Abra - P2P Money Transfer Network

Leverages the blockchain, but it seems you don’t need to purchase Bitcoins to utilize…that’s more like it. But how can they say it’s private when it’s on the chain?

Abra is the world’s first peer-to-peer digital cash money transfer network.

That means consumers can store and manage money directly on their phone — no bank, no financial intermediary — and they can transfer money directly to any phone in the world that also has our app on it. Transfers are peer-to-peer, meaning no middleman touches the funds: no bank, no Western Union, nobody. The effect is that transactions are completely private, completely free, and instantaneous around the globe.


The record of it is public, the transaction itself is private.
If they use disposable addresses, so what if the transaction is visible on the blockchain?

I hope they’ll run that stuff out of Swiss and properly protect users’ identities.

1 Like

That is additionally super useful for building a truly decentralised safecoin exchange :wink: @dallyshalla


Can anyone elaborate on how this works.

How the money is debited / credited from / to users (where any balance is held) - if you don’t buy bitcoin?

Also how fees are paid for if it is “free”?

It doesn’t (in reality) work yet, it was a testnet demo I think (I have the app, it’s not usable yet).

I can’t tell from the unusable app, but the balance could be held in a Bitcoin 2.0 (Counterparty, Mastercoin) token (say, XUSD, or whatever those guys who issued it call it). Then transactions would be very short BTC send’s that would represent USD. I think “net positive” tellers would have to cash out via a real fiat payment gateway (if they have enough operating capital, weekly or monthly)
At the moment that’s my best guess how that works.

Couple of thoughts assuming I’m not completely mistaken about how it works:

  • Since it’s not anonymous (but it is private :-)) and (I suppose) uses fiat gateways, it could screw up Ripple. I don’t see much difference in these important aspects (except that this isn’t debt-based, although there’s a counterparty for the tellers).
  • It’s “less” debt based than Ripple and it appears that the counterparty is a financial institution (since you can also charge via a debit card, I assume the tokens are fully “backed” by a Blockchain-floated token mapped to USD 1:1.
  • There’s space for additional players (maybe use BTC (although dealing with the exchange rate would be a PITA) to completely get around the traditional system, etc.)
  • Good news for bitcoin. Bad news for Ripple I’d say.
1 Like

Sounds a lot like ripple to me. The balances are probably held by gateway (bank) accounts, and the “who is owed” is traded on the blockchain. Just a guess. The specifics where pretty clearly avoided in the talk.

The “tellers” are behaving like ripple gateways. It sounds like they can charge whatever fee they feel fit.

It could be anonymous even if it is traded over the blockchain – doesn’t sound like even the user knows which address is theirs… Their teller probably knows them though…

I am a fan of the ripple protocol. Not particularly a fan of ripplelabs. But you can do all of this kind of thing with the ripple protocol out of the box. That is just about exactly how it works. Everybody is too busy selling ripple to the banks to sell it to the poor…

1 Like

I don’t think so.
As I said above, this is USD only (if you noticed, no Mexican currency was mentioned in the video, and only $ appeared on the screen. Furthermore you can see in the GUI that teller fee is shown on your screen as you scan for them and when you click on their profile. That’s fine and that’s how it should be. As their number grows, they start competing.

Here no debt is created “on edge” (e.g. tellers).
In that way it’s “centralized” (there’s a big fat counterparty behind these guys), but it’s less likely that a teller can Corzine you when you deposit money with him. But if the big fat institution behind them fails, then everyone is screwed. There’s good and there’s bad. It doesn’t seem the same, though.

Mind you, I’m not saying the Ripple approach is inferior, just that this approach has its advantages.
Ripple won’t die because of this, far from that, but now a sizable chunk of their target market is at risk, that’s all (interestingly they’re down 3.75% while most other coins aren’t, so at least some people agree).

What I like is that everyone will learn from this approach (whatever it is) and soon there will be more competition and more convenience.

I don’t see the difference. The video doesn’t show the difference.

If Maria the schoolteacher has to give 600 dollars to some guy, where does that money come from, how does she get re-imbursed? They leave that part out -and that is the crux of the issue.

I assume that the cash Withdrawl means “We owe Maria 600 USD dollars” Just like Ripple. It could be any number of gateways… Maybe there is a different way but Occams Razor says it is a ripple derivative… The debt part of it still has to be there, weather it is a ripple ledger or the bitcoin ledger that indicates such.

How do you figure Maria gets re-imbersed?

This is a nice idea; so; people confirm that cash was made available through a teller, and you can move it around; Double spending of inputted cashes is not possible because it is blockchained;

So, The idea I have for building ontop of SAFEX is a simple payment processor; if there are trustworthy tellers, then people can use SAFEX which also you don’t need to understand to use, if you use an applications running SAFEX;

Obviously, if you want to make your own application you need to understand SAFEX;

There is a business in the works; for Fiat to Safecoin in the works;

The SAFEX protocol and the business ontop don’t have much to do with eachother; one defines the P2P digital asset transfer, the business is itself;

So, novel ways for proving money transfer are quite interesting; I’ve considered, and also many thanks to @frabrunelle for illuminating the need to establish a place for people to request features; as the specification, and implementation is being made available.

So, SAFEX defines Tags, and Values; the Tags can be defined as anyone pleases; and when people use apps with SAFEX they can access specific Tags, and if that Tag defines some blockchain storage of a cash receipt that’s fine. Abra can utilize the SAFEX protocol and establish their P2P Money Transfer Network on SAFE Network; and it’ll be easy to interface with all the applications that are using the SAFEX, as a standard;

1 Like

The app showed her commission (1%).
The guy transfers her $200 in Abra USD credits and she gives him $198.
It says he gets $200, but then - not shown - he pays the fee, i.e. she actually gives him $198.
When she cashes out, she most likely has an Abra Debit Card which gets debited for 199 bucks (Abra takes some money too).

The same process should work for Miguel who bought Abra dollar credits by depositing (say) $606 to his Abra account, in which case Abra makes 1%.
The he sells that for $609 (assuming he charges 1.5%) and makes $3 in the process. Assuming that works the way I think it does.
It’s cash between the people and Abra debit card between Abra and the tellers.

Abra needs no debt to operate this business (because US$ is debt :-)).
Bill bought $200 Abra USD for “real” USD.
Miguel sold $200 Abra USD for “real” USD.

Initially teller fees will be higher than the envisioned 1-1.5%, I figure.
But this should be competitive vs. LocalBitcoins because no hassle with bitcoin exchange rate and no currency conversion is involved. Also - very importantly - there is no need for Miguel (and/or Maria) to get rid of bitcoins. The dollar - pathetic as it is - is quite usable and easily exchangeable anywhere.

Actually last year I had this idea (not that it was original, I got it from a Counterparty user) but the problem is in order to back your token/asset with USD one must navigate through the regulatory BS, which is too complicated and incredibly expensive.

We’ll soon find out how they do it and ultimately an unregulated knock-off of Abra will appear. Question is, who’s going to be the backing entity, i.e. the counterparty? If a BTC could be used as escrowed deposit then one could self-fund as long as his float is fully backed by BTC (in USD equivalent).

Right. I still don’t see a difference between this and ripple. Ripple can be used to trade USD or Gold, or pesos or any other asset – It can convert between the two, or keep them the same.

You have Maria:USD and you have Abra:USD Marias-usd are worth a premium to the buyer Bill. because she is in the neighborhood of somebody who wants cash. So the transaction underlying takes the Takes Bill’s ABRA USD and trades them for MARIA USD and all that really changes is “who is owed what”

This is absolutely how Ripple works – I don’t see any substantial difference aside from the presenter using the term “blockchain” which doesn’t really change much.

The advantage of RIpple over this would be that maria could pay Bill in Pesos if he desired such, and it would be done in the most efficient manner possible. All in all, ripple would win, if somebody would make the same app on that network…

Can Any One explain me How Does the Abra Teller Works …

Case study

A Finds a Teller to Withdraw 200$

B Finds a Teller to Withdraw 400$

Does THe Teller Carry 600$ with Him …Or How is it he Trying to Cater A , B and others…

What about His Fees … if I Consider that The Teller carries a debit card …So How Does he Get Money into his Account to Withdraw from…and Who Pour that Money into the Account…

can I say that Each Individual Teller works like the Bank …Accepting Deposits and Giving Withdrawl ,if Yes HOw is the Balance of Deposit and Withdrawl Maintained…and How Can Abra trust Individual teller …