People are free to make choices when they bring a product to market.

Even more so in a Bitcoin economy.

I see nostr:npub1cn4t4cd78nm900qc2hhqte5aa8c9njm6qkfzw95tszufwcwtcnsq7g3vle in a similar light.. both have to deal with beauracratic hurdles. My guess is that they have a gun to their head by the state they're opperating in, when making such decisions.

Nobody is making you use Cash App or Strike either, they are how ever facilitating a transition towards a Bitcoin standard within the confines of the 'law'.

It's a much tougher battle to find a middle gound solution, because you either offer a full fiat model and custody the coins (coinbase/binance) for the user and risk reputational damage from those who understand counterparty risk. Or you build an anti-establishment model like Samurai did and risk going to prison and being called a money laundering terrorist.. because the fiat overlords deem you as one.

Critising these pioneers for finding a middle ground of 'limits' and 'kyc' is dumb.. especially if you havent got an answer for it yourself.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thanks for your reply. First it is fully my responsibility for getting trapped by Cash App. I wrongly listened to their support two years ago who said they were considering raising limits. Their limit was and remains $2K per day ($5k per week) creating very small UTXOs among other problems. At $90K Bitcoin these limits are now 4X lower in Bitcoin terms than a couple years ago.

My note is to raise awareness among people using. CashApp to stack, especially in threads that are overly praiseworthy of Jack.

I donโ€™t understand how this is a regulatory issue as CashApp is out of sync with River, Swan, Strike, etc etc. To me it is a red flag that CashApp does not have 100% reserve for Bitcoin in custody.

Again, thank you for your thoughts.