I’m specifically referencing the presentation from Strike at last years BTC conference. The kid running strike comes across as a punk, but it does work…I’ve used it. Swipe card for dollar transaction, software converts to BTC and records transaction, merchant paid in dollars.

The lightening network, a layer 2, also records transactions to the BTC blockchain after the fact…same basic principle.

my only point is FTX isn’t BTC, nor is it related to most of the technological developments in the space.

so, strike just uses BTC as the float between merchant and cardholder. Why do that instead of just using a visa?

the merchant isn’t paying visa 2-3%

it isn’t there yet, but imo that’s what moves this space forward…a real savings/value/use case.

they’re not, until strike runs out of VC funding to burn and tries to make a profit as a payment processor

The merchant is still paying…something like .25-.50%. The settlement software is cheaper than legacy payment rails.

again, until they run out of VC money to burn

that’s like saying email will work until they run out of VC funding. They must charge the same as postal stamps?

software is cheaper than 3-4 intermediaries involved in a credit card transaction.

We shall see in time….

“software is cheaper” makes little sense. Do you think visa doesn’t use “software?” If strike grows into a large player, I’d bet on nearly identical fees to those charged by others, especially since they’ll have to float the volatility of the underlying cryptocurrency, since merchants are denominating prices in dollars and buyers are paying in dollars.

visa uses “software” but not standalone end-to-end from payment to settlement.

https://www.fisglobal.com/en/insight...ocessing-works

right, so now you’re hoping both merchant and buyer are willing to use strike as their bank, presumably just marked to strike’s BTC reserves?