It is being used and businesses are using it in their products today.
Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them and their customers and would instead announce that they are shutting it down after trialling it. They seem to have seen utility in it for their use-case. The same can be said for the other companies I mentioned.
> Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them
Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing.
A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped their wealth managers, too. Worthful. But useless.
> Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing.
Nope. Useful today for people using Moneygram worldwide (In the example I gave). Moneygram used Stellar for their own use-case and its customers use it today for that same utility, but this time with no bank accounts for the end user.
> A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped their wealth managers, too. Worthful. But useless.
Now with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes [0] are trailing the network [1] for the same use-case. Again, it would not be used by such organizations or even trailed or piloted in the first place if it was 'Useless for performance.' or had no utility.
> but this time with no bank accounts for the end user
Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed.
> with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes
You’re linking to a pilot. As it happens, I also worked with UNDP years ago. We similarly launched pilots to try and find uses for novel technologies. (Mine was in mobility data from cell phones.)
That’s what’s happening here. They are looking for a use. That should be encouraged. Looking for something doesn’t mean it is found.
> Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed.
Even better, meaning that the smart decision was to add another rails (crypto) which after choosing something like Stellar and trailing it, they found it was useful for them and their customers, to continue using it. Otherwise it would have been scrapped years ago.
> That’s what’s happening here. They are looking for a use. That should be encouraged. Looking for something doesn’t mean it is found.
Indeed, it is a pilot which means more interest in the use-case which was found AFTER Moneygram trialled it and are using it right now today.
The same is said about the other companies I mentioned. Far from the first broad claim of it all being 'useless' which we all know that is blatantly false.
> they found it was useful for them and their customers, to continue using it. Otherwise it would have been scrapped years ago
You’re not seeing how something performative can be both profitable and useless?
Maybe it's semantic. I'm not saying crypto is useless as a moral judgement. The bumblebee keychain on my backpack is functionally useless. But I like it, so it's worth something to me. But it has never carried a key, it never well, and its artistic value is objectively passable as best. It's useless but with worth.
If we say MoneyGram's crypto integrations are useful as marketing, I'll agree. But again, as someone familiar with that particular example more than most, if those customers would have given business for money stained with mayo, MoneyGram would be slathering it on.
> You’re not seeing how something performative can be both profitable and useless?
Moneygram and their customers with other organizations using the Stellar network is not performative. It exists and works today, right now and it was that 'something' that was used, tried and tested first before making a decision and it turns out that the use-case was valid for them (and many others).
Henceforth, it is not 'useless' going by the OP's original broad claim.
> Maybe it's semantic. I'm not saying crypto is useless as a moral judgement. The bumblebee keychain on my backpack is functionally useless...
Again, the main use of the Stellar network was serious enough for MoneyGram which out of the thousands of other alternatives used to get on another rails (crypto) for their worldwide customers after assessing that use-case.
But you've only made it clear that to you it is "useless" and no user or business would even bother to use it, if it was found to be as such in the first place.
Of course they would. It’s useless, not worthless. If it were useful they’d actually use it.