, but they can be. Rape can be a crime and it can be a kink. And it’s a very popular kink among women themselves. There are whole genres of consensual noncon porn, where people roleplay rape for fun. Big part of BDSM is also all about enjoying those twisted power dynamics. Yet something like this can definitely be a hate game as well done by someone having strong feeling of hatred towards certain groups of people: be it women, gay, trans, black, etc. I’m not sure I’ve ever played actual games like that, and I also would expect them to be low-quality slop, but either way, if you think someone’s trying to push some hateful propaganda through the game, you’re free to call them out, leave negative review, write a post or record a video criticizing it.
I gotcha, I get it being a kink, and you have a fair point in that public feedback helps call out the sort of things that aren’t made in good faith. I think I still like the idea of obvious hate games being taken down, but its always going to be somewhat subjective, so its hard to enforce that kind of thing without screwing over games that don’t deserve it.
Definitely not something payment processors should be in charge of lmao
mention of sexual assaultnot OP, but for example the first game collective shout went after a few months ago (“no mercy”) was explicitly a game about raping women to make them obedient. this is bad not because its NSFW, it’s bad because it’s rape apologia, and a misogynistic hate game. to me, it’s not much different than “chad vs the gay nazis”, another hate game (with a pretty self-explanatory name) that was released around the same time and was also quickly delisted. I wouldn’t be surprised if other games that just got delisted were as bad as no mercy. but also, the blanket banning of anything NSFW (or even just kinky) sets a terrible precedent.
What kills me is in most cases you have to pay for the game, then you have to download the game, then install it and finally play it. It’s not.like the game is going to one day pop into your computer and then force you to play it.
Bottom line. If the game bothers ornoffends you just move on.
It’s going to come down to anything with even a whisper of LGBTQ+/minority/disability/etc representation, just like with books.
They start with the “egregious” content (not that it’s necessarily right to remove that either), then narrow it down until it shapes up into hegemonic conformity and systemic oppression via media (there’s a term for it, kind of like stochastic violence but not quite that I can’t remember atm).
it doesn’t even stop there - it will be used to punish people who do not exactly like it’s expected, with the mere accusation of playing/reading/watching/thinking something “unchristian” as reason.
BDSM games have been targeted as well for “sexual violence”. Only straight, vanilla PiV missionary for the express purposes of having children within the confines of marriage where nobody is enjoying it porn will be left.
And it won't happen because companies won't allow them to ban a trillion dollar industry, you knob. Banning adult games isn't remotely comparable. Most video games rely on violence and it's too big of an industry to fail, adult games have a tiny following and were an easy target.
They banned adult games?! That means they'll ban all violent media! They'll eventually come for all media, they'll come for our computers, they'll trap us in cages! It's a slippery slope!
Steam and Itch are both victims in this matter, their hands are tied. If the payment processors simply refuse to process any payments unless they comply, there’s no point in trying to put pressure on them. I’m pretty sure they were happy to take people’s money for these games and still would be, if they could so while saving face.
Still, it further highlights just how much power over law payment processors have - a worrying thought that the morality of a company (influenced by problem life nuts) dictates international law.
Edit - autocorrect turned pro life into problem life. I am ok with this.
I know this is more of a serious thing, but I was thinking that I kinda hope these payment processors try to ban some big European company over some puritanical bullshit and then Europe responds with threatening a complete ban on them to put them in line. Ain’t no way any payment processor would ever risk being banned in one of the largest markets in the world.
There are a few smaller EU payment processors. I’d love to see them move into the space Visa/Mc leave behind here but I’m not sure they are “big” enough for it.
This is exactly what it was designed to solve before cryptobros turned it into a pump and dump scheme.
If you want to buy something from seller X that is between you and X and no one else. No goverment, payment processor or other third party can get a cut or stop it for any reason.
So do regular fiat payment processors that are beholden to citizens and not faceless shareholders. Wero and Pix for instance.
Democratic governments are supposed to safeguard your ability to exchange legal tender for legal goods and services. The fact that Visa/MC have a duopoly and a stranglehold on the entire online economy is a major governance failure that needs to be rectified ASAP.
Crypto goes a lot further and says no-one, not even the government, should be able to prevent a transaction from taking place. Not necessarily an invalid idea but it does come with some huge unanswered challenges, such as “what happens when someone makes 1B€ through fraud and refuses to hand over the coins” and “how do we even prevent large-scale fraud in the first place”.
It’s nice to see a more reasonable response in the comments on Fediverse. On the itch discussion board people are frothing at the mouth posting death threats and the like against itch staff.
The anger is completely misdirected. I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide to just let itch drop dead after this abuse from two sides simultaneously. Mega corps and rights groups at one side, and their very own users on the other.
Once this review is complete, we will introduce new compliance measures. For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.
Itch is even willing to go for partial filtering, what more do you want. The only thing that will please these people is when itch waves their magic wand and keeps everything as is. Like folks here have said, accepting crypto payments might help, but who knows how soon that is going to get regulated.
It’s nice to see a more reasonable response in the comments on Fediverse. On the itch discussion board people are frothing at the mouth posting death threats and the like against itch staff.
Sounds like the bar is so low to be even comparing the two sites.
Like folks here have said, accepting crypto payments might help, but who knows how soon that is going to get regulated.
It’s kinda impossible to regulate technically. That’s the whole point of crypto. Or do you mean that the company itself might be legally prohibited to accept crypto by their local law? That’s possible I think. I guess we’re slowly but steadily approaching the demand to have actual darknet fully-crypto gaming platform operated by anonymous team.
Crypto goes somewhere that they don’t like? Crypto is seized when it reaches an exchange and they ask for ID and source of funds
I don’t understand. Lets say I have a normal bank card, I paid taxes for all the money I got there. Sometimes I buy crypto using p2p on some platform using this card. I trade this crypto with some other crypto on the same platform. Periodically I send crypto to my personal wallet from there. From my personal wallet I buy porn games for example. At which point someone comes in and seizes anything?
They would not, but you would not be anonymous this way. You get problems when:
The crypto you received is through a shady source (it could be any individual which pays you with dirty coins)
You engaged in pro-privacy activity, which links you with illegal activity, like coin mixers to blur the origin and destination of crypto
You received more crypto than you bought
As long as you stay with centralized exchanges and directly send crypto to some websites, you should in theory always be fine (as long as you don’t send them to criminal or pro-privacy services), but that’s not the original goal of crypto
Apart from that, some countries straight up force you to declare every transaction you make with crypto, which isn’t doable for most people and puts them in illegality
You don’t have to send crypto directly to websites. You can send it to your external wallet (outside of any platform), and spend from there. And no one’s ever going to be able to prove that wallet belongs to you.
No, they don’t know who that wallet belongs to and even though they may hypothesize its yours they don’t have any way to prove it. Moreover, anyone, including sellers can use unlimited amount of wallets and register them at rate 1000x faster than even the advanced CIA group would be able to tie even a single address to a particular person/company. So if Steam operated in crypto, it would take days/weeks of some of the most advanced feds in the world to try to prove that you bought something from Steam using your crypto. And they might even fail at that if you or Steam’s wallet are handled carefully, and they wouldn’t even know what exactly you bought.
Who is gonna ask? It is not your bank account, there are no rules where you send your crypto and you don’t have to explain to anyone. And there are no ways to enforce any of this. Also, a lot of crypto payment services and exchanges automatically generate unique intermediate wallets for every transaction. There is a technique to wallet management called “Hierarchical Deterministic Wallet (HD Wallet)” which seems to be golden standard nowadays, not only it makes it hard to compute your total balance, it also makes it easier to achieve “public address changes with every transaction”. So this is what most exchanges use for those intermediate addresses I assume.
Ofc KYC is everywhere. But that is only relevant to inputting fiat to crypto. Are there precedents of exchange asking its user about the address where he sent his crypto? Even then, what exactly happens if you answer them with whatever, like you donated to some guy, or it was a present? Regular money laws don’t apply to crypto -> crypto transfers, they are not subject to whatever taxes for presents, charity, etc, and even if they were, that wouldn’t be for the sending side.
Well, I don’t really know what exactly they’re doing, but there are people like Elon Musk that probably have ways of converting cosmic volumes of crypto back and forth to/from fiat. I’d just assume that crypto -> fiat is more of a problem for individuals currently but huge businesses and corps can make it work in high volumes. So maybe Steam could make it work too for games. And then crypto becomes massively backed by games. And then maybe someone else big jumps in. And then someone smaller can also jump in, and then one day crypto might be backed by so many things that you don’t even need to leave ecosystem, because you can already buy pretty much anything there. But again, this is just assumption, I don’t know how exactly this should work. Perhaps big corps can register a crypto-branch of their business somewhere crypto-friendly.
Yea crypto -> fiat is easy for businesses that declare their income. It’s still a pain to do, but they’re used to having an entire service dedicated to that already
A full crypto ecosystem is what crypto enthusiasts are wanting to achieve. It would be amazing.
Also, do you realize that even if all exchanges are taken down, this doesn’t in any way harm crypto in general or any of your independent wallets? I mean, you should only look at exchanges as places to input and forex trade crypto, but you should always output it to your external wallets in the end for long-term storage. If some day some exchange suddenly asks any of its users to explain why they did send money to a certain address, that would be the death of this exchange. You don’t need to explain, it is not bank, there are no taxes to pay (you already paid all the taxes before you converted your money to crypto), there are no laws that could make this demand legal. Move to the next exchange.
If exchanges close, websites stop accepting them, and you can’t withdraw to fiat
Regulation can easily kill most of the cryptocurrency market
Trading on non CEX is a massive pain as well
Storing for long time on cold wallets makes you vulnerable to volatility, which isn’t good for high amounts. It’s essentially investing on a high risk asset.
Look, when you use some platform with KYC, they indeed can tie that id information you give them to your internal addresses you use on the same platform. But the moment you send it to your external wallet that link is lost. They can see the transaction but they don’t know and can’t check if that destination address belongs to you, or it’s a person who sold you something, or it’s your friend/relative, or someone you donated to, etc.
yes, even without KYC, one opsec fail and they can get quite a info on you, things like usage patterns and eventually potentially a profile, upon which will probablycreate a “credit score” of sorts and probably sell advertising data too because why not!?
Then explain how exactly is this incorrect. If you buy and smuggle weapons for example, feds do undercover operation and pretend to sell guns, they set their own wallet, they track transactions, they co-operate with exchanges and have access to KYC data, they see you sent from exchange to wallet X, and then wallet X payed for weapons to their undercover wallet Y. What they achieve here is: they just see there is some chance that wallet X also belongs to you and maybe it’s you who are buying those weapons, but they can’t use this as proof of anything, what they can do is start spying on you from other vectors: your regular bank accounts, your social media, or even IRL to check if they can find any real evidence. That’s basically all. This is not at all a concern for people who don’t run international multibillion crime syndicates, etc. And also this all is extremely irrelevant to original topic. Because those games aren’t even illegal, it’s basically just a fkin preference of payment processors to demand Steam and Itch to take them down. If Steam operated in crypto, no amount of transaction tracking would make it possible to enforce something like this, because this is not law enforcement to begin with, it’s not illegal games and they are not taken down due to any legal concerns.
Crypto is great. As long as you stay within its ecosystem
Making crypto backed by more and more things (like games) makes staying within its ecosystem more comfortable in the long run.
Not to mention your still beholden to the traditional payment processors the moment you want to get your money out of crypto and back into an actual usable form.
the moment you need to sit on the line where you’re transferring in and out real money to crypto crypto to real money on a small scale with frequent processes. You just end up right back where you started.
Yeah, but there are already tons of widely-known legal services everybody uses like Coinbase, Binance, etc, which make it easy to P2P from card to crypto and it’s impossible to control money flows after it turns into crypto, which means controlling how people spend their money like this would be impossible. But yeah, regarding big players like Steam adopting crypto and converting into/from real money on large scale - and what payment processors can do about this if they are pissed off - this is something I have no idea about. But people like Elon Musk probably do this a lot with incredible volumes of money.
Once this review is complete, we will introduce new compliance measures. For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.
kind of a clever way to say “hey don’t give us grief, if you want to change this go complain to visa and mastercard.”
not really. Russia made their own payment processor because of being kicked out from SWIFT but using their system would be immoral.
it would be interesting if the EU makes their own payment processor.
some people were peddling crypto as a way to regain autonomy but most consumers don’t have the skills to buy it using cash and sideline Visa/MasterCard. it’s also not as accessible to people without technical skills.
excluding SEPA, it’s impossible to buy most things using them in my EU country.
SEPA also doesn’t have disposable credentials using randomized credit cards. i don’t want the stores I buy from to have my bank account info and potentially be charged by them randomly.
SEPA payments are push. Not pull. A vendor could request recurring payments, but you have to specifically authorize them. They are very rarely used, except maybe for monthly utilitiy payments.
It’s not supposed to be a secret. Most companies here publish it on their invoices, so you can pay them. Some nonprofits even display it on their websites to accept donations.
Even the some governments publish the treasury account numbers for anyone to see.
Short term profits? How are they supposed to make any profits if payment processors refuse to process payments to them? They can’t just spin up their own fucking payment processor.
Beyond that, how does limiting the sale of any products make them money?
I swear, were none of you people paying attention when this happened to the right wing ghouls in the lead up to the 2016 election? Nothing of value was lost (or would have been), but Visa, Mastercard, etc have already shown they aren’t above using their position in the transfer of money to enforce their will.
Edit: Can’t believe I forgot about the payment processors playing games with Wikileaks. For shame. Would have been a much better example.
The short term profits of going SFW only to appease payment processors vs. keeping everything but making it crypto only, which in the short term would be disastrous for income, but in the long term it would recover and they’d have independence from censorship.
Instead they chose to keep bigger profits and start deleting accounts.
Tell me again how you’ve not actually read up on the issues with crypto as payment processor.
This shit has already been tried and the issues discussed at length. I think it was Mullvad that stopped accepting BTC and did an extensive writeup on why.
In short: the constantly shifting conversion rates make this unsustainable, as even if they accepted payment in crypto, they have to pay their bills in fiat currency. So their choices are to have crypto prices change literally every page load to reflect the exchange rate, or to just eat extra costs when suddenly 0.51btc goes from being worth $5 when the user pays to being worth $1 when they try to use it for anything else. Even with constantly updating prices, the shifting rates screwing them will still happen. The costs associated with even offering it as a payment type outweigh the actual revenue generated by an extreme order of magnitude, and even privacy/crypto oriented storefronts see something like under 1% of users using the option when it’s available.
And that’s my understanding of the short version.
There’s a big difference between “prioritizing short term profit” and “committing commercial/financial suicide to make a point”.
Visa/MC make up most of their income. They were given the ultimatum of either banning a small group of games, or losing the ability to process payments almost entirely. Itch is not the problem here.
A) Honest mistake. I appreciated people pointing out the country of origin.
B) While the specifics of my comment were off the mark, even with this group being Australian, this group affects world commerce, and American politics has strong influence on that world in turn. Just like how president of the USA would have a big effect on the levels of violence and cruelty in Gaza. Visa is an American corporation, and they’re clearly quite on board with this censorship influence.
Some of the actual reasons people hate crypto are:
extreme volatility
many coins’ value can be easily manipulated by whales
most stablecoins are probably one step away of crashing down like Terra Luna
resource intensive - you can shout about proof of stake all you want, there are still gigawatts of energy being burned to “mint” bitcoin
no protections because “code is law”, even when the code is flawed
forking risk nearly every year
the coins that aren’t as resource intensive, have fast transaction times and negligible fees, are unlikely to gain traction or receive widespread adoption
you still have to go through the hoops of a heavily regulated exchange to get actual money from any crypto you have
You’re free to avoid those coins then… volatility doesn’t mean bad
many coins’ value can be easily manipulated by whales
Yes, just like for stocks and pretty much every product on the market
most stablecoins are probably one step away of crashing down like Terra Luna
Stablecoins are often centralized so they’re not what the goal of crypto was, but sure. Why not hate the coins instead of the technology instead? Stablecoins are a small part of crypto.
resource intensive - you can shout about proof of stake all you want, there are still gigawatts of energy being burned to “mint” bitcoin
If you know this is incorrect, why lie and say crypto is resource intensive when it’s only a few that are like that? PoW has its flaws indeed.
no protections because “code is law”, even when the code is flawed
Every software you use is not liable for any problems that occurs with it. Incidents will always happen. All recent incidents involved someone getting hacked by other means, being menaced into sending them crypto (so it could happen to anyone with a lot of cash as well for example, or through offshore bank accounts), or a company stealing people. I’m not aware of any code fail.
Pretty much all CEX are regulated currently. And with AML and KYC coming more and more (which is bad for crypto), the “no protections” claim is really false.
forking risk nearly every year
So? In case of a fork, you keep both coins… so you should still keep the value of both?
the coins that aren’t as resource intensive, have fast transaction times and negligible fees, are unlikely to gain traction or receive widespread adoption
Isn’t that the case of Solana? But yea currently there are problems with too many coins relying on PoW, but some just can’t do without it, like Monero. It’s the cost of having this system.
you still have to go through the hoops of a heavily regulated exchange to get actual money from any crypto you have
That’s because of regulation and the banking system, not the fault of crypto? It’s because people called crypto a scam that it became like that. You can still use the crypto to purchase stuff with it instead of getting fiat. Receiving money from P2P bank transfers is also similar to this, you’ll get asked questions as soon as you go out of the normal way.
People calling crypto a scam don’t think this much through. It’s just more hard and complex than there is to the eye. Most people interface with crypto solely for trading, and people want quick profit through shitcoins, which is a very bad idea, then complain on the system. You should think twice before investing in stuff you don’t understand: whether it’s crypto, stocks, NFTs, in game items…
No one pays in shares because no one accepts this and it’s annoying to do?
Sounds like crypto
volatility with crypto is annoying, but it will happen with a currency that works in every country, even fiat is volatile
True, but countries have means to keep money more or less stable. Most countries also have laws that are supposed to ensure big money owners don’t collude to play insider trading and pump’n dump every other week
Yea, it is a bit of a pain as well, but it has some benefits compared to traditional payment methods, unlike paying in shares
Pretty sure crypto pump and dump criminalization is still a thing. In the end, you’re asking for someone to invest in something you benefit from, which is illegal in some places
The bitcoin boom turned any crypto currency into just a volatile means of investment. None of them are seen as currencies to buy things anymore, and I don’t think that’s changing.
Not to mention the many other issues with crypto currency as a concept. But those don’t really matter in the face of, well, not being viewed as a currency anymore.
we already had that: Eurocard. they needed to pay mastercard in order to be compatible with their terminals, and that relationship ended with mastercard just absorbing them.
they were started for the exact same reason that we are talking about, to get a european alternative. so obviously the answer is not free market-based.
itch.io
Najstarsze