The entire point of AMP is to provide a path for Blockchain companies to outsource the risk/reward/collateral so that a Bank (or another large liquidity partner) is not necessary to be be the fiduciary/collateral provider. Even if Circle runs its own payment engine, its not inconceivable that it may use its own customizable AMP shared risk collateral pool just like Flexa does with its engine. In the end, i do not see how other payment systems can compete with the fee structure of a not-for-profit system under the assumption they provide the same service.Įdit: its been a day since i posted this but i wanted to make an additional comment. Flexa might even use USDC to process fiat to blockchain to fiat transactions one day. In Flexa’s system the fees are kept at the absolute lowest possible level to process a transaction and instead of creating profit from fees, it creates capital gains value in the AMP collateral utility token completely based on the volume of its use. In the Circle payment system a traditional for-profit fee model is used over a blockchain. Flexa’s ‘any currency to any currency’ payment engine is functioning like a not-for-profit company where transactions are set at the absolute lowest possible fee to facilitate settlement and where the fiduciary is a shared risk collateral pool instead of a bank. In essence, Circle is being the bank and using its own Stablecoin with its aquired processor to transact over a blockchain. It looks like a USDC based payment system where Circle is the fiduciary guarantor of the settlement.
0 kommentar(er)
