Accept Nano (crypto) as a feeless payment option

[Meides]

I'd like to suggest to add Nano, a crypto, as a payment option for Steam. My reasons for this:

1. It's a feeless crypto. The cost savings for Steam, even after using a crypto exchange to convert to USD, would be literally millions. Keep some for Steam, and pass some on to us in cheaper prices, we're all happy.
   
2. It's an instant crypto. I know Bitcoin was accepted before, but that had issues because the price would literally change between sending Bitcoin and it arriving minutes if not hours later. Nano takes literally 0.2 seconds to fully settle, and can be instantly exchanged into dollars.
   
3. It's great for the environment. Nano is extremely energy efficient, the whole network could run on the power output of a single wind turbine.
   
4. It makes it fantastically easy to purchase from anywhere in the world. When I'm abroad it's surprisingly difficult to pay for stuff on Steam. Nano knows no borders, so it seems perfect for this.
   
5. It's 100% secure. PayPal sometimes gives trouble, payment processors go offline and such. Nano has been online for over 5 years, over 70 million transactions done, with not a single missed transaction.

Implementing it shouldn't be hard, a lot of services/exchanges/businesses have done so already. If there are any difficulties, I'm sure the Nano Foundation would love to help out: https://nano.org/connect.

Thanks for considering this suggestion.

[da]

Senatus, it is amazing your patience. Your point is quite clear, indeed, as clear as the attacks you are receiving by these two guys for just having a suggestion.

It is as simple as a new technology which serves as an efficient payment gateway. Having it as an extra option is actually quite interesting. I don't see why would someone hate having this option. Seems like they would be hurt having it available in Steam.

[Meides]

Radene님이 먼저 게시:

Uhm...."shareholders"?

Yes, shareholders. Perhaps I should have said Valve's shareholders. Is that genuinely the only fault you can find in the entire argument? Lol.

And these "non fees" are for private users. If I were a business withdrawing thousands of dollars daily, do you think they just eat it? That's why such services have merchant fees. That's why payment services have a minimum amount fee per transaction.
If Steam would use coingate for example, they have to pay 3 % fees on every transaction.
https://coingate.com/pricing

Yes, I think they would because they make their profit mostly on the trading fee, the 0.1%. But hey, feel free to go ask them yourself, rather than assuming the fees would suddenly magically change in this particular instance.

You've picked Coingate which is the single most expensive option. NowPayments is less than 1%, building a custom implementation would be even cheaper rather than going for another middleman.

Nano IS the middle man. You pay whatever to purchase Nano (or whatever crypto) and pay Steam with it. Steam will then have to convert it back into fiat.

Nano isn't a middleman. Would you genuinely call a currency a middleman?

SwampMocassin, PieceOfMind, Otonashi and dap, thanks for the comments :)

[ReeverM]

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Yes, shareholders. Perhaps I should have said Valve's shareholders. Is that genuinely the only fault you can find in the entire argument? Lol.

Just gonna clear this up quick before it becomes the topic of debate. Valve and Steam are private companies, they are not publically traded. No stocks means no shareholders.

I think what you mean are stakeholders, which are simply people that have a vested interest in a company and can affect or be affected by how the business is run. Stuff like employees, customers and suppliers would be examples of stakeholders.

[Meides]

ReeverM님이 먼저 게시:

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Yes, shareholders. Perhaps I should have said Valve's shareholders. Is that genuinely the only fault you can find in the entire argument? Lol.

Just gonna clear this up quick before it becomes the topic of debate. Valve and Steam are private companies, they are not publically traded. No stocks means no shareholders.

Have to disagree with you here. Valve has shareholders. Private companies can have shareholders - these shares just aren't publicly traded. Valve shares are held by Gabe, but also by some employees.

Private (limited) companies have shares just like publicly traded companies do, generally.

[ReeverM]

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

ReeverM님이 먼저 게시:

Just gonna clear this up quick before it becomes the topic of debate. Valve and Steam are private companies, they are not publically traded. No stocks means no shareholders.

Have to disagree with you here. Valve has shareholders. Private companies can have shareholders - these shares just aren't publicly traded. Valve shares are held by Gabe, but also by some employees.

Private (limited) companies have shares just like publicly traded companies do, generally.

Yep, seems you're right, my apologies! That was a misconception on my part, then.

[Skew]

Hopefully Gabe sees this and looks into Nano. I was very excited about the Bitcoin integration. Very disappointed that it didn't work out. Good to know other projects are trying to improve on the original "coffee use case." Steam would be a great platform to run a limited test to see if Nano is the real deal or not.

[dANNN]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

Max님이 먼저 게시:

NANO has no middle man or transaction fees. You can transfer NANO hundreds of times near instantly per day without a fee. It's true that an exchange however would try to take a small % in fees. Unless you do a P2P purchase and buy it off someone else directly who has NANO.

Nano IS the middle man. You pay whatever to purchase Nano (or whatever crypto) and pay Steam with it. Steam will then have to convert it back into fiat.

I’ve just read through your ramblings on this post. It appears that you don’t understand how cryptocurrency works nor why it exists.

There is a reason why MasterCard have announced they will be adopting cryptocurrency payments in the near future: it’s a far more efficient payment method.

Sure, they don’t care about efficiency - they want to make money. But if there’s the potential for increased efficiency, eventually competition in the market prevails as alternatives will offer cheaper services.

Adapt or die. Crypto isn’t going away.

[cinedine]

the blissfull ignorance of crypto evangelists is strong ...

[Nx Machina]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

the blissfull ignorance of crypto evangelists is strong ...

So true.

s.dANNN님이 먼저 게시:

There is a reason why MasterCard have announced they will be adopting cryptocurrency payments in the near future: it’s a far more efficient payment method.

You forgot to mention the "criteria" Mastercard requires for crypto currencies to be added as a PAYMENT method.

1) Provide strong consumer protection, including privacy and security of consumer information and transaction data.

2) Allow all stakeholders, including financial institutions, merchants, and mobile network operators, to contribute to and benefit from their blockchain networks.

3) Operate in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including anti-money laundering laws.


You also forgot that the OP asks for Nano to be included as a PAYMENT option whilst talking of Valve doing conversion to USD when in fact if Nano is adopted there is no requirement for conversion as it would be a standalone CURRENCY for purchases on Steam. Oddly that simple fact escaped the OP in their sales pitch OP post and subsequent posts.

[Radene]

And the astroturfing campaign goes on...

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Radene님이 먼저 게시:

Uhm...."shareholders"?

Yes, shareholders. Perhaps I should have said Valve's shareholders. Is that genuinely the only fault you can find in the entire argument? Lol.

Valve is not a publicly traded company. It doesn't have "shareholders".

[Meides]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

the blissfull ignorance of crypto evangelists is strong ...

I think many of us are genuinely trying to explain how it works. There's no blissful ignorance here, it's not as if we've never known fiat, never known any other cryptocurrencies, and are unable to make a comparison.

You also forgot that the OP asks for Nano to be include as a PAYMENT option whilst talking of Valve doing conversion to USD when in fact if Nano is adopted there is no requirement for conversion as it would be a standalone CURRENCY for purchases on Steam. Oddly that simple fact escaped the OP in their sales pitch OP post and subsequent posts.

Huh, what? I am 100% saying they would be using it as a payment option yes, I'm just saying that since they pay their staff and many other costs in USD, I would fully expect them to swap it into USD right after receiving it.

And the astroturfing campaign goes on...

Come on. I'd say that those supporting this idea are acting in good faith - I personally am responding to pretty much anything you guys post, while my posts get picked apart and out of the 10 things I say, some here misunderstand one piece of it and then focus further on that.

Valve is not a publicly traded company. It doesn't have "shareholders".

Yes, it does have shareholders. You can be a non-publicly traded company and have shareholders.

[Nx Machina]

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Huh, what? I am 100% saying they would be using it as a payment option yes, I'm just saying that since they pay their staff and many other costs in USD, I would fully expect them to swap it into USD right after receiving it.

Are you deliberately been obtuse? You stated earlier on this thread.

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

A person pays with Nano, the Nano is instantly converted to USD.

So lets repeat:

1) You are asking for Nano to be a PAYMENT option - in other words it's own CURRENCY when making purchases on Steam or did you deliberately overlook the word CURRENCY? Nano is a crytpo CURRENCY is it not? or it it a credit card, debit card?

2) There is no requirement to convert to USD when making a PURCHASE on Steam with a supported currency at the checkout.

3) I am from the UK and I pay in GBP. The price I see on the store includes 20% vat and remains the same price at checkout, no conversion to USD.

4) When I buy online from a website which only supports USD a conversion will occur and a possible transaction fee may be included.

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Yes, it does have shareholders. You can be a non-publicly traded company and have shareholders.

Shareholders are people you invest in a company in return for a share of the profits and said company has to meet criteria to be allowed on the stock market. Valve is a privately owned company and does not meet those requirements.

Read: https://buysharesin.com/valve/

[Meides]

Are you deliberately been obtuse? You stated earlier on this thread.

I said they could convert the Nano they receive into USD, since most of what they pay out is in USD so that might make sense for them. Steam can convert it into GBP or EUR or JPY or ZAR for all I care, whatever works best for them. You can replace USD by any currency of your choosing in my posts - my point is that if Steam does not want to hold Nano because they think it's volatile or because their costs are in non-Nano currencies, they can convert instantly into any currency of their choosing.

Shareholders are people you invest in a company in return for a share of the profits and said company has to meet criteria to be allowed on the stock market. Valve is a privately owned company and does not meet those requirements.

Please read up on the definition of what a shareholder is. Valve is privately owned, but those that privately own it have shares in Valve Corporation.

https://www.quora.com/Who-owns-Valve-Corporation

Maybe that helps.

Edit: let me ask instead - how do you think the ownership of Valve works?

[cinedine]

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

Are you deliberately been obtuse? You stated earlier on this thread.

I said they could convert the Nano they receive into USD, since most of what they pay out is in USD so that might make sense for them. Steam can convert it into GBP or EUR or JPY or ZAR for all I care, whatever works best for them. You can replace USD by any currency of your choosing in my posts - my point is that if Steam does not want to hold Nano because they think it's volatile or because their costs are in non-Nano currencies, they can convert instantly into any currency of their choosing.

And this is where your suggestion falls apart.
They have to convert it and extract it from whatever exchange platform and that's where fees are involved. *You* might not have any as a private person, but a business is different. Look up merchant fees for whatever crypto exchange you use.
Whoever takes a crypto and pays out in fiat has at the very least operating cost to cover. And if they pay out, somebody has to cover the banking or transaction fees for that.

So all these wonderful arguments for Nano, that it is fee less, that is requries less energy, that it is quick ... all fall apart because in order for them to use it there have to be additional steps.
Why is this so hard to understand?

[Nx Machina]

Senatus님이 먼저 게시:

I said they could convert the Nano they receive into USD, since most of what they pay out is in USD so that might make sense for them. Steam can convert it into GBP or EUR or JPY or ZAR for all I care, whatever works best for them. You can replace USD by any currency of your choosing in my posts - my point is that if Steam does not want to hold Nano because they think it's volatile or because their costs are in non-Nano currencies, they can convert instantly into any currency of their choosing.

But in your sales pitch you said it is stable not volatile.

Again it is NOT a debit card, credit card, linked to a bank with a supported currency on Steam it is a CURRENCY you want as a payment option which needs to be stable and it is tied to the hip of Bitcoin, rise or fall.

Steam does not convert at the checkout for SUPPORTED currencies. Seriously you won't get Nano sales person of the year if you do not understand the basics.