No, I mean the person checking it would need to be online, and have read access to the Network, but the person giving the certificate wouldn’t.
This isn’t as useful as fully offline, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a step-change better than a fully on-line or existing equivalent.
A temporary account scenario is a much more tricky fudge, and would be more complex and tricky to do UX wise, and both users would need to be fully online, unlocked etc. It’d be much more limiting.
But I may not know who the recipient is, or where they want the funds to go. Imagine buying something face to face on gumtree for example. I see a car is for sale for £500, I get a DBC ready for £500 and leave my phone at home. I turn up and kick the tyres, hand over the DBC, the seller scans it, sees that it’s good and I drive away.
The alternative is both turning up with phones with a connection, swapping details etc. Checking that the funds have transmitted etc. This can be quick and handy too, but it can also be derailed in other ways. Either party can’t get unlocked for whatever reason. The seller doesn’t have an account yet etc etc.
Just a quick note: Safe DBC’s will be treated as cash equivalents under most laws and very distinct to the laws around Gift Cards or Certificates which can only be exchanged for “goods or services of a specified value from the issuer”.
The difference is important to recognise because if someone tries to sign up a bunch of Safe DBCs and sell them then they will fall under money transmitter laws, whereas a shop like Amazon printing gift certificates that can only be exchanged for items on the store would not.
Can you define this a bit more. People buying and selling anything (that has inherent) would not be money transmitters I would have thought? I am not sure the definition of "money transmitter " is though.
I think it’s not one or the other, but depends on what the DBC contains. I can issue a DBC with a promise to redeem it for goods up to a specified value, just like a gift card. If doesn’t have to contain SNT. So you can still use them to create gift cards or vouchers, not just for cash.
The distinction appears comes down to buy and selling “Things that have inherent value” vs exchanging between cash equivalent things that are “general accepted” as money.
Currency transmission or money transmission is defined as engaging in the business of selling or issuing checks or the business of receiving currency for the purpose of transmitting the currency or its equivalent by wire, facsimile, or other electronic means, or through the use of a financial institution, financial intermediary, the federal reserve system, or other funds transfer network. It also includes the transmission of funds through the issuance and sale of stored value cards which are intended for general acceptance and use in commercial or consumer transactions.
Varies slightly between jurisdictions but looks like that makes the distinction. Gift cards for goods and services Vs Gift cards for a money equivalents.
Okay why do some landlords not accept cheques as payment? Because they bounce and are unreliable. Same use case. Your landlord might accept a payment in SAFE directly but may not accept a DBC. Thing is what if your internet access is intermittent or if you can’t get internet access at your house or some other complication. So DBCs might be more practical for such users. Also there are users that may not have immediate access to an internet access point. What if you were working out at a logging camp or something? You could print out the DBCs before hand, or back at the camp HQ that MIGHT have internet access and then trade them with your buddies for whatever items or as payment for things previously traded. But again same issue as the landlord that wants to check if the cheque won’t bounce. If someone has already cashed in the piece of paper you’ve handed them then it’s worthless so how do you confirm it’s still “loaded” so to speak?
Much of the SAFE network operates on presumptions based on western urban society not rural society, much less rural society in other countries where internet access is much more limited and intermittent. You could probably get the SAFE network to function in an area with say random power outages for example like in some African nations or some areas of the U.S. but coupling that with rural culture means it might be more feasible to print off a DBC and delivering it in person rather than depending on an inconstent internet connection and/or power utility is better for making local transactions. You give me the widget and I give you a DBC you can cash on your phone whenever the internet comes back up. Ergo one would want to validate the DBC is still good before accepting it in the transaction.
Those $10,000 bills actually existed in the day. Held one in my hand once as a 10-year old on a field trip to the local bank. Binion’s Horseshoe, in Las Vegas, used to have one-hundred of these (million dollars) in a hanging display inside the casino (heavily guarded).
Good luck taxing the SAFE Network. Even if you did track one exchange a user could easily avoid this by simply creating a new safe ID every time they created a DBC or received one. So the IRS knows a person received a piece of paper and MAYBE x amount of safecoin but not how much that is relative to the rest of their income. And that’s IF they can track that piece of paper to begin with. It would be like tracking people’s income levels by tracking their exchanges of every $5 bill or every time they tossed someone a twonie for some random purchase at the dollar store or coffee shop WITHOUT checking any receipts or business profit margins. So TECHNICALLY DBCs could be taxed but practically speaking… it would not be feasible to do so.
Also who are they going to sue if they’re not?
Like “you were trading in safenet tokens” |
“Yes but those aren’t taxable.”
“But the DBCs are.”
“Only until they are cashed in. Then they’re just worthless paper.”
“So tell me how much money did you make.”
“No.”
“But I’m the government.”
“And you have no way to compel me to tell you that information.”
“I’ll arrest you.”
“And you still won’t get that information nor will you get my money.”
“I’ll hack your account!”
“Yeah good luck with that.”
Like the whole “We’ll just pass a law and throw a temper tantrum.” thing is totally going out of style.
I agree. I was thinking more from the point of view of solving our On and Off ramp problem in a decentralised way. It would be great if the world could be flooded with physical SNT stored value gift cards for sale in shops everywhere. Strict money transmitter laws appear to be an impediment to that solution (hopefully not). I have never seen or heard of a “100 USDTether/USDC/Bitcoin…” or similar stored value card in a shop for example as the shop doing the selling would allegedly need to be licensed money transmitters.
This is fine. It represents the “check/cheque” form of use for the DBC. The receiver needs a connection to “check” for validity. As @DavidMc0 astutely pointed out, a true offline / physical dbc will require real physical/tamper resistant features and possibly a trusted manufacturer/auditor to ensure trust. This is the same issue dealt with in precious metals markets via various means. It’s solvable, but might not be as “trustless” as you would prefer. The key for now is just making the dbc algorithms work for the normal at2 online wallet transactions and “check” versions. The pure physical part is easy to deal with after that.
Several places, but it was a few years ago. Searching for it online now it says Visa gift cards can no longer be bought in stores, I guess because of money transmitter laws.
Edit: looks like they’re still available many places. You probably need to activate it with your real name to use.
why not having nfc cards that have an identifier and from safe network give that identifier an amount, and give it to someone. with an safe nfs reader app you can show the other person that it has some amount into it.
How does gold/diamonds/art etc. fit here? (just out of interest as it seems some wealthy folk have money in many antiques, paintings as well as gold etc. (I am not condoning or otherwise, I think it’s smart to have wealth spread accrss assets, if wealth is what you want that is ))
I mean if this is so then are those NFT things creating money transmitters ?
It looks to all comes down to how each jurisdiction classifies money equivalents or what the UK FCA calls “any representation of money”. So gold appears to require a money transmission license in many places I guess since is fungible, store of value etc like money but most importantly its title passes to the new owner on delivery. California lay it out clearer than most jurisdictions I could find: " Monetary instrument means … or negotiable instrument in bearer form or otherwise in a form in which title thereto passes upon delivery; gold, silver, or platinum bullion or coins; and diamonds, emeralds, rubies, or sapphires.".
Art and NFTs being non fungible look to be treated like property and not generally acceptable as a cash equivalent on the other hand.
Its a shifting landscape but not in a good way. Does not really affect wealthy folk (no surprise there) they just buy through registered dealers and exchanges… the dealer has to register not the wealthy investor buying for their personal account. When they sell they sell back through a registered dealer/exchange.
Interestingly in the UK cryptocurrencies are treated as a property but taxed like shares. However in the UK selling any property incurs tax liabilities if over £6k in a year. It is truly stupefying how all this works and worse the presumption of guilt till you can prove yourself innocent.
I wonder if crypto is a property here in the UK if there is no money transmitter issues? (I mean MAID->SNT or ERC20). All a game though just a game and they hold the rules and won’t show us
))