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.

[Nx Machina]

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

My god. How hard is this to understand.

I go here: https://store.steampowered.com/checkout?cart=4066158871277127074&microtxn=-1, to add 5 Euros to my account. I select a payment method there. Rather than Paypal, I select Nano. It shows me a QR code. I scan the QR code, and it tells me I'll be sending 1 Nano. I hit okay. On Steam's side, they get the 1 Nano, and they instantly automatically convert it into Euros.

How. Is. This. Difficult.

Stop implicating me as being with the Nano Foundation team. I am not. I am just enthusiastic about the possibilities this offers.

1) How hard is it to understand Nano is a CURRENCY and you would be paying in NANO if Valve adopt it and you ASSUME it will be converted to EURO.


2) Oh! please, I had a beggar ask me for money who did not go through the hoops you have to sell Nano on this thread with your initial sales pitch.


Not a sales pitch? Here goes.

1) Advertising leaflet through your door but instead we get a link.

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

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.

2) And then we get Buzzwords.

a: It's a feeless crypto.

b: It's an instant crypto.

c: It's great for the environment.

d: It makes it fantastically easy to purchase from anywhere in the world.

e: It's 100% secure.


3) Then the doorstep, "don't miss out on this great offer" spiel.

a: 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.

NOTE: Appeal to potential adopters wallets.

b: 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.

NOTE: Slate the opposition.

c: Nano is extremely energy efficient, the whole network could run on the power output of a single wind turbine.

NOTE: Ignore they may have a car which pollutes the atmosphere.

d: When I'm abroad it's surprisingly difficult to pay for stuff on Steam. Nano knows no borders, so it seems perfect for this.

NOTE: A personal recommendation.

e: 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.

NOTE: Slate the opposition.

[Nx Machina]

Escrito originalmente por Otonashi:

Escrito originalmente por Nx Machina:

Have I personally stated it is a business or a currency? That's right it was currency.

Indeed, you have. In which case we are in agreement.

I meant to point out that Bitcoin and Ethereum both have significantly more market penetration and brand presence, despite having no business being digital cash, but fumbled with my words. Market penetration and brand presence can be established; function cannot.

However, Nano is very weak in terms of business growth, they have almost no merchant market penetration and noone outside of crypto circles knows about them, ergo – their brand presence is very weak, almost non-existent.

[cinedine]

Escrito originalmente por Otonashi:

Escrito originalmente por cinedine:

Or you just convert your bloody Nano and pay in Euro to begin with instead of asking Steam to carry the conversion and transaction fees.

Because that's what every single crypto suggestion comes down to:
- I have crypto I can't do anything with
- but if I convert it into fiat I lose money
- please Steam let me pay in my crypto
- and take the loss yourself.

I believe this has been addressed countless times, including in the post.

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

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.

A Nano transaction costs nothing. A Paypal transaction costs an extra 2.9% + $0.30. The fee for converting Nano to USD or Euros (e.g. 0.1% for Binance) is less than what Paypal charges.

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

OH FFS!
It doesn't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ matter whether nano transaction cost a fee.

Taken the Binance example:

You pay Nano.
Steam receives Nano.
No loss.
Steam needs to convert into USD.
Steam takes a 0.1 % loss.
Steam needs to extract their balance from the platform.
BOOM! That's where the normal transaction fees for the traditional payment services is due.

https://www.binance.com/en/support/faq/0d2c1bac794346df9b1e1a56eb089a0b

It doesn't matter whether it's Binance, Coingate, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or whatever.
There is no use for Steam to have crypto or a balance on an exchange platform. Somehow this money must get into their accounts to be distributed further. And this steps comes with fees. Period. And these fees are usually higher than you using these services directly, because the exchange platform's conditions apply and they are likely to take a cut.
The inability to understand this is amazing.

[Otonashi]

Escrito originalmente por cinedine:

OH FFS!
It doesn't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ matter whether nano transaction cost a fee.

Taken the Binance example:

You pay Nano.
Steam receives Nano.
No loss.
Steam needs to convert into USD.
Steam takes a 0.1 % loss.
Steam needs to extract their balance from the platform.
BOOM! That's where the normal transaction fees for the traditional payment services is due.

https://www.binance.com/en/support/faq/0d2c1bac794346df9b1e1a56eb089a0b

It doesn't matter whether it's Binance, Coingate, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or whatever.
There is no use for Steam to have crypto or a balance on an exchange platform. Somehow this money must get into their accounts to be distributed further. And this steps comes with fees. Period. And these fees are usually higher than you using these services directly, because the exchange platform's conditions apply and they are likely to take a cut.
The inability to understand this is amazing.

Did you read your own link? It lists a 0.02% fee. On top of that, considering Valve is based in the US, they'd likely be using Binance US which lists a $0 fee for withdrawals via ACH.

https://www.binance.us/en/fee/schedule

[Radene]

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

Sure. That "we don't know because Valve does not make such information public" at the end really sells it. And, well....Quora....anyone can write anything there.

My dear god. Tell me - how do you think the ownership of Valve works? Explain me that, and then maybe I will understand your reasoning well enough to reply.

Gabe Newell owns the company, it does not have a "board of directors", it does not hold "shareholder meetings", and it is not open to "investment" offers of the type you're trying to sell here. And it's definitely not going to take it just because you said "it'd be beneficial for them".

That's fine, but can we for everyone's benefit perhaps focus on the message, rather than the messenger? Can we focus on what is actually being suggested, rather than who suggests it? Can we judge it based on whether it would be an actual improvement for Steam, or whether it is not?

Funny how you then follow up with this:

I genuinely wonder now whether you are trolling.
~~~
If you are trolling you are doing an excellent job at it, because this is getting truly ridiculous. Can someone pitch in here to let me know whether there is ANY other way I can explain this?

The only way for you to save any sort of face you might still have is to cut your losses, shut up, and walk away. Playing the victim and pretending that we're all just ignorant fools who just don't understand what you're saying is optional.

Your "idea" is bad, for reasons already explained. You've given us nothing but fancy-sounding yet hollow buzzwords and some sort of faux expertise in economics. You're not addressing anyone's points, you've just been acting like a sleazy salesman who would sell his own mother just to close the deal.

Stop pretending that you're arguing in good faith and that what you're peddling is "for the benefit of everyone". Nobody's buying that, either.

[Meides]

Gabe Newell owns the company, it does not have a "board of directors", it does not hold "shareholder meetings", and it is not open to "investment" offers of the type you're trying to sell here. And it's definitely not going to take it just because you said "it'd be beneficial for them".

Gabe Newell is not the sole owner of Steam, and even if he did he would be seen as the sole "shareholder". It's literally called Valve Corp, the Corp stands for corporation, a corporation has shareholders by definition. Foundations might not, but a corporation always does. That is not something up for debate, it's just the literal truth. You're ridiculing yourself if you argue this, honestly.

That being said, the point here was that it's beneficial for shareholders. In the purpose of saving both of us a lot of trouble and saving a lot of brain cells for everyone involved, shall we change "beneficial for shareholders" to "beneficial for owner(s)"? :)

Your "idea" is bad, for reasons already explained. You've given us nothing but fancy-sounding yet hollow buzzwords and some sort of faux expertise in economics. You're not addressing anyone's points, you've just been acting like a sleazy salesman who would sell his own mother just to close the deal.

As I said before, I am happy, and very understanding of the fact that you are not in any way in charge of business at Steam. This is a suggestion that would save them a lot of money, which could be passed on to their OWNERS, to customers, or to developers. The fact that you literally fail to grasp how it works is an issue for you personally, but is not an issue for Steam.

Escrito originalmente por Nx Machina:

1) How hard is it to understand Nano is a CURRENCY and you would be paying in NANO if Valve adopt it and you ASSUME it will be converted to EURO.

Sure, they can totally choose to keep it in Nano. My suggestion is assuming they do not want to keep it in Nano since Nano still has volatility. Hence me suggesting it in a way that they wouldn't have to assume any volatility.

2) Oh! please, I had a beggar ask me for money who did not go through the hoops you have to sell Nano on this thread with your initial sales pitch.

So despite me not being listed as part of the team, me saying I am not part of the team, and literally no evidence to suggest I am part of the team, you are nonetheless going to say I am part of the team?

Fine. Dude, you work at Paypal. Of course you're going to be against this suggestion, it eats into your profit. I know your pay depends directly on the amount of sales Paypal does on Steam, so obviously you're going to be against this. It makes sense that you're pretending to not understand all the savings Nano is offering when you are so strongly incentivised not to see it.

2) And then we get Buzzwords.

a: It's a feeless crypto.

b: It's an instant crypto.

c: It's great for the environment.

d: It makes it fantastically easy to purchase from anywhere in the world.

e: It's 100% secure.

All verifiable. Not sure what the buzzwords are here. It literally is a feeless crypto, literally is instant, literally is better for the environment than the alternatives, literally makes it easy to purchase from anywhere in the world, and literally is 100% secure in over 70 milion transactions so far.

3) Then the doorstep, "don't miss out on this great offer" spiel.

a: 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.

NOTE: Appeal to potential adopters wallets.

Yes, because why make a suggestion that isn't going to offer Steam OR users anything? I am making a suggestion and explaining why it would be a good idea.

b: 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.

NOTE: Slate the opposition.

... Steam literally used to accept Bitcoin and literally said they stopped accepting it for the reasons I mentioned.

c: Nano is extremely energy efficient, the whole network could run on the power output of a single wind turbine.

NOTE: Ignore they may have a car which pollutes the atmosphere.

Okay, now you must be 100% trolling.

d: When I'm abroad it's surprisingly difficult to pay for stuff on Steam. Nano knows no borders, so it seems perfect for this.

NOTE: A personal recommendation.

Hah. Yes, explaining why it might be useful to people.

e: 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.

NOTE: Slate the opposition.

Yes, show why it's a good alternative? Should I rather say "Oh but you know what, despite all these advantages it would actually be a terrible idea to use Nano, despite Paypal sometimes giving difficulties and Nano never having these difficulties"?

However, Nano is very weak in terms of business growth, they have almost no merchant market penetration and noone outside of crypto circles knows about them, ergo – their brand presence is very weak, almost non-existent.

Again, literally one guy. Not sure where you got him from, I've never seen his articles referenced anywhere, and he seems to be doing a great job at ridiculing himself in that same article through a bunch of incorrect predictions.

https://www.binance.com/en/support/faq/0d2c1bac794346df9b1e1a56eb089a0b

It doesn't matter whether it's Binance, Coingate, Coin♥♥♥♥ery or whatever.
There is no use for Steam to have crypto or a balance on an exchange platform. Somehow this money must get into their accounts to be distributed further. And this steps comes with fees. Period. And these fees are usually higher than you using these services directly, because the exchange platform's conditions apply and they are likely to take a cut.
The inability to understand this is amazing.

That's fantastic, you provided the link haha. I was searching for that. So a 0.10% trade fee (conservatively) with a 0.02% withdraw fee. I just checked and the 0.10% trade fee would actually be closer to 0.06% even with barely any volume, so even adding the two up the total fee would still be lower than (or say conservatively, exactly at) 0.1%.

The fees are not higher. Can you do me a favor and Google for "Paypal Fees", "Visa Merchant Fees", "Mastercard Merchant fees" and tell me whether after reading some of the results you think these payment options charge lower fees than 0.1%?

[Matt]

This is a user forum. There's no need to "sell" us on the idea. If Valve wants to add this then they'll add it.

[Meides]

Escrito originalmente por Matt:

This is a user forum. There's no need to "sell" us on the idea. If Valve wants to add this then they'll add it.

Sure, fair point. But if people are stating complete untruths, I feel obligated to reply to that. I'm being accused of working for this crypto, when I do not. The cost savings are clear, but some are stating that it's not a cost saving relative to traditional payment processors. Since that is the case, I don't mind going into discussion about it.

[Shryder]

Yo I didnt read the whole thread but did that guy say 0.1% fee is bad? does he know paypal takes atleast 2.9% fee when sending money lmao and that's without counting the withdrawal fees

[Radene]

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

As I said before, I am happy, and very understanding of the fact that you are not in any way in charge of business at Steam. This is a suggestion that would save them a lot of money, which could be passed on to their OWNERS, to customers, or to developers. The fact that you literally fail to grasp how it works is an issue for you personally, but is not an issue for Steam.

That's fine, if I'm the stupid one and even I can see the problems with this master plan of yours, the smart business people at Valve will see them too.

[Meides]

That's fine, if I'm the stupid one and even I can see the problems with this master plan of yours, the smart business people at Valve will see them too.

I'm checking back and the last 3-4 replies you've made are mostly about how Steam doesn't have shareholders. Is that the problem you see? Because if so as I said, I'd be fine with calling it owners rather than shareholders, though I do feel like I need to make clear that anyone that works as Valve, or anyone that.. well, owns Valve shares, will tell you that Valve definitely has shareholders.

[Nx Machina]

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

Sure, they can totally choose to keep it in Nano. My suggestion is assuming they do not want to keep it in Nano since Nano still has volatility. Hence me suggesting it in a way that they wouldn't have to assume any volatility.

Personally I always enjoy a contradiction.

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

The point is not about volatility. I hope that it's clear to everyone else if not to you, but the volatility issue isn't there. A person pays with Nano, the Nano is instantly converted to USD. It literally does not matter whether Nano is $1, $100 or whether it fluctuates between the two. There is no volatility risk except for a sub-second risk, and it isn't so volatile that sub-second price differences matter.

Escrito originalmente por Senatus:

So despite me not being listed as part of the team, me saying I am not part of the team, and literally no evidence to suggest I am part of the team, you are nonetheless going to say I am part of the team?

Still avoiding the sales pitch OP post whilst pretending it is something else.

I work in advertising and your OP post sang to my very soul although you lost a sale so maybe ask them to re-write it.

[SwampMoccasin]

Not sure what the big deal is... Valve experimented with Bitcoin is the past, but it failed. Nano is a technical solution to this failure. Valve is obviously interested in cryptocurrencies.

Valve accepts Ukrainian Hryvnia, which has seen hyper inflation in the past, along with other questionable fiat currencies. Do you think they convert it to USD or EUR? And what would be the conversion rate for that?

Cryptocurrency, Nano especially, is exciting technology that's not going away. I think it would be smart to get ahead of the curve on this.

[Meides]

Personally I always enjoy a contradiction.

What's the contradiction here? I am saying that no matter what the volatility is, Steam can choose to avoid it by converting into a fiat currency of their choice instantly.

Still avoiding the sales pitch OP post whilst pretending it is something else.

I work in advertising and your OP post ang to my very soul.

I'll take that as a compliment I guess, given that suggestions are in a way a pitch for an idea?

[Radene]

And here come the sock puppets.