One of the main advertised uses of oracles is to "trigger payments", which means that oracles can communicate with actual fiat accounts and cause money to be sent/moved from them.
So is there any reason why you can't have a smart contract structured as follows:
The smart contract controls a bank account with fiat liquidity (I'll call the Fiat Pool), and, for examples sake, a BTC account with BTC liquidity (the BTC Pool.)
When someone wants to buy BTC with fiat they simply move the fiat to the Fiat Pool bank account using a normal bank transfer, and nominate a BTC address. The smart contract acknowledges payment into the Fiat Pool and dispenses the equivalent BTC from the BTC Pool, into the nominated account.
Or, the other way around, if someone wants to sell BTC for fiat, they simply move BTC into the BTC pool, the contract acknowledges the deposit, and then transfers fiat into a nominated bank account.
The transfers would come with a small fee which would go both to the smart contract creator, and to anyone who wanted to park either fiat or BTC in the pools, as an incentive to providing liquidity.
This strikes me as an extremely useful friction reduction mechanism that pretty much bypasses the palaver of using a centralised crypto/fiat exchange. The only major difficulty I could see would be convincing a legacy finance organisation to host the fiat pool account, although if they took a proportion of the transaction fees I imagine it would be lucrative.
Thoughts?
Can oracle powered smart contracts bridge the crypto/fiat divide?
when oracles give our tamper proof smart contracts instant access to fiat accounts in any jurisdiction or currency, why do we need bitcoin again?
Presumably for the non-government control aspect, although it's debatable whether BTC will be the crypto that does it. There is definitely market room for at least one non-governmental fiat-replacement crypto though.
agreed. just probably not bitcoin
on your original question. i imagine some of the smaller, probably digital only banks will take the first steps to be "friendly" with crypto/fiat conversion, and then the bigger banks will follow once they see there is money to be made
but big players will resist for as long as possible
I think to better articulate my issue with the fiat end, the problem is not convincing a legacy finance institution to host the fiat pool account, because if it earns enough fees they'll be falling over each other to provide that service, the problem is in making the Fiat Pool account as reliable, tamper proof and decentralised as the BTC pool would be.
The risk would be with having a trust a financial institution to hold everyone's fiat in the account without messing with it or just "closing" the account. This is the most glaring weakness as far as I can tell, but you can't really get around it because trustless fiat systems don't exist and are almost oxymoronic.
Fiat is holding back programmable money. Crypo/fiat integration is a stepping stone.
Baste
Only checking because you aren't Astro
bump
WHOOOOOHHOOOOOOOOO THATS GOOD SNEED
no
not in a trustless way banks could choose to execute smart contract clauses but its centralized as shit
stablecoins can be used tho but again most is centralized shit
That's kind of the issue I guess. That the fiat end will always be under central control, and even with an "elegant" solution like that sort of smart contract there's no way around the fact that the fiat end will never be decentralised.
nothing else can do it right now
its not in the issuers interest to ever relinquish control
the only way out would bs abandoning fiat but its unfeasible
No, this is so stupid.
>all of the late adopters itt desperately hoping bitcoin dies
stop embarrassing yourselves
20k was a flukebubble
Why would anyone care about buttcoin
Its only cool because its the «original» coin. Its fucking useless and nothing but speculative shit
Check out uniswap
Sneed
That's great user, thanks for the heads up. Strictly ETH/ERC-20 at the moment but it's not hard to see how that will expand in future.
>The only major difficulty I could see would be convincing a legacy finance organisation to host the fiat pool account, although if they took a proportion of the transaction fees I imagine it would be lucrative.
Interesting thought. No wonder Binance is loaded up on LINK. They could try to do something like this.
ORACLES AREN'T REAL
>What is an API
>What are multiple API's
>What is averaging the response
NOT A FUCKING ORACLE... THAT'S WHAT. Any programmer could make this. I wonder how many programmers hold link. Not only has averaging API responses already been done for a long-ass time, the VALUE of an API pull is near WORTHLESS. I can make literal BILLIONS of calls to API's all over the internet and the cost is near to nothing. What the fuck is wrong with you link retards. I've been trying to kid glove you emotional faggots, but it's time for you to grow up. Link is a meme. Your tokens are worthless. Sergey is a literally who. Wake the fuck up retards.