I don't have much invested in crypto, and I find PoW hideous. I think crypto is most useful for illegal things and tradecraft, but illegal doesn't mean immoral, and useful to criminals is still useful.
* Buying VPN relays anonymously, for connecting to through Tor, VPSes etc.
* Buying drugs.
* Donating to causes sanctioned by your country.
* Paying informants.
* Allowing you to prove you're the author of something, or knew a secret, later on.
* "Dead hand" schemes which release information if your wallet activity stops for more than a couple weeks. This keeps people from killing you to keep something from getting out.
* Online gambling.
* Evading financial controls to send money to your family abroad.
Some of this doesn't require any trust (e.g. proving you knew something before some date), most of the rest requires trust, but what makes crypto useful for these cases isn't lack of trust but auditability, anonymity and/or lack of control by authorities.
I have worked in (used personally or done professionally) pre-crypto versions of these, excluding the dead hand scheme- and although some were a little complex and had some risk, I would argue that the new version has the same complexity and risk, only it seems to be hidden by crypto buzz-words.
Also reminds me why I don't do those things any more.
Alibaba ran a Foreign Exchange service on top of crypto. I don't know if it is still running or not. It functioned like Western Union. Customers sent local currency to Alibaba, Alibaba bought crypto with that local currency and in another country sold that crypto for foreign currency and then deposited it into the foreign currency account.
The crypto part adds nothing to this process. There are already very efficient systems for exchanging one fiat currency for another without going through crypto.
Alibaba could already avoid that need for individual transactions by just holding balances in the different currencies, like e.g. Wise and many other retail forex providers do. They only need to deal with correspondent banks for balancing out those accounts in case more money flows in one direction than the other, and those transactions are large so the costs are not as much of a concern.
In any case, your argument presumes some desire to get rid of the correspondent banks. Most people don't have that desire, they just want the money to go from A-B reasonably cheaply, and there are existing great solutions for that except at the fringes — like criminals, avoiding sanctions, avoiding capital controls, etc — which is why crypto stays on those fringes.
>>Most people don't have that desire, they just want the money to go from A-B reasonably cheaply, and there are existing great solutions for that except at the fringes
Yes, it is for the fringes. One day Alibaba could find itself on the fringes, as collateral damage in some geopolitical dispute that locks it out of the centralized global financial system, as a result of which country it is based in.
I have no idea if this concern motivated Alibaba's reliance on crypto though.
I didn't realize you suggested gold. I thought you meant "runescape gold". Yes gold is durable.
I suspect cryptocurrency will be a store of value far further into the future than gold. Gold becomes plentiful once extracting resources from asteroids becomes economically viable.
This article is basically an ad for Parity, and doesn't contain any details on how those savings were actually achieved, any way to verify that the number is genuine, or any way to know whether the same savings could have been achieved with improved processes with or without blockchain (which is very likely).
> So does crypto [...]
I'd wager that this is a lie. Please name one.
These systems are self referential. Great if all to do is speculate with value changes inside the system.
Other use cases? In short: no one has come up with any solution to the oracle problem.
As soon as you want to exchange anything crypto with anything but crypto (e.g. USD or a physical asset like a loaf of bread) you need trust.[1]
[1] https://youtu.be/MiLnDe_bX6Y