UX

HSuke

I made the mistake of focusing too much on your 1st point (where the infrastructure is hosted) and glossed over your later points (e.g. full application stack is not on-chain for most other blockchains). Personally, I don't really care about your 1st point that much, but your later points are quite good and a concern for other blockchains. For other blockchains, most of the dApp is hosted off-chain, and only the state change for smart contract is hosted on-chain (e.g. changes in account balances). Client-side wallet UX hasn't gotten advanced enough to decipher a complex batch transaction for non-technical users. That is a concern for trustlessness. Much of the reason consumers trust dApps is almost entirely reputation-based. For example, we trust OpenSea or Uniswap because they have gained sufficient reputation and known teams, and because there are enough users to raise alarms if something goes wrong. But if a dApp developer ever decides to go rogue and be malicious for a one-time whale attack, this would be really hard to prevent on other blockchains if the whale consumer is on auto-pilot signing transactions generated from the dApp without carefully examining them. I think ICP is the best solution for when the application full stack needs to be run entirely on-chain. On the other hand, would this make things more secure for non-devs? They don't have control over the application code. Non-dev end users are still trusting that the dev using ICP is running the correct code and making safe updates.

EuphoricParley

For blue wallet: A tale as old as open source, free, super powerful and versatile, UI/UX straight from bureaucracy city of the 90s, most secure, free, so no complaints! Godspeed to the developers!

RefrigeratorLow1259

Well, as I said - RGB has it's uses, but I asked a LLM what it thought of both BitVMX/zK SNARKS/RISC-V/Cardano Vs RGB: Take from it what you will: ​That's an excellent breakdown of the RGB approach, and it's clear you've done your research. However, while RGB is a clever solution for adding functionality to Bitcoin, the Cardano/BitVMX model with zk-SNARKs and RISC-V represents a fundamentally superior and more secure paradigm for general-purpose smart contracts. ​The core difference lies in the trade-offs of client-side validation vs. on-chain verification. RGB's model is a workaround necessitated by Bitcoin's intentional limitations, whereas Cardano's approach is a direct solution designed for a trustless, global smart contract platform. ​Here's a direct counter-argument to each of your points: ​1. On-Chain Verification is a Superior Security Model ​You're right that RGB uses client-side validation, which allows for complex logic without a Bitcoin soft fork. However, this is also its biggest weakness. In this model, only the transaction participants and the "state owners" have the full history needed to validate a transaction. This creates a significant information asymmetry and a trust assumption. ​Fraud Potential: A user must be vigilant and online to validate the entire history of an asset, which opens the door for potential fraud or disputes if data is lost or a state transition is malformed. ​The Oracle Problem: For a DeFi app like a DEX, every user would need to trust that every other user is performing their own validation correctly. This is not a trustless system in the same way as on-chain verification, where the entire network of nodes validates every state transition. ​Cardano's Solution: Cardano's eUTXO model, combined with BitVMX, zk-SNARKs, and RISC-V, solves this problem. It allows for off-chain computation and scaling, but with the critical ability to optimistically verify the results on-chain. If a dispute arises, a fraud proof (a zero-knowledge proof) can be submitted and verified on the blockchain, definitively resolving the issue in a trustless manner. This combines the scalability of off-chain execution with the unassailable security of on-chain finality. ​2. General-Purpose vs. Specific-Purpose DeFi ​While projects like KaleidoSwap are building on RGB, they are operating within the constraints of a client-side validated model. This limits the complexity and composability of the DeFi ecosystem. ​Complexity: Building a complex DEX with liquidations, lending, and sophisticated vaults is far more challenging on a system where state is not globally verifiable. You can't easily create a dApp that needs to read the state of another dApp in a trustless way. ​Cardano's Solution: Cardano's on-chain Plutus smart contracts and the upcoming BitVMX integration provide a robust, composable, and globally verifiable environment for DeFi. Every dApp's state is publicly available and secured by the mainnet, allowing for seamless and trustless interaction between different protocols. ​3. Scaling is Not Unbounded, and Lightning is Not a Smart Contract Platform ​The claim of "massive unbounded scaling" with Lightning is misleading. The Lightning Network is designed primarily for peer-to-peer payments, not for the complex, stateful logic of smart contracts. While it can be used for simple transfers, it struggles with the multi-party, multi-step transactions required for DeFi. ​State Channels: A Lightning channel is a state channel between two parties. Adding more parties and complex logic is incredibly difficult and unwieldy, limiting its use for decentralized finance. ​Cardano's Solution: Cardano's scaling approach is holistic. It includes the Hydra L2 protocol, a more advanced form of state channel designed for multi-party dApps, as well as the upcoming BitVMX integration which uses zk-SNARKs to offload computation. This multi-pronged approach is designed from the ground up to handle both simple payments and complex, stateful smart contracts, all while retaining the security of the L1. ​4. Latency and UX are Fundamentally Better on a General-Purpose L1 ​Off-chain handling via Lightning may seem fast, but it's not a general solution. For most smart contract interactions, users still need to go back to the L1 for settlement, which is slow and expensive. ​User Experience: For a user to interact with a smart contract on RGB, they need to manage their own off-chain data and ensure they are always online to participate in validation. This is a cumbersome user experience compared to a blockchain where the state is always available and verifiable by anyone. ​Cardano's Solution: Cardano's Plutus scripts, combined with L2 solutions like Hydra, allow for a much better user experience. Transactions can be batched and executed off-chain with minimal latency, while the on-chain settlement is fast and cheap compared to Bitcoin. The state is handled by the network, not the individual, which simplifies the process for the user. ​5. zk-SNARKs for On-Chain Verification, not Client-Side Privacy ​The use of zk STARKs in RGB is primarily for privacy and scaling via hiding data. However, the true power of zero-knowledge proofs is in creating trustless, verifiable computation. ​The Critical Difference: Cardano's approach with BitVMX will use zk-SNARKs to prove the correctness of off-chain computations. This means a node can verify in a fraction of a second that a complex program was executed correctly, without needing to re-run the entire computation. This is a far more robust and secure use of the technology. ​RISC-V and BitVMX: The combination of a standardized instruction set (RISC-V) with a verifiable computation protocol (BitVMX) creates a universal "verifiable computing" layer. This allows any program to be compiled to RISC-V and its execution proven on-chain with a zk-SNARK, a feature that goes far beyond what is possible with RGB's current implementation. ​6. Bitcoin's Limitations Are a Reality, Not a Distraction ​The talk about opcodes and forks is not a distraction—it's the fundamental reason why RGB and other complex workarounds are necessary. Bitcoin's intentionally limited scripting language prevents complex smart contracts from being run natively and securely on the mainnet. ​Turing Completeness: Cardano's Plutus is a Turing-complete language, meaning it can express any computable function. This allows for a much wider range of applications and more sophisticated logic than Bitcoin's non-Turing-complete scripting language. ​The Right Tool for the Job: While Bitcoin is a powerful and secure digital asset, its architecture is not designed for the complex, stateful applications of modern decentralized finance. Cardano, with its eUTXO model and a dedicated smart contract platform, is a purpose-built solution that provides a superior environment for advanced functionality. ​In summary, while RGB is an innovative protocol, it is ultimately a pragmatic solution to the limitations of its host chain. Cardano's approach, leveraging BitVMX, zk-SNARKs, and RISC-V, is a more foundational solution that provides a secure, trustless, and scalable environment for smart contracts by combining the best of off-chain computation with the unparalleled security of on-chain verification.

ormagoisha

I don't agree with that Cardano/BitVMX perspective. RGB offers strong DeFi potential on Bitcoin without those specific trade-offs: - RGB supports complex smart contracts through client-side validation, AluVM for flexible logic, Contractum for development, and single-use seals for secure state. All native to Bitcoin, no soft forks required. - For DEX pools and liquidity: projects like KaleidoSwap (alpha on Lightning) and UTXOSwap (mainnet via RGB++) are developing AMMs, swaps, and vaults. - It integrates directly with Bitcoin L1, Lightning for faster transactions, and prime for massive unbounded scaling, fully within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and completely decentralized. - On latency and UX, off-chain handling via Lightning minimizes issues for routine operations, with L1 only for final settlements; this maintains better alignment with Bitcoin's principles compared to on-chain alternatives. - Overall, with v0.12 now production-ready and features like zk STARKs for privacy and scaling, RGB strengthens Bitcoin's case against needing alts for advanced functionality.

RefrigeratorLow1259

It's a good solution for transfers, NFTs and Stables, not really for complex smart contracts, all the contract logic is on the RGB client part, no good for dex pools/ liquidity protocols, if you want full DeFi functionality on top of Bitcoin without suffering RGB’s latency and UX trade-offs, then Cardano's extensible UTXO and BitVMX with RISC-V as the execution layer is the better architecture. Cardano handles state directly on-chain. BitVMX fraud proofs only trigger when there’s a dispute, so in normal operation, latency is just Cardano’s block time.

LargeSnorlax

Ever use any of these interchain operability on a daily basis? It's absolutely miserable to use, keep track of, and make sure everything is in the right place. If a normal person thinks Crypto is miserable to use as UX, a crypto person is going to think Cosmos and interchain stuff is miserable. Go ahead, try it out, try to swap a few things between different weird cosmos bridges and see if you can get the right results without googling at least a few times.

Brave_Wafer_7240

Can’t you just offer the option to delay the conversion by a day? That would match your existing UX with the free 24-hour transfers and allow you to queue the buy with your next batch window (or however you handle DCAs currently that allows you to offer them free). The point is having a “click-button” experience rather than trying to synchronize a direct deposit in cash and a separate DCA schedule.

One-Awareness785

Ledger’s had more resources to invest in UX, so the app feels slicker. Trezor puts more focus on transparency and security than flashy UI

see-ptsd

I use Strike to buy BTC because they have decent rates, great UI and UX, and I like Jack Mallers. I use Amethyst for Nostr.  I'm tired of algorithms throwing aome kind of hatred or rage bait in my face for engagement.  Since Nostr is decentralized, there are no ads, no algorithm, and people tend to be pretty real.  It takes a minute to find your crowd, but now enjoy my Nostr time much more than any other social network.

jawni

>so you’re basically selling crypto at POS That's how paying with anything works. When you buy something with cash you're just selling the cash. >Still counts for UX, but it’s not on-chain commerce If they're swapping the asset you pay with, then there would have to be onchain commerce. It's just happening after when it would happen if it were done directly onchain. Either they're holding what you pay with or they're swapping it. They might batch the transactions, but onchain commerce will still happen at some point and in some capacity.

-LoboMau

It’s getting there, but most of those are fiat-settled at the merchant via processors (Flexa/BitPay), so you’re basically selling crypto at POS. Still counts for UX, but it’s not on-chain commerce

unipcs

i think the main reason why Bitcoin memecoins have not gained traction is because the barrier to entry to them is still very high and the UX is too complicated improvements in the space that make it much easier to buy them would help accelerate their adoption these improvements could be in form of key CEX listings, widely accepted AMMs, or some other innovation that make it stupid easy to buy them by clicking a few buttons

Reddilip

Bit of an older thread but still relevant, this convo comes up every cycle. Everyone’s been chasing that dream stack: security, UX, liquidity, low fees, compliance. But maybe the answer isn’t cramming it all into one protocol, maybe it’s better coordination between the ones we already have. Some of the newer infra like Biconomy lets you string cross-chain actions together like it’s one smooth move. No more bouncing through five apps and signing a dozen txs. That kind of orchestration might be what finally tips the scale against TradFi. Complexity’s the killer. Hide that, and things get interesting.

Great-Roll-3335

Hey, totally get where you’re coming from. I’m 30, freelancing in UX design and get paid in USD too—huge advantage when your local currency lags. I used to park most of my savings in gold, but over the last year I’ve been DCAing into BTC and sending it straight to my wallet via MoonPay (super simple). I’ve already got my basics covered—place, wheels, the works—so I’m rotating about half my nest egg into Bitcoin and the other half into land here in Indonesia. If all goes well, I’m aiming to hang up my laptop around 40. HODL strong! 🚀

Mikester258

The main reason Tron sticks around is that it’s still one of the cheapest and fastest options for stablecoin transfers, especially for USDT. Yeah, renting energy can be annoying for one-off users, but for anyone staking tron, they generate their own energy - so regular users basically avoid those fees. It’s not the prettiest UX, but for people transacting often or in larger volumes, it adds up to major savings

puffythegiraffe

In recent years, most of consumer habits have moved towards buying through distribution platforms - in the case Steam for games. If a publisher were to not launch on Steam because they have content that will be taken down, and they have to launch on their own site, is that really viable? Consumer UX would be poorer, not to mention traffic also decreases.

SamsulKarim1

I get where you’re coming from, CEXs still win for convenience and fiat access, no doubt. But the thing that’s kept me using DEXs more lately is how much better some of the tools have gotten. Like with Jumper Exchange, bridging and swapping between chains is a lot smoother now, and I don’t have to deal with five tabs just to get a token on the right chain. Still not perfect, but it’s closing the gap for folks who care about UX and decentralization.

magus-21

>I have no access to FedNow or RTP that's for financial institutions. Just saying, the notion that traditional finance only operates 9-5 is a myth. >That's their decision. But the transaction would go through quickly. Then how does Bitcoin help your situation? >Your standard small business is paying around 3% and .25c. Citation needed. >You are being purposely obtuse. Reread my comment again. Ok. You said: "I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me 'why is finality so important?' It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions." You haven't shown that "customers are willing to pay for quicker finality." All you've shown is that Venmo offers it as an option. That is NOT the same thing. >I did not say this. I never said this. You're right, you didn't. What you actually said is: "I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality." Except that you didn't. You misunderstood what you "showed." >This is a great example of how you are completely misconstruing what I'm saying. No, you're misremembering what you've said and what you think you've "proven." >I did. I gave you multiple examples. Yes, NOW you have. And we're still working on whether they're valid examples or not, because you haven't shown how Bitcoin would have helped you in either example. >And that's my point. If I need to pay someone RIGHT NOW and my business depends on it and it's past banking hours and over the low Zelle limits I'm shit out of luck. And like I said: "even YOU must see how much of an edge case that is." >You are severely confused. No, you are. >I've given you examples of why you don't understand our current financial system Which led to me proving how YOU are the one who didn't understand how the current financial system actually worked. >why you don't understand bitcoin No, all you did was spout jargon about decentralization, P2P, and finality. At no point did you demonstrate any awareness of how Bitcoin actually works on a technical or economic level. You even forgot the fact that Bitcoin isn't truly P2P because it relies on miners as intermediaries. >why you don't understand why a person/business would like instant payment vs waiting I understand why someone would WANT that. I'm just asking you to quantify what the actual benefit is, other than using increasingly unlikely edge cases. >, UX vs backend, etc. You're the one who thinks the financial system shuts down at 5pm. >You have consistently misconstrued what I said. No, I haven't. >If you don't think bitcoin will be useful for ANY type of payments in the future, fine. Believe what you want. Not what I said. What I said is that Bitcoin hasn't proven to be MORE useful than the current traditional financial system in any niche.

KlearCat

> I'm going to assume you're not in the US because you said it's Friday over there, but FedNow and RTP operate 24/7/365 and are instantaneous. I have no access to FedNow or RTP that's for financial institutions. > Also, you haven't answered how they would accept your Bitcoin payment, considering they won't be able to get the money into their accounts until Monday anyway because they still have to exchange the Bitcoin for money and then transfer the money into their account. That's their decision. But the transaction would go through quickly. > So you're not really saving by using something like BitPay after all. Maybe you just need to find a better card processor to work with. Your standard small business is paying around 3% and .25c. > Why is this so hard to understand? You are being purposely obtuse. Reread my comment again. > No, you are, by claiming that it MUST be useful just because you can pay for it. I did not say this. I never said this. This is a great example of how you are completely misconstruing what I'm saying. I never made a claim that just because something is for sale that it is useful--solely because it is for sale and for that reason alone. And to be clear, I did say that instant payments ARE useful to SOME people for SOME transactions. > but provide no rationale and no examples of how it would be more than a marginal improvement over what we already have. I did. I gave you multiple examples. > then you're acting as if a weekend delay is a make-or-break moment for your business. It can be. And that's my point. If I need to pay someone RIGHT NOW and my business depends on it and it's past banking hours and over the low Zelle limits I'm shit out of luck. > And don't think I haven't noticed that you abandoned everything else you were talking about before with regards to "backends vs UX" and whether Bitcoin is a currency or money or whatever. I just assume you realize you were less informed than I was and stopped trying. You are severely confused. I've given you examples of why you don't understand our current financial system, why you don't understand bitcoin, why you don't understand why a person/business would like instant payment vs waiting, UX vs backend, etc. You have consistently misconstrued what I said. If you don't think bitcoin will be useful for ANY type of payments in the future, fine. Believe what you want.

magus-21

>Shipping is M-Sa, and shipping LTL and FTL, can be done any day of the week. So yes, it could be shipped Friday in this scenario. I'm going to assume you're not in the US because you said it's Friday over there, but [FedNow](https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organizations) and [RTP](https://www.theclearinghouse.org/payment-systems/rtp/institution) operate 24/7/365 and are instantaneous. Also, you haven't answered how they would accept your Bitcoin payment, considering they won't be able to get the money into their accounts until Monday anyway because they still have to exchange the Bitcoin for money and then transfer the money into their account. >Great! This proves my point well. Well, not really, because I dug into it a bit more: * [Discover](https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/discover-interchange-rates/) charges between 1% and 2.5%, plus $0.05 to $0.10 per transaction * [Visa](https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/visa-interchange-rates/) charges between 1.3% and 2.10% plus $0.10 per transaction And yes, I know there are additional fees on top of the interchange fees. But [third party processors](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-card-processing-fees) like Shopify, Stripe, etc., charge 2.5% to 3.5% (vs 2% for BitPay) and $0.05 to $0.10 per transaction (vs $0.25 for BitPay), but Helcim only charges interchange + 0.5%. So you're not really saving by using something like BitPay after all. (I'm assuming the percentages are higher for Shopify, Stripe, etc., because they rely more on smaller value but higher volume merchants than someone whose average transaction is $1,200.) >Come on, you are being ridiculous. No, I'm not. Just because a thing is for sale doesn't automatically make it useful. All it means is that the seller thinks they can convince their customers it's useful. Why is this so hard to understand? >To claim that instant payment vs. 1-3 days waiting is not useful to some people is crazy. You are purposely being obtuse here. No, you are, by claiming that it MUST be useful just because you can pay for it. This is what I mean by "You are not rational." You are relying on "Trust me, bro" vibes to justify your claim that "Oh, it must be useful because it's for sale." Demonstrate the actual utility. >It's quite a weird hill to die on, but to be honest its pretty much par for the course. This isn't a hill to die on. This is yet another thing you are brushing under a rug because you can't answer. I appreciate your earlier examples, but what you are doing right now with THIS particular topic is your MO the whole thread: loudly proclaim the value of THIS THING Bitcoin does, but provide no rationale and no examples of how it would be more than a marginal improvement over what we already have. It took this long just to extract a couple of examples from you, and even then you're acting as if a weekend delay is a make-or-break moment for your business. I get that it CAN be, but even YOU must see how much of an edge case that is. And don't think I haven't noticed that you abandoned everything else you were talking about before with regards to "backends vs UX" and the nature of currency vs money and whatnot.

magus-21

> Example 1: I own a business, my average credit card transaction from customers is $1200. I pay $36 per transaction. If my customers paid in bitcoin I'd save 10s of thousands of dollars a year in fees. Them paying in Bitcoin is a benefit to you, not to them. >Example 2: I own a business, my vendor is waiting for payment to release shipment of a critical item I need costing $8k. It's now Friday 3pm and my bank's wire desk is closed. I can't send the money until Monday. I could send bitcoin and have it there in minutes. And? Would they release it instantly? How does paying on a Friday afternoon instead of a Monday morning get it to you any faster? >I could make infinite of these. Challenge accepted. Go wild. >And just to be crystal clear, bitcoin is not just an option for payments, it's much more than that. But we seem to only be focused on payments. I'm not only focused on payments. I'm looking for any use case. But the financial system is fundamentally about processing transactions and valuing goods and services, so it's understandably a major factor. >Every word I chose is very specific and a fundamental practical utility to bitcoin. None of which you've explained or provided an example for. >It absolutely is an example of importance. Speed to finality is so important people are willing to pay a % of their money for speed. Obviously they have the option to do this. No it's not. It's **implied** to be important, but you have no evidence of it actually being important. How many people actually use it? I can tell you my cousin used it when I was supporting him, until I told him the regular option is almost always overnight. >I'm not sure why you are so confused by finality being useful in certain cases. I'm not confused. I'm just not doing your work for you to prove that finality is useful. >I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me "why is finality so important?" It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions. "Willingness to pay" is not evidence of "usefulness" in a world where Labubus go for thousands of dollars. >The reason Zelle limits are low are because the "instant" transaction you see on your UX is not actually happening in real time. It's not final. Zelle is taking a risk and therefor limits you on how much you can send. Yes, I know. It doesn't matter to my friend who saw the money in his bank account. >It's not actually there. It's an IOU until it's actually finished in a few days. And that doesn't matter for the end user. >What other P2P systems are you talking about? I have no idea what you are claiming here. I'm saying that you cited "speed" as a beneficial property of P2P. I'm pointing out that speed is only a beneficial property of **cash** specifically, not P2P systems in general, including Bitcoin. >You are just not reading my comments. >I'm not refusing to admit that some people want a bitcoin standard. >I was very specific with that I said I'll just repeat it. >-I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. >-I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants. And I already said: You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me.

KlearCat

> You've described the benefits of cash over credit at a restaurant, and implied that instantaneous withdrawal is a desirable (but not necessarily useful) feature for Venmo's customers, but not once have you provided an example where Bitcoin has a useful niche. Example 1: I own a business, my average credit card transaction from customers is $1200. I pay $36 per transaction. If my customers paid in bitcoin I'd save 10s of thousands of dollars a year in fees. Example 2: I own a business, my vendor is waiting for payment to release shipment of a critical item I need costing $8k. It's now Friday 3pm and my bank's wire desk is closed. I can't send the money until Monday. I could send bitcoin and have it there in minutes. I could make infinite of these. And just to be crystal clear, bitcoin is not just an option for payments, it's much more than that. But we seem to only be focused on payments. > That's just a bunch of buzzwords that don't translate to actual practical utility. Every word I chose is very specific and a fundamental practical utility to bitcoin. > That's not an example of importance. That's an example of optionality. It absolutely is an example of importance. Speed to finality is so important people are willing to pay a % of their money for speed. Obviously they have the option to do this. > It's also not an example of Bitcoin's finality being useful I'm not sure why you are so confused by finality being useful in certain cases. I've shown you that customers are willing to pay for quicker finality. It shows there is demand for it. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and understand it and then ask me "why is finality so important?" It's clearly important to some people for some types of transactions. > I can send a Zelle at 2am and my friend will see it represented in their account immediately. The reason Zelle limits are low are because the "instant" transaction you see on your UX is not actually happening in real time. It's not final. Zelle is taking a risk and therefor limits you on how much you can send. It's not actually there. It's an IOU until it's actually finished in a few days. > Speed is a property of cash and other portable physical assets because they are portable and physical, not because they are "P2P." Speed is not necessarily a property of P2P systems. It's highly conditional. What other P2P systems are you talking about? I have no idea what you are claiming here. > You're just digging your heels in and refusing to admin that cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard (which starts with Bitcoin being adopted as a reserve asset) for some inexplicable reason. You are just not reading my comments. I'm not refusing to admit that some people want a bitcoin standard. I was very specific with that I said I'll just repeat it. -I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. -I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants.

magus-21

>This is the same issue you had with Zelle. >You equate UX with backend. No, you equate backend with the whole system. I understand how the backend works for all of these systems. But people don't interact with the backend. >See, you are doing it again. No, I'm not doing it again. You're again equating backend with the whole system. >It's not a replacement for cash. You still aren't getting it. >Physical cash is the base layer for fiat currency. >A bitcoin transaction is the base layer for the bitcoin network. >That's why they are equivalent. Physical cash is not the base layer for fiat currency. The dollar is, no matter what form it takes. Physical cash is just a representation of the dollar for physical transactions, but banks don't literally ship pallets of cash to each other to settle transactions. That is why they are NOT equivalent. >You are wrong and it's easily provable. Many companies accept bitcoin as payment. You can also go to other countries and pay using bitcoin. >You keep repeating this lie, but it's verifiably wrong. Like I said, if you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. >But you HAVE been objecting to this! Look at the quote above, you have literally been rejecting this idea for multiple comments now. No, I've been rejecting the notion that Bitcoin is money, not currency. Do you understand the difference? Only in my last comment did I touch on the idea of Bitcoin as currency, which is when I specified its limited validity as a currency. >Sure, if I had Laotian Kip on me I couldn't use that to buy anything. Literally nothing. In fact, I couldn't even exchange it in my city as no exchange would take it. But that doesn't mean Laotian Kip isn't a currency. Actually that's exactly what it means. Unless the merchants where you are accept an asset as currency and denominate prices for their goods/services in that asset, it's not a currency where you are. That doesn't mean it isn't a currency in Laos, but it's not a currency in most countries. >How would you not know? You could just look at a chart to see it's relation to whatever fiat currency you want. The fact that you need to look it up at all is my point. Those charts only represent what the last buyer was willing to pay, but there's no guarantee the next buyer will pay the same amount. Its value is not "real" until someone else as paid you real money for it, at which point you have gained "real value" and your counterparty has lost "real value" (in the form of real money, not Bitcoin). >If I sent you 20,000 Colombian Pesos would you know how much you can buy with it off the top of your head? Colombian Pesos aren't a currency here. It's a currency in Colombia and any other countries that accept it. >What if I gave you a pebble of gold? Not a currency here either. I know there are some jurisdictions where it's still accepted. >So there is no real value unless you know the conversion off the top of your head? There is no **real**ized value until you've exchanged it for real money first or have established an agreed-upon price in a real money with your counterparty and completed the transaction. If you're just holding it with no counterparty, there is no way you can have any "**real**ized" value because you have no counterparty. >I'm pretty confused at the point you are making here. Yes, simple concepts like "prices" must be very confusing. >Many reasons, honestly too many to list. >P2P can be cheaper, faster than current financial processing. (NOTE: I said CAN be. Not ALWAYS IS) >P2P can be run 24/7/365 So does the traditional financial system. I can send a Zelle at 2am and my friend will see it represented in their account immediately. And yes, in this case the backend DOES run 24/7/365, not just the UX. It's not like American banks shut down their data centers in Nebraska at 5pm EST. >Think of using a credit card to buy a $200 dinner. You are borrowing money from a credit card company with a very high APR, that credit card company is then sending an IOU to the restaurant's credit card processing company and then in 1-3 business days the restaurant will get that money. The credit card company will then give the user 30 days free interest then start charging interest. The restaurant pays $6.25 for that service. There are about 3 different 3rd parties involved each getting a cut of transaction with YOU as the consumer are paying for whether you see it directly or not. >Clearly P2P would be faster and cheaper. And you don't even need to go to bitcoin for this, just paying physical cash for dinner would be faster (instant) and cheaper (free). Speed is a property of cash and other portable physical assets because they are portable and physical, not because they are "P2P." Speed is not necessarily a property of P2P. Also, we're talking about Bitcoin, so use Bitcoin examples. >I never said 1 hour finality is important. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I never made that claim. You specifically called out "finality" and "P2P" as the properties Bitcoin shares with cash that makes it a cash equivalent: "And you are absolutely right I'm harping on decentralized and finality as those are some of the KEY components of what makes a bitcoin transaction different." >Finality time CAN be important depending on the transaction. 1 hour is certainly better than 1-3 business days. >For example (and I'll do one without even using bitcoin) -if you want to withdraw your Venmo balance to your bank account it takes 1-3 business days, or you can pay a % for "instant" withdrawals. Clearly there is interest in users who don't want to wait. That's not an example of importance. That's an example of speed being an option. It's also not an example of Bitcoin's finality being useful. You keep bringing up examples of how other financial products are useful, but not one example of how Bitcoin would be useful. >You appear to keep being confused about the gold standard vs. reserve assets. I am not. You're just digging your heels in and refusing to believe that cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard, which starts with Bitcoin being adopted as a reserve asset. >I do too. Clearly not. >And I think a decentralized, global, digital P2P monetary network that runs 24/7/365 is a benefit to society. That's just a bunch of buzzwords that don't translate to actual practical utility.

KlearCat

> A Bitcoin transaction, from a practical end user's perspective, has more in common with a credit or debit card transaction. This is the same issue you had with Zelle. You equate UX with backend. > If a normal bank will let me use "pending" funds as if they were normal funds, then as far as I'm concerned, the transaction is completed. See, you are doing it again. > I AM denying is that it is a replacement for cash, because it simply isn't used that way. It's not a replacement for cash. You still aren't getting it. Physical cash is the base layer for fiat currency. A bitcoin transaction is the base layer for the bitcoin network. That's why they are equivalent. > Not without exchanging it for real money. You are wrong and it's easily provable. Many companies accept bitcoin as payment. You can also go to other countries and pay using bitcoin. You keep repeating this lie, but it's verifiably wrong. > If you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. But you HAVE been objecting to this! Look at the quote above, you have literally been rejecting this idea for multiple comments now. You literally reject this idea over and over in this comment. > But just understand that there are plenty of examples of "currencies" that share that quality that most people would not regard as real currencies, either. Sure, if I had Laotian Kip on me I couldn't use that to buy anything. Literally nothing. In fact, I couldn't even exchange it in my city as no exchange would take it. But that doesn't mean Laotian Kip isn't a currency. > If you sent me 25,000 sats right now, I'd have no idea what that can actually buy or how much change I'd get in return. That's not "real" value. How would you not know? You could just look at a chart to see it's relation to whatever fiat currency you want. If I sent you 20,000 Colombian Pesos would you know how much you can buy with it off the top of your head? What if I gave you a pebble of gold? So there is no real value unless you know the conversion off the top of your head? I'm pretty confused at the point you are making here. > Why is P2P important? And I don't mean from a pseudophilosophical/political activist standpoint. I mean in real terms, for practical uses, why is it important for digital payments to have a P2P option instead of going through a normal processing network? Many reasons, honestly too many to list. P2P can be cheaper, faster than current financial processing. (NOTE: I said CAN be. Not ALWAYS IS) P2P can be run 24/7/365 P2P is useful in many situations, not every situation. Think of using a credit card to buy a $200 dinner. You are borrowing money from a credit card company with a very high APR, that credit card company is then sending an IOU to the restaurant's credit card processing company and then in 1-3 business days the restaurant will get that money. The credit card company will then give the user 30 days free interest then start charging interest. The restaurant pays $6.25 for that service. There are about 3 different 3rd parties involved each getting a cut of transaction with YOU as the consumer are paying for whether you see it directly or not. Clearly P2P would be faster and cheaper. And you don't even need to go to bitcoin for this, just paying physical cash for dinner would be faster (instant) and cheaper (free). That's just 1 example. And just to be ultra clear, **I'm not saying P2P is the best way to transact for every transacting scenario.** > Why is ~1 hour finality important? I never said 1 hour finality is important. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I never made that claim. Finality time CAN be important depending on the transaction. 1 hour is certainly better than 1-3 business days. For example (and I'll do one without even using bitcoin) -if you want to withdraw your Venmo balance to your bank account it takes 1-3 business days, or you can pay a % for "instant" withdrawals. Clearly there is interest in users who don't want to wait. (and just like Zelle, it's not actually instant in the backend, just for the UX, with low limits.) > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me. You appear to keep being confused about the gold standard vs. reserve assets. Reserve assets are assets held by central banks used to manage a country's balance, influence exchange rates, and provide overall financial stability. For instance, the US holding gold right now is a reserve asset. The gold standard is when a country's currency is directly related to gold and the country will exchange it's currency for a specific fixed amount of gold. > I care about what matters to real people. I do too. And I think a decentralized, global, digital P2P monetary network that runs 24/7/365 is a benefit to society.

magus-21

>You are very confused and wrong. I'm the very complete opposite. You need to step out of this sub and touch grass. >A physical cash transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. >A bitcoin transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. Those are literally the only qualities Bitcoin shares with cash, and you've convinced yourself that those are the most important qualities when it comes to determining Bitcoin's equivalency to other transaction types. Sorry, but no. Bitcoin's other qualities make it far more comparable to credit and debit networks. The need for connectivity, the traceable record of the transaction, the ability to transfer value long distance, the need for a transaction fee paid to a third party, the ability to integrate with computer applications, the ability to account for sub-cent values (technically possible), etc. I am not denying that Bitcoin is a **brand new innovation** that is different from everything else that came before. It has cash-like qualities, it has debit card-like qualities, and it has qualities that have never been seen before. But what I AM denying is that it is a replacement for cash, because it simply isn't used that way. It was intended to be, but Satoshi was a WAY better computer scientist than he was an economist or monetary theorist. A Bitcoin transaction, from a practical end user's perspective, has more in common with a credit or debit card transaction. And Bitcoin itself is more of an investment asset than a currency. >There is literally no other P2P fiat transaction. Not credit cards, checks, wires, apps, etc. Those all require 3rd parties to facilitate the transaction for you. Bitcoin also requires third parties to facilitate the transaction (the miners), so it's not even true peer-to-peer. Never mind the fact that P2P is not important at all when comparing transaction methods. >This is actually a great example of why it's so hard you to understand these concepts. You don't know how our current financial system works including these financial products in which you are the customer. >The Zelle UX tricks you into thinking the transaction is instant, when in reality it takes days to settle on the backend. That's why Zelle has such low daily/monthly limits. No, I know how it works. You're just trying to convince me that it's important. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're utterly blinded by the tech wizardry that you are ignoring the actual practical impacts. It doesn't matter that the banks on the back end have to move *their* numbers around for another day or so, and it doesn't matter that it's not technically peer-to-peer (especially since Bitcoin isn't P2P, either). If a friend of mine in New York sends me $100 via Zelle that I can use to pay for a flat tire fix, then it's fast enough for me. If a normal bank will let me use "pending" funds as if they were normal funds, then as far as I'm concerned, the transaction is completed. And, as I've already mentioned, you keep omitting the time it takes to exchange Bitcoin for real money in your statements about finality. A Bitcoin transaction's "finality" is isolated to the Bitcoin Network, but it is not actually finalized (realized) until it's exchanged for real money. >This is false. Bitcoin can be used and accepted as a currency. Not without exchanging it for real money. I'm pretty sure that none of the few **legitimate** merchants that accept Bitcoin actually hold it. They convert it as instantly to real money as soon as they get it. That doesn't make Bitcoin a currency. If you want to claim that Bitcoin is a currency with a very limited scope in terms of what can be purchased directly with it, I'm not going to object to that. But just understand that there are plenty of examples of "currencies" that share that quality that most people would not regard as real currencies, either. >This is false. I've been very clear and rational. If you don't think so, quote me and point out what is not clear. No, you THINK you're being rational because you're repeating the same jargon you've learned on this sub, but jargon isn't rationality. And you make Why is P2P important? And I don't mean from a pseudophilosophical/political activist standpoint. I mean in real terms, for practical uses, why is it important for digital payments to have a P2P option instead of going through a normal processing network? Why is ~1 hour finality important? You've simply accepted these as unambiguously important qualities, but a normal person would just look at those statements and ask "Why?" >Bitcoin doesn't need to be exchanged for the value to be realized. It absolutely does. >If someone sent you 1 bitcoin right now would you not feel that you have anything of value until you exchange it for fiat? That is what you are claiming. No, what I'm claiming is that I would not know what value I held until I sold it, because who the fuck knows when the next crash or spike will happen? That is what it means for value to be "un**real**ized." "Realized" value means there's no speculation (in all senses of that word) about the value of the asset you are holding. If you sent me 25,000 sats right now, I'd have no idea what that can actually buy or how much change I'd get in return. That's not "real" value. "Realized" value is knowing, without ambiguity, that 25 dollar bills will cover the cost for a Netflix premium subscription. The fact that you don't understand this further proves that you are the one who doesn't understand financial systems. >I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one who came prancing into this thread clucking about "Hurr durr wanting Bitcoin to be a reserve asset doesn't mean they want a Bitcoin standard." If anything, you're the one who needs to convince me. >It's meaningless to me. I don't care what's meaningless to you. I care about what matters to real people.

KlearCat

> Bitcoin is entirely dissimilar cash in so many other ways that it cannot be treated as equivalent to cash when there are other equivalents that it much more closely resembles. You are very confused and wrong. A physical cash transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. There is literally no other P2P fiat transaction. Not credit cards, checks, wires, apps, etc. Those all require 3rd parties to facilitate the transaction for you. A bitcoin transaction is a P2P transaction that ends in finality. > Zelle is faster. This is actually a great example of why it's so hard you to understand these concepts. You don't know how our current financial system works including these financial products in which you are the customer. The Zelle UX tricks you into thinking the transaction is instant, when in reality it takes days to settle on the backend. That's why Zelle has such low daily/monthly limits. > So? You are ignoring literally every other characteristic that Bitcoin shares with digital transactions and holding up "decentralization" and "finality" on pedestals as THE distinguishing characteristics that make it equivalent to cash. That's called cherrypicking. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm specifically pointing out the most important differences. That's not cherry picking. And you are absolutely right I'm harping on decentralized and finality as those are some of the KEY components of what makes a bitcoin transaction different. > You can't send money outside of banking hours with Bitcoin because you still need to exchange Bitcoin for money, which requires banks. This is false. Bitcoin can be used and accepted as a currency. > You, on the other hand, ARE an anonymous online poster saying crazy stupid shit who hasn't really provided any valid rationale for his points. This is false. I've been very clear and rational. If you don't think so, quote me and point out what is not clear. > You ignore Bitcoin's OTHER characteristics and cherrypick only the ones you think relevant in order to argue Bitcoin is like cash What characteristic am I ignoring? > You ignore the necessity of exchanging Bitcoin for money for the value to be realized and utilized by the recipient Bitcoin doesn't need to be exchanged for the value to be realized. If someone sent you 1 bitcoin right now would you not feel that you have anything of value until you exchange it for fiat? That is what you are claiming. And that is so ridiculous it's hard to even take seriously. > You quibble about whether cryptobros want a Bitcoin standard or not knowing full well that they do I don't care what "cryptobros" want. You would need to first show me WHY I should care about what "cryptobros" want. I couldn't care less what "cryptobros" want. Just like I don't care what some random person on the sidewalk next to me wants. It's meaningless to me.

lightbulb-7

If you have an old computer or a RPi, downloading Start9 OS and setting it up is fairly easy to do. There is little that can go wrong. Umbrel has also a very friendly UI and UX, but I like Start9 more

epic_trader

I think you misunderstand what I said. I said you're not going to have 100s of different public blockchains that users will have to bridge across. That's a UX and security nightmare. Like you said, almost all stablecoins are on ETH, that's literally the point I was making.

One_Instruction8635

Zcash having a compatibility layer that is transparent and the same as BTC is why Maya DEX and NEAR intents can easily uptake there are bridges coming online as well. I think its also fine that CEXs use it as you can audit them. All users txs should be private though which is why Zashi is great. Zcash is private by default with Zashi it always forces users to shield and the UX is better than even phantom. Soon they will native swaps and even pay to most crypto QR codes from Zashi which will swap on behalf of the user for the requested payment token and send it.

ImActuallyASpy

More people use eth ¯⁠\\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ The UX of any given chain will not matter when you can tap your exchange credit/debit card at a point of sale terminal, type in a pin, and your stablecoins leave a wallet that you hold the private keys to, and are practically instantly settled in the vendors wallet, for any chain of yours/the vendors choosing.

XRPKnight

I don't think it is a horrible idea to upgrade hardware wallets periodically. The Nano X is much better than the S. I didn't upgrade for the security but the usability. The S could only hold a few chains and the UX on for the X was much better too.

MangaOtakuJoe

I'd say either Binance or Coinbase, UX is pretty okay and it's easier to buy via CEX than via Dex

Desperate-Bill-3790

Been using Trustee Plus for a while - pretty impressed with how they’ve handled both UX and real-world usability. The in-app card setup is stupid fast (literally 3 mins), and it pulls from BTC, ETH, or USDC directly. Feels smooth and works like any regular card, even for big purchases. Also cool they added an EU IBAN for fiat stuff. Curious how your project will stack up against stuff like that.

soyuzman

Nice work. Clean UX. Will use it. Thanks for sharing 👍👍

Skarial

Perfect UX and UI, simple and minimalist, I find your app very good, it does what it needs to do, well done 👏

DonkeyAsleep7884

Yeah. The interesting part is that they don't complain about CEXes, and that's a point which the article also makes. It uses Binance and XBO as examples but even the lesser known ones are easy to join and navigate. We need the whole industry to be on that level in terms of UX

zxr7

Figma is a cloud-based design and prototyping tool used by teams to collaboratively create user interfaces for websites, apps, and digital products. It allows multiple users to work in real time on the same design file, similar to how Google Docs works for documents. With features like vector editing, interactive prototyping, reusable components, and developer handoff tools, Figma streamlines the entire UI/UX design process from concept to code. It's widely used by designers, developers, and product teams to create, test, and iterate on digital experiences efficiently. Figma was almost acquired by Adobe for $20 billion in 2022, but the deal collapsed in December 2023 due to regulatory concerns, with Adobe paying a $1 billion breakup fee. Previously valued at $12.5 billion in a 2024 tender offer

002_timmy

Message from Portal to Bitcoin team Hey r/cryptocurrency! We’re Portal to Bitcoin, the first fully custodyless, cross-chain infrastructure built for Bitcoin. Using our BitScaler architecture, we enable native-to-native asset transfers across blockchains without the security risks of bridges, wrapped assets or centralized custody. What We’re Solving: Truly decentralized cross-chain transactions with no wrapped assets, vaults or multi-sig risks Fast, low-cost swaps secured by Bitcoin, the most capital-rich blockchain & what we believe to be the fundamental monetary layer Seamless DeFi access with a UX rivaling CEXs and fully self-custodied Sustainable liquidity incentives through a first-of-its-kind Bitcoin AMM Barriers to Americans from participating in incentivization campaigns. Who’s Here? Our team at Portal to Bitcoin has been building on Bitcoin for a long time and is backed by Arrington Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Gate.io and OKX Ventures. We’re here to discuss: How Portal connects native Bitcoin to DeFi The risks of bridges and how we solve them The future of cross-chain finance The road to launch  Earning on Kaito  And everything in between! Ask us anything and we’ll be answering questions on July 29.  When and Where? Tuesday, July 29, 2025 Time: All day! Subreddit: Right here at r/cryptocurrency We believe Bitcoin should be the foundation of DeFi and Portal is making that possible. Whether you’re a trader, LP, dev or just crypto-curious, drop your questions below and let’s talk. Are you a yapper?  Earn rewards for adding real value, 0.5% of Portal's token supply is being allocated to top yappers. That is a serious commitment to early community builders. Visit https://yaps.kaito.ai/portaltobitcoin to join  More ways to connect with us:  X: https://x.com/PortaltoBitcoin  Rewards Hub: https://hub.portaltobitcoin.com/login  Official Site: https://portaltobitcoin.com/ Join the Community: https://discord.com/invite/portaltobitcoin

shawman123

I think its a fair question. Its a company which has cloud tools for UX design. its cool and easy to share across teams. They have few other products but they are not that popular. In a way they compete against Adobe who tried to acquire them for 20B 3 years ago but regulators nixed that deal.

harshamv

Nice to see another Dubai-based team in this space! The feedback about custody is spot on. At OrbitX we've taken a different approach - true self-custody where users hold their own keys. No company wallet needed, which addresses a lot of the trust concerns raised here. Your focus on web2-like UX is smart. We've found that's crucial for adoption. Are you planning to support direct stablecoin spending or requiring conversion to fiat? Also interested in how you're handling the regulatory side in the GCC region. Feel free to check out our approach at [orbitxpay.com](http://orbitxpay.com) Transparency: I work at OrbitX, but always good to see innovation in crypto payments. Happy to discuss technical approaches if helpful.

MaximumStudent1839

The bet for new VMs wasn't just better UX - yes EVM UX sucks. It was also hope for new design space expansion. So far, nothing has really grown the market much from last cycle besides on-chain perps. But that growth didn't even come from a new VM but just a four-validator chain.

n111gab00tytw3rrk

What I find even crazier is the fact that they still don’t have a good UX that would allow them to spend stables freely and easily. You would expect that this is solved by now.

DonkeyAsleep7884

Thanks for sharing this. Oobit uncovered something I was already suspecting, but I had no idea things were this bad. We really need to pay more attention to UX lol I personally like spending crypto using payment cards. Most of them offer cashback programs or something similar so maybe that could be a good solution for users in Brazil as well.

cosmic_censor

Centralized systems are often time faster, cheaper and easier to use. They also tend to get adopted much quicker because there is only one organization behind them making decisions so they can pivot faster and provide a more consistent experience. Until they have you locked you into their platform and then fees increase, UX degrades, and everyone is stuck with a suboptimal system they hate, but since everyone else is also using it, they cannot move to an alternative. It crazy to me that despite this story playing out again and again in technology, people have no memory and continue to champion centralized systems. Decentralization is more difficult but if we get it right, it can become a foundational public utility that serves everyone for a long time.

Work_for_burritos

good UX, liquidity, hype but no real claim to value. Trade it, don’t HODL it as “ownership.”

cheesomacitis

Here you go buddy I did the research for you: Ethereum’s ecosystem has made significant strides lately—not just hype, but meaningful upgrades and robust growth: ⸻ 🚀 Key Protocol Upgrades • Pectra (May 2025): This combines “Prague” (execution layer) and “Electra” (consensus layer). Highlights include: • EIP‑7251: Raises max ETH per validator from 32 to 2,048 → simplifies staking operations for institutions and validators . • EIP‑7702: Empowers wallets with smart contract logic, improving UX and recoverability . • Blob optimizations for increased L2 data throughput, reducing Layer‑1 congestion . • Dencun (Mar 2024): Introduced EIP‑4844 proto‑Danksharding—“blobs” storage layer dramatically cuts rollup costs . • zkEVM / zk Rollups: The Ethereum Foundation plans to integrate a Layer‑1 zkEVM later in 2025, boosting privacy, scalability, and decentralization . ⸻ 🔗 Scaling and Layer‑2 Expansion • Massive growth in zk-rollups and optimistic rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base). zkEVMs are now practical, enabling cheap, fast DeFi and gaming transactions . • Continued rollup-centric roadmap: focus on L2 onboarding and interoperability, with PeerDAS next in 2026 . ⸻ 🔐 Staking & Consensus Improvements • Staking flexibility: Withdrawal of staked ETH (post-Shapella) and larger validator pools via EIP‑7251 . • Validator tooling & services: Projects like Lido, EigenLayer boosting stash liquidity and decentralization . ⸻ 📈 Ecosystem & Developer Tooling • The Graph: Decentralized indexing now supports Substreams, Token API, GRC‑20, and Geo Genesis—foundational for data-driven dApps and AI integrations . • Protocol expansion: ~178 EIPs in 2025; focus on account abstraction, wallet UX, developer tooling . • Inter-Rollup liquidity: Academic proposals like UAT20 aim to unify fragmented liquidity across Layer‑2s . ⸻ 🏦 DeFi, Stablecoins & Institutional Appetite • 🚀 DeFi resurgence: Over $60 billion in total value locked, with growth in lending, NFTs, prediction markets  . • Stablecoins boom: Legislative momentum around GENIUS Act, fueling demand for Ethereum’s programmable tokens . • Institutional interest: Surge in ETH ETF inflows (~$2B+ in a month), treasury strategies by BitMine, BlackRock, Founders Fund . ⸻ ⚖️ What It Means – Systems Perspective Ethereum is transforming from a monolithic blockchain into a modular, multi-layered stack: Layer Focus L1 Core enhancements: staking, zkEVM, blobs L2 Scaling: rollups, interoperability, unified liquidity Infra Tools: The Graph, account abstraction, developer SDKs Applications DeFi, NFTs, stablecoins, AI dApps

Illustrious_Tale_690

Haha fair point – maybe I phrased it weirdly. I just meant I’ve been using the same big-name platforms for years, and it feels like they’ve kind of stopped improving. A lot of them haven’t introduced meaningful new features in ages, and it feels like they’re not really pushing the space forward anymore – just maintaining what already works. I’m not chasing hype or meme coins, just curious if there are any lesser-known platforms trying to do things better – whether that’s faster performance, smoother UX, easier onboarding. Sometimes the smaller players are more innovative.

alterise

yeah, the goal should be that one day the UX becomes so good that using bitcoin is exactly like that - with users benefiting without having to know what really goes on underneath.

barthib

L2s exist already. The whole Ethereum ecosystem processes up to 800 transactions per second since the last upgrade. Solana is stuck at 400 to offer a smooth UX (it can go up to 700 with a lot of dropped/failing transactions, at 800 it shuts down as shown several times in the last years)

Mega_2018

**From SnapShot, co-founder of Glue:** Bridging is absolutely critical to our success, and we’ve put a lot of thought into making it as seamless as possible. We’ve partnered with Stargate for USDC bridging and use LayerZero for tokens not supported by Stargate. The goal is to abstract away the entire bridging process so users don’t even have to think about it. Bridging is one of the most confusing parts of crypto. There are so many different bridges, and tokens often aren’t compatible between them. That creates a lot of friction. So for us, having a clean, reliable bridging experience is non-negotiable. We’re still working to improve the UX even further, but what we have now is already miles ahead in terms of simplicity. Right now, you can already provide liquidity for tokens like MOON directly on Glue! Just head to[ ](https://swap.glue.net)[swap.glue.net](http://swap.glue.net) that’s the DEX front end. It’s still a bit raw and more dev-focused at the moment, but it works well. We’ll be rolling out a more polished, user-friendly version soon. We’d love for people to add liquidity. The more we have, the better the experience. We’ve already launched quite a few tokens, and many more are coming. Our longer-term goal is to have as much local liquidity on Glue as possible. Cross-chain swaps are more of a fallback when local liquidity isn’t available.

Mega_2018

Replying to your question "**Where do you see Glue Network in 3-5 years? What's the ultimate impact you aim to have on the Web3 ecosystem?**" **From SnapShot, co-founder of Glue:** Honestly, we don’t plan that far out. Three to five years is a long time in startup terms. We’ve got big goals and plenty of ideas, but nothing is fixed. What I do hope is simple: that we’ll have millions of users. That’s the key metric for success. It doesn’t matter if they’re into gaming, DeFi, or anything else. If people are using Glue, then we’ve done our job. That’s the impact I want to have on Web3. We need to make it easier for people to get into crypto. They should be able to join without friction, learn how it works, and then branch out from there. We want Glue to be the entry point. If someone starts on Glue and then later dives deeper into Ethereum or more advanced DeFi protocols, that’s amazing. We fully support that. But we want them to start in a way that’s simple and welcoming. Eventually, sure, people can get into complex financial strategies or optimize DeFi loops. But first, they need to be able to get in. Our focus is to lower that barrier, provide great UX, and hopefully push the rest of the space to care more about onboarding too. If we can do that, if we can lead by example and show that it’s possible to build something both powerful and user-friendly, I think we’ll have had a real impact. And I hope it inspires other projects to do the same.

Mega_2018

Replying to your question "**What truly differentiates Glue Network from other Layer 1s, Layer 2s, or DeFi hubs? What makes it stand out in a crowded market?**" **From SnapShot, co-founder of Glue:** From a product perspective, the biggest difference is that Glue was built with a product in mind. What I mean by that is most other crypto networks were built more like Linux, designed as operating systems for developers. And some of them do a great job at that. But almost none of them were built with everyday retail users in mind. That’s where Glue is different. We’ve focused on combining top-tier tech into a single, easy-to-use product for regular users. It’s still powerful for developers to build on, but our primary focus has always been usability. We wanted something that just works for real people. We’ve built the Layer 1, the Layer 2s, and the DeFi infrastructure all with one cohesive product in mind. That’s the only way to truly get a great user experience. Once that’s in place, then we’ll focus more on attracting developers. But we believe devs follow users, not the other way around. There’s this belief in crypto that if you get a lot of devs, users will come, but we’ve seen over and over that it doesn’t really work that way. Users care about UX. They care about how easy something is to use and how enjoyable it is. The entire Glue ecosystem is built around that idea, paired with strong underlying tech. We’re aiming to deliver an incredible user experience in the short term that people genuinely want to use. Once we’ve done that, the developer community will follow and help us scale further. So it’s this integrated, user-first approach paired with a high-performance tech stack that really sets us apart from the rest of the space.

Mega_2018

**From SnapShot, co-founder of Glue:** We started this project nearly four years ago, during DeFi Summer, and the gap was immediately obvious: it was just incredibly hard to figure anything out. I’ve been involved in crypto since 2015, I’m pretty tech-savvy, and even for me, it took weeks to get halfway competent with DeFi. That’s a huge problem if we ever want to see crypto reach real-world adoption. Crypto has incredible potential to make things better around the world, but there’s no chance it gets there if it stays this complicated. Back then, and even now, DeFi was mostly built for a small group of power users. I love the DeFi degen crowd, I’m one of them, but most people aren’t. They don’t have the time to learn eight protocols just to make a simple trade. They’ve got jobs, families, hobbies. Those are the people we want to reach. What’s crazy is that four years later, not much has changed outside of what we’re doing at Glue. Tooling has improved a bit, but the overall user experience is still terrible. Things are named confusingly, there’s no clear step-by-step flow, and you still need to jump across a bunch of websites to do basic things. The space just hasn’t prioritized UX in any meaningful way. That’s what got me started and all those problems still exist today. The difference now is that I think the opportunity is even bigger, and we’re in a really strong position to capture a lot of it. Especially in countries where centralized exchanges aren’t reliable, Glue can be a game-changer. We can list new tokens much faster than big exchanges like Coinbase, which have long and rigid listing processes. Thanks to our cross-chain infrastructure, we can offer access to any token with liquidity on other chains, quickly and reliably. So whether you’re in a country with weak exchange options or you’re just looking for an easier way to use DeFi and not be exit liquidity on a DEX, Glue offers decentralization, speed, great UX, and access to almost any token. That’s where we see our biggest advantage, both over centralized exchanges and other DeFi platforms.

Mega_2018

**From SnapShot, co-founder of Glue:** Yes, you’re right. Cross-chain swaps themselves are a common idea in crypto, but in my opinion, most projects execute them really poorly. As a user, I don’t want to receive funds on some random other chain—it just ends up scattering your tokens across 10 different networks. It becomes nearly impossible to track, and every time you want to sell, you have to figure out how to bridge the tokens back again. Even when a swap is abstracted away, getting your funds back frequently isn’t or it’s in a UX so complicated it’s hard to figure out. . That’s exactly what we wanted to fix. On Glue, cross-chain swaps are core infrastructure. They let us list new tokens fast, without needing native liquidity. That means we can eventually support almost any token you want to trade, without needing to pull together huge liquidity pools for each one right away. It might not always be the fastest or cheapest method, but it’ll be easy, transparent, and consistent. You won’t have to relearn how to buy or sell every time you want to interact with a new token or chain. That said, if you want to provide native liquidity on Glue, you can. For example, you can already add liquidity to the MOON pair on our native DEX. When someone trades, our router will automatically compare prices between local liquidity and cross-chain liquidity, and execute the trade wherever the user gets a better deal. If no local liquidity exists, it defaults to cross-chain. But when local liquidity is better, it uses that instead. We expect this will naturally attract liquidity providers. Once they see which tokens are getting activity via cross-chain swaps, they’ll have a strong incentive to provide native liquidity to earn trading fees. That creates a flywheel effect: the more trading a token gets, the more incentive there is to provide native liquidity, which makes trading faster and cheaper for everyone. And we can do that without needing massive liquidity mining programs or dumping a ton of Glue tokens into the market. It keeps pressure off our token and preserves treasury resources. But cross-chain swaps do more than just support trading—they’re also essential for our lending protocol. The hardest part of building lending systems isn’t the lending logic itself, it’s handling liquidations safely. In our case, many of the long-tail tokens we want to support won’t have enough native liquidity on Glue for safe liquidation if a loan goes underwater. Cross-chain swaps solve that by allowing us to perform liquidations using external liquidity, across chains. That makes lending on Glue safer for depositors and borrowers alike. So yeah, we’re really excited about having launched cross-chain swaps. They’re not just a feature, they’re the foundational infrastructure that unlocks everything else we’re building: fast listings, lending, liquidations, and more. It all starts here!

AppropriateReach7854

We’re seeing a shift in the meme space from pure speculation toward more structured ecosystems. Memecoins that survive the next wave won’t just be memes; they’ll offer something users can engage with, not just trade. Interactivity matters. That’s what Bananagun is tapping into. The ability to deploy minigames from your tokens without dev experience? That’s sticky UX. It’s early, but it’s the right kind of experimentation for the meme sector to evolve

gigabyteIO

ALGO has the best UX in all of crypto. Once you use it, it's so hard to use any other chain.

Leyla_AI_Art

Strike feels like it was built by devs who think UX is a meme. If you’re in Canada, try Bull Bitcoin. Way simpler, made for people who actually want to use Bitcoin – not just stare at it in confusion.

sc0ut84

Rabby’s a solid step forward for DeFi UX, no doubt. But pairing it with something like ApeScreener is where things really level up. While Rabby helps with execution and wallet safety, ApeScreener gives you the upstream intel: who's buying what, where smart money is moving, which contracts are risky, and how tokens rank on liquidity health, holder distribution, and volume anomalies. It’s the difference between having a better car vs. knowing which road to take. ApeScreener handles the map, the traffic alerts, and the detours - before you even hit “confirm.”

HighlySuccessful

Ok, not to be pedantic, but even this is not true - there was only one wallet created during the early stages of BTC and it's called bitcoin wallet (or bitcoin core wallet now), the one that came with the node (chain consensus validation) software. And wallets are not full of anything, wallets are just a UI/UX software made for non-technical users to access the ledger. It helps to first learn something about the subject before starting to ponder deep thoughts on your own about it.

CaviarWagyu

Why does clicking on "Automatic Withdrawals" in the app redirect me to a website in safari? Seems like a bad UX. I should be able to set this up directly in the app. cc: /u/RiverOfficial

ManBearPig9220

**1. what happens to your deposited assets?** when you deposit assets (like ETH, USDC, WBTC, USDT) into **katana**, you’re not just bridging. you’re making your capital *productive*. here’s how: * assets go into **vaultbridge** on ethereum * a portion is deployed into **low-risk lending strategies** via **morpho** vaults * the yield from those strategies is streamed to katana and distributed to core apps defi pools like **sushi** (DEX), **morpho** (lending), etc. in return, you get **vbTokens** (like vbWBTC, vbUSDC) on katana, which you can use just like normal tokens in defi. stake or LP your vbTokens in morpho and sushi to get bonus vaultbridge yield. think of vaultbridge as a way of providing perpetually funded boosted yield on katana. its a liquidity mining campaign that never runs out, as long as there are assets in the vaultbridge. **2. how does that benefit katana?** this creates a **real, recurring revenue stream** for the chain. instead of relying only on KAT token emissions, katana: * collects yield from L1 defi * redirects it to boost yields in LPs, lending pools, and more * builds **chain-owned liquidity** (CoL) from sequencer fees this makes the whole system *sustainable*. the more people use katana, the more yield is generated, which deepens liquidity, boosts yield more, and improves UX. its the katana flywheel. **3. is katana a normal network like ethereum?** yes. katana is a fully functional **EVM chain**. its open source, permissionless. anyone can bridge, anyone can deploy smart contracts. that means you can: * deploy your own tokens or NFTs * build smart contracts * launch dapps * interact with existing defi protocols we just come with *better liquidity and yield* out of the box. bc katana flywheel.

ManBearPig9220

great question — one we’ve thought a lot about. short-term hype gets you attention but katana is built for long-term usage here’s how we keep users engaged beyond the early incentives: **1. real yield, not just emissions** katana doesn’t rely solely on inflationary token rewards instead, yield is fueled by real sources like: – vaultbridge L1 lending strategies – AUSD off-chain t-bill revenue – sequencer fee redistribution – deployed chain-owned liquidity (CoL) this makes yield and liquidity **sustainable**. users stay because rewards keep flowing even after the hype. liquidity and yield scales on katana. **2. chain-owned liquidity means better UX** CoL = the chain owning some of the liquidity onchain directly so liquidity doesn’t disappear when mercenary capital leaves, or when the bear market gets brutal users enjoy consistent depth, lower slippage, and stable borrowing/lending markets regardless of market conditions **3. vKAT + governance** KAT holders can lock for vKAT to vote on where future KAT emissions go users who stay involved help shape the ecosystem (and earn fees) if you're familiar with ve- tokenomics, you know that there are very exciting governance games ahead **4. new apps and tokens launching on katana** katana is a defi-first chain. currently there are two core apps: morpho and sushi. but there are already close to 30+ other defi protocols live on katana. and more to come. the roadmap includes a new core apps that will include a launchpad, perp DEX, and tokenized yield protocols. in short. katana’s yield doesn’t dry up liquidity doesn’t flee innovation thrives at the composability layer on top of core apps/assets and users don’t get left behind

Mountain-Bread7598

A lot of DEXs are trying to bridge the gap with CEX, such as interfaces, but Papple seems to be one of the few that feels truly close in performance and design.  What’s the team's philosophy when it comes to balancing UX with decentralization?

gamepe

Indeed and with the insane UX/UI limitations Wesatoshis is the only credit card–sized device that can pay with both on-chain and Lightning Bitcoin, running its own internal node. It also lets you discover nearby merchants in a permissionless and decentralized way

BigDreamsSmallWall3t

Core apps seem to help with alignment and deeper (more concentrated) liquidity today, but what happens if core apps begin to lag competition? Can the Katana team/ foundation change the assortment of core apps? For example, Morpho is a great lending app today. But 4 years ago, it was basically unknown and AAVE was the clear leader. Morpho brought amazing innovation and captured a ton of market share. There’s surely other innovative lending protocols being built right now that have a non-zero chance of being the leader in 4, offering the best UX / UI. If another lending protocol gives a significantly better experience than Morpho, what would the Katana team do to give their users the best lending experience?

Nearby_Childhood_899

Totally get it and I think that’s a fair stance for any Bitcoin first holder. If your whole thesis is “domt trust, verify” then anything involving additional layers or validator sets is gonna feel like a hard pass. That said, Zeus is a little different from what you’re describing: The BTC itself isn’t locked in a multisig or custodian controlled by “a group of parties” It leverages sBTC’s peg mechanism, which is anchored by Bitcoin’s base layer, then mirrors BTC as zBTC on Solana for DeFi use The Zeus validators don’t hold or custody BTC. They coordinate peg events and secure the Solana side of the system. So yeah, there’s some external coordination, but it’s not the “small group of people hold the keys” model that burned users in previous bridge hacks Still, I get it. If someone’s priority is absolute Bitcoin L1 purity, this isn’t for them. This is more for the crowd who’s already okay stepping into DeFi with a portion of their stack and want a UX that doesn’t suck

JuniorNatural

Your 'future fuel' is on a four-year delay, fam. V-Buterin promised PoS in '16, and it just dropped. So, when's sharding coming, 2030? Without scaling, gas fees get stupid expensive the minute anything pops off. And let's be real – L2s are just different chains. Moving assets means quadruple fees and two wallets. That's a straight-up nightmare for UX

mkzmch

I have a question, that is not directly on topic but is slightly related. I am a dev and am soon launching a project and since I am a solo dev I need people to sort of poke around in my dApp to get some real feedback about bugs and general UX improvements that can be made. So I was thinking about doing an airdrop, but the thing is since I am just a guy I don't have very much money to fund both a huge airdrop and initial liquidity for the token to not crash dramstically should a large proportion of recepients decide to sell. I have also never participated in airdrops myself. So my question to you is, upon recieving an airdrop would you actually go and check out the project or would you just sell it for a more established coin?

_alwin

What a terrible UX that must be…

RamoneBolivarSanchez

Extremely interesting but in its current state it has insane UX/UI limitations. Still it’s a very interesting concept

procabiak

Horrible UX. A gps pager from 1994? It's 2025, we've have smart phones with gps for over 15 years, we don't need this crap. Hardware wallets should stick to just signing transactions, please. That's the reason why you have small text-only screens, instead of full blown touch screens.

lapelotanodobla

She probably had it on some cefi platform, that will stop happening when we fix the UX for self custody

Ender_Adventure

Yeah exactly. It’s always a tough balance. Better UX always seems to come with some trade-off, and people react fast when they feel like control’s being taken away. Just makes progress slow sometimes.

Ender_Adventure

Totally fair points. I agree that crypto’s whole value prop is around self-custody and decentralization, and removing too much friction can start chipping away at that. But at the same time, if the user experience is painful enough, people will just avoid using the tech altogether. I think there’s space for better UX without giving up full control. Maybe not perfect, but at least something that doesn’t make a simple swap feel like a 5-step test. Right now it feels like only a handful of tools are even trying to meet users halfway.

Ender_Adventure

Yeah that makes sense, and I totally get the underlying reasons for why it's not instant. I think my post was more about the UX side of it--not the tech. Like, the fact that we need 3 tools, approvals pop mid-way, gas quotes jump, and the whole flow just feels... scattered.

ZhenyaV

Market is piss drunk on millions of useless memecoins and we still have new chains popping like we are in 2017. We need adoption, utility and UX. Not a new chain.

CryptoBulla

Figma Goes Full Degen Clicked "Buy BTC," Skipped the wireframe - went all in. Sats > UX now. 💸💻

intelw1zard

is CrowSwap just basically a Tornado Cash wrapper/front UX for TC?

o-_l_-o

I think we'll end up seeing a lot of L2s. It's less risky for a company to launch their own L2 using existing technology so they can maintain some level do control. Ethereum will eventually have native L2s and it will be trivial to spin one up and have cross-L2 transactions, so it won't be a problem for users. The non-native L2s will have a worse UX though. 

AdvantageNorth1032

DeFi fully replacing TradeFi might still be a long shot for now, but we’re getting there. UX and liquidity are still kinda messy, but tools like Jumper Exchange, LI.FI, and Rango are already making it way easier to move across chains. If that keeps improving and fees stay low, things could flip faster than we think.

Alfador8

>The market never stops deciding. In the case of BTC vs BCH, it's decided. BCH is dead. >So starved of payment options a coin created by 3 drunk guys one night as a joke ended up becoming the second largest POW chain by far. And the main mode of transacting in crypto are stablecoins The one thing fiat does well is payments. In the west, we don't need a competitor to centralized options. Venmo/Cash App/PayPal work perfectly well for 99% of people. Centralization is a boon in this case because it allows a seamless UX. For those who don't have the above as an option, stablecoins are the obviously superior choice over volatile crypto assets. Why would someone want to spend bitcoin at this point when the opportunity cost is so great and there are currencies with no opportunity cost to spend available (Gresham's Law). Bitcoin found product market fit as a savings technology. When it reaches its total addressable market and the price stabilizes *then* there will be an incentive to spend it. At that point the base layer will act as more of a settlement layer, akin to Fedwire (which incidentally requires a similar number of transactions per second as layer one of Bitcoin allows). Smaller transactions will happen off chain to be batched and settled on chain periodically. It's the logical progression and good systems engineering design. BCH's mistake was assuming payments was the killer app when the reality is that for most people payments isn't a perceived problem to be solved. Why would someone introduce additional friction when what they currently use works? And if they don't have good payments systems available, stablecoins are the more logical choice due to the lack of volatility. BCH is inferior to bitcoin as money, and inferior to stablecoins as currency. It's going nowhere. This isn't just conjecture, look at the chart I posted.

YogurtCloset3335

Nobody is talking about Lightning. It doesn't work. And even when it sort of works, UX is utter shit.

CynthiaTWilkerson

And to some extent, there’s been a throwing of money into BTC DeFi, which offers solid yield opportunities even for institutions. Looks like everyone’s chasing sustainable on-chain returns. I doubt retail are clueless, they're just waiting for a better UX and a sense of security. Many still feel they need that extra layer of trust and seamlessness, like what web3 banking frameworks aim to provide. This might eventually pull more retail investors back in.

FixedGearJunkie

>a Bitcoin-only app solving major UX issues Sounds like its an app solving major UX issues. What issues? Don't know they didn't really elaborate on any specific issues.

videokillradiostarr

You don't even know about new developments with bitcoin as a currency. Chaumian ecash combined with lightning will make UI even better. Also, you have to factor in trade offs. There will never be a completely sovereign system that has a UX as easy as a custodial system. That's the trade off. Convenience vs sovereignty. If this makes you re-think bitcoin, you never thought about it to begin with.

BackwardsOnADonkey

You redditors had 7 years to figure out chainlink and you're still obsessed with giving each other obvious advice (example: hey guys don't store your crypto on a centralized exchange, durr), threads about how some whale is moving bitcoin, moronic alts like nano, algorand, xrp or cardano, stupid threads about how top 10 alts that was bought a few years ago are performing, whenever coffeezilla goes after some literal who scammer and their memecoin, and on and on. What will it take for you to wake up and realise that you missed the biggest project in the blockchain space that will essentially lay down the entire plumbing for it to function? You got fudded out by 4chan's /biz/ either cause you fell for their obvious fud, or you were too much of a coward to browse it cause you heard they say no no words, or when you do try to browse you're not able to figure out the UX. Said it before, will say it again, /biz/ was right to fud you all out, and they'll make it, while redditors remain poor.

Evening-Relative-409

K. In before some of the Ledger haters. If you don't understand it, don't use it. Obviously a feature in serious demand because not only did they not roll it back from the older models, it's being released for the newer ones too. Money motivates everything, if this decision was harmful to their business, they wouldn't do it. Bitcoin is for everyone, not just cypher punks. You want global adoption and better UX? You have to keep pushing forward. Think of all the people buying ETFs because they cannot comprehend self custody. I'd rather wallet companies pushed forward to make it easier for average joe to be self sovereign, even if I don't want to use that particular product. You hate ledger, so what? It's old news. What exactly are you doing for the bitcoin ecosystem by pushing everyone to more difficult to use wallets? Number one wallet provider by sales. You don't like it but...still number one.

Alfador8

Centralized systems are better equipped for uses that don't require decentralization. Decentralization is inherently more costly, slower, and less efficient. Tron is already very centralized (that's why it's so cheap). Market forces will push further towards centralization because it offers more speed, better UX, and lower costs. The market has already spoken with respect to the importance of decentralization. See SOL's performance compared to ETH's since SOL's inception. Decentralization has merit for specific uses, but the market doesn't value the benefits of decentralization over those of centralization.

rupsdb

*Subreddit mods are removing my post without any explanation.* *So here I am reposting my earlier post.* **I'm Losing Confidence in Bitcoin — Here's Why** I've supported Bitcoin for a while, hoping for a world where **1 BTC = 1 BTC**, not a fiat-priced asset. But lately, I’ve run into issues that are hard to ignore. --- ### Bitcoin Trilemma Bitcoin sacrifices scalability to protect decentralization and security. But in practice: - L2s like Lightning have poor UX - Custodial wallets dominate - Bitcoin struggles as everyday money Can we scale without sacrificing what makes Bitcoin unique? --- ### Block Subsidy Is Fading With each halving, block rewards shrink. If fees don’t rise to compensate: - Miners may leave - Security weakens - Bitcoin becomes vulnerable The long-term security model is uncertain — and nobody agrees on a fix. --- ### Philosophical Divides The community is split: - Minimalists want ossification - Developers push for new features - Others chase price pumps - Ordinals/NFTs have shifted the culture Is there still a unified vision for what Bitcoin is *for*? --- ### Stablecoin Liquidity Props Up the Price USDT and similar stablecoins seem to drive price action. This: - Distorts price discovery - Adds reliance on centralized fiat systems - Makes BTC look like just another trading instrument --- ### Where I’m At I still believe in Bitcoin’s censorship resistance and long-term potential — but I’m less certain it’ll become the world’s reserve money. Maybe being a financial escape hatch is enough. Anyone else going through this shift?

forstyy

Trezor and bitbox are good. I have both, the UX is much better with Trezor tho.

rupsdb

*Subreddit mods are removing my post without any explanation.* *So here I am reposting my earlier post.* **I'm Losing Confidence in Bitcoin — Here's Why** I've supported Bitcoin for a while, hoping for a world where **1 BTC = 1 BTC**, not a fiat-priced asset. But lately, I’ve run into issues that are hard to ignore. --- ### Bitcoin Trilemma Bitcoin sacrifices scalability to protect decentralization and security. But in practice: - L2s like Lightning have poor UX - Custodial wallets dominate - Bitcoin struggles as everyday money Can we scale without sacrificing what makes Bitcoin unique? --- ### Block Subsidy Is Fading With each halving, block rewards shrink. If fees don’t rise to compensate: - Miners may leave - Security weakens - Bitcoin becomes vulnerable The long-term security model is uncertain — and nobody agrees on a fix. --- ### Philosophical Divides The community is split: - Minimalists want ossification - Developers push for new features - Others chase price pumps - Ordinals/NFTs have shifted the culture Is there still a unified vision for what Bitcoin is *for*? --- ### Stablecoin Liquidity Props Up the Price USDT and similar stablecoins seem to drive price action. This: - Distorts price discovery - Adds reliance on centralized fiat systems - Makes BTC look like just another trading instrument --- ### Where I’m At I still believe in Bitcoin’s censorship resistance and long-term potential — but I’m less certain it’ll become the world’s reserve money. Maybe being a financial escape hatch is enough. Anyone else going through this shift?

volivav

My thought is that bitcoin can't be used as a global currency because it doesn't scale well. With fiat you have completely offline transactions, and the current banking system supports thousands of operations per second worldwide. Bitcoin is limited by its technology. Yes, it is decentralised, but its throughput will always be limited by how fast can miners build blocks (and I'm not even talking about the amount of energy required for that). And that you never have the guarantee that a transaction is 100% completed. You never know if a fork can show up removing your transaction from history. There are other criptocurrencies that solve these problems (proof of stake, finality), but come with another set of challenges. These make it extremely hard for society as a whole to give up fiat and adopt crypto. And it's not something that can be said as "ahh that's just some UX problem", this is not something that you can fix by adding tooling, it's a fundamental limitation of the technology behind it.

King-Choco

I really appreciate your perspective, and to be honest, I actually agree with a good chunk of what you said. Bitcoin does serve a powerful role as a store of value right now, and moving toward a Bitcoin standard where governments can’t inflate away purchasing power is a massive leap forward on its own. But I also think it’s worth looking at how technological adoption actually plays out, and why it’s a mistake to assume today’s friction means tomorrow’s world will look the same. Think about how the internet was dismissed in the ‘90s. People said it would never replace libraries or retail stores or in-person meetings. Now, we can’t imagine life without it. Bitcoin is following a similar trajectory, and in fact, it’s the fastest adopted technology in human history, even faster than the internet. That’s not something to ignore. When you say people won’t use Bitcoin because it’s not easier than swiping a card, I get it. Right now, the UX still has room to improve. But so did the internet at first. So did smartphones. Technology always becomes more user-friendly with time, and once the incentives align (e.g., preserving value, escaping inflation, accessing global commerce), adoption naturally follows. People change behavior when it makes sense, and Bitcoin makes more sense the further we move into a digitized, global, and inflation-weary world. And this is bigger than payments. Fiat currencies inherently inflate because they must. Central banks are trapped in a system that requires constant expansion. That’s why prices keep going up, not because things are actually getting more valuable, but because the money is getting weaker. Bitcoin fixes this. Under a Bitcoin standard, prices would fall over time toward the marginal cost of production, rewarding innovation and saving rather than punishing it. So while Bitcoin as a store of value is already a huge achievement, I think it’s a stepping stone, not the final form. The foundational code and first principles that Bitcoin is built on are strong enough to support an economy. And when people realize that the current system is inherently exploitative, they’ll start to see that Bitcoin isn’t just good for holding, it’s good for building. This movement is bigger than tech. It’s about redefining money, energy, and time itself. And when that becomes obvious to enough people, I think usage will follow naturally. Respectfully, I don’t think it’s a matter of if, just when.

Grand-Button5819

I used Bitcoin ATMs many times. Never had a technical or UX issue, but I guess these are vendor-dependent and can vary from ATM to ATM. The main issue with them is the fees. Since the EU mandated KYC on all transactions, there's no longer a reason to pay the higher fee when I can use an exchange just as well and pay less.

SpontaneousDream

Main use case for me is lending/borrowing with Aave. I think a solid UX mobile version of Aave, with instant transactions, single clicks, etc. would be used by a lot of people. The friction is linking the bank account though

mean--machine

The UX alone is world class. Add in lowest fees in the industry and it's hard to beat.

Adorable_Ad_3719

You can choose any exchange that you like UI/UX but diving deeper and to more important factors like AAA security, more than 100% PoR and low fees. I have been using LeveX from past 6 months and I recommend it.

Milan_dr

> Omg, thank you. Admittedly, I just logged on and spent ages looking for it and realised I had to switch to video generation. This is bad UX from us! We'd love to redirect more people to the Media Generation page since it's the best/easiest to generate on. Were you using on mobile or desktop? > Do you have a page that summarises all the different AI models and what they specialise in? Not so much - our API page gives an overview with the descriptions of all the text models (https://nano-gpt.com/api), but aside from that it's frankly a bit impossible also for us to keep up to date descriptions on what models are best at what. We have an auto-model for text models and model recommender for images, this incorporates the leaderboard rankings for text/image on a bunch of different categories/styles and such. > I've been following this project for quite a while now and I would like to give some brief feedback... Feedback is very much appreciated! Thank you! For a "simple" mode, would something like showing just the top 5 text models and having the "Auto Model" preselected work? The auto model automatically routes to the best suited model, which I think for most people would frankly just work. So we could make it so that if you land on the website you're shown the "simple" version, you can go to "advanced mode" where we show all models for you (which is 200+ at this point). FYI we also have a model recommender which I think maybe does what you want - input a prompt or description and it recommends which model to use (and why). > Finally, and a bit of a long shot... Are you looking for investors? Not really since we're quite profitable and don't necessarily need it, but we've been considering it a bit lately because it could help us grow even faster. We also need to decide on, if we do go for investors, whether we do it through a token of sorts since we're crypto native and that feels like a great way to allow anyone to invest, or whether we go the VC route (we've had quite a bit of VC interest so far which we've been turning down). Awesome to even have you inquire about it by the way - I love that we're building something that others also think is valuable.

DonkeyAsleep7884

Yep. Nothing like watching your price impact chart look like a ski slope the moment you press confirm. Crypto UX still has a long way to go tbh

CynthiaTWilkerson

Cold wallet - Ledger. Hot wallet - Trust wallet or starkey wallet. Simple UX, advanced recovery tools, and secure.