Replying to Avatar erik

Ever since I started designing for Bitcoin eCash wallets, I've noticed something: Getting eCash feels like there's this extra step the user has to complete: Swapping sats via lightning for eCash. I heard this comparison on the Bitcoin Review podcast once – imagine eCash is like poker chips at a casino. It kind of clicked. We give dollars, get chips; give sats, get eCash. Wondering how to best frame this to the end user. Abstract this extra step away or embrace it? What to name it? "Topping up"? "Exchanging"? I like the erm "exchange" because it suggests a two-way process. Users can convert sats to eCash and vice versa.
Avatar
Paulo Sacramento 2y ago

nostr:npub1pvgcusxk7006hvtlyx555erhq8c5pk9svw57snlxujpkgnkup89sekdx8c

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
pam 2y ago

I think a token is a token. I'm personally not for it, but it has its marketing and customer engagement elements in terms of a business's customer loyalty and long term branding contribution for Bitcoin. The terminology of eCash is a simplified way to capture attention. One way you might monetise the business is through partnerships with various Bitcoin clients to build its customer reward loyalty package - is this something up in your alley ?

Avatar
erik 2y ago

I don’t know much about monetization, marketing, or business so I can’t really speak intelligently on those things. The reality is that there are limitations to how much bitcoin can scale both on-chain and on L2s. Custodial lightning solutions are here to stay for the time and they’re quite popular with users. Applying eCash mechanism to bitcoin helps solve some major privacy issues in custodial lightning. It’s very cool technology and fun to design.