Legal money transfers are not a use case. Crypto is simply much more expensive to maintain. All these mining rigs and all that electricity must be paid for.

Various currencies are moving away from the proof-of-work model, FWIW. Ethereum was mentioned in this comment chain as one of them.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Which doesn't solve the economic problem. (Good for the environment, though)

Ethereum has proof of stake. That means someone has to deposit Ethereum, tying it up. It could be exchanged for money and invested in stocks or bonds, yielding a return. This is only economically feasible if the stake yields the same return as a comparable investment. This profit has to come from the users.

A competing payment system, based on sensible, modern technology also needs computers and the internet but not a stake. It must be cheaper.

The stake is supposed to keep people honest, because it can be taken if fraud is detected. Normally, fraud is dealt with by putting the perpetrators in jail. Being known by name is proof of stake.

Users have to pay extra just so that some kingpins in the back can remain anonymous. Do you want to for that?

It also doesn't solve the other deal-breaker (in the spoiler). Whenever you transfer money through crypto, you risk that some "investor" siphons off some of it.