While Bitcoin continues to find its niche in the traditional financial system, its ability to transfer value quickly, cheaply and across borders with little fuss – or regulation – continues to stand out as impressive.
A recent transaction, noted by the Bitcoin Twitter page (@Bitcoin), set to reaffirm Bitcoin’s current major advantage over any bank or financial institution. A transaction for more than $1.1 billion was sent in BTC with irrevocable settlement in 10 minutes for a fee of $84. This, as the tweet outlines, is something that can only be done with Bitcoin.
The functionality in cryptocurrency for the transfer of value cannot be matched by traditional services as regulation plays a big role in how money of significant value can be moved. This in itself can be argued as both a good thing, and a bad thing, but it appears as if the institutional arena is listening.
Inspiring and Scary
Gabor Gurbacs (@gaborgurbacs), a digital assets strategist and director at Van Eck, a large investment management firm that has some $49B in assets under management, has become quite the Bitcoin believer and tweeted in response to this news:
The two sides of the argument are worth delving into. Bitcoin was created to emancipate individuals from the controls of traditional finance and the dangers that come with it – such as the 2008 housing market crash.
Bitcoin is thus far more inclusionary, can serve sections of the population formerly unbanked and excluded from financial services, and can also allow those who have a lot of money to bypass the usual rigors of banking and regulation.
This is where Bitcoin garners a poor reputation from financiers and regulators as there are not as many checks and balances in place to control the flow of money of illicit goals. Money can be moved, fairly anonymously, across borders, and ultimately laundered, if needed.
Only Bitcoin Can Do This
Not content with the impressive feat by the Bitcoin blockchain, several users took to the post to outline that other cryptocurrencies could have accomplished the same movement of money instantly and for a fraction of the $84 cost.
One user claimed that Nano would have been a better option for a transfer of this magnitude as it’s blockchain can act faster, and cheaper, but as pointed out, the transfer itself was many times larger than Nano’s entire market cap.