Bitcoin's economic future: increasing the number of coins or switching to other currencies
Ilya Laurs, a Lithuanian venture capitalist, rose in the market of mobile applications when he was still emerging, lived and worked in Silicon Valley and returned to Lithuania to invest in fintek startups at home, founding Nextury Ventures . We met him in April at the “Bitcoin Conference” organized with his participation in Vilnius .
Early or late to the bitcoin you will need to apply the Multiplication Spell
The conversation immediately took an interesting turn: it was about the flaws of Bitcoins. Well, right, who needs the 100,500th article about how good and beautiful bitcoin is? Next, I quote Ilya's direct speech.
Bitcoin is imperfect according to a number of criteria, both technical and philosophical-organizational. Flaws laid in the protocol itself is still at the concept level. One of the most frequently called ones is the size of a block of ten megabytes, which is not yet reached, but it goes to that. And without rewriting the entire protocol again, you cannot increase the amount of transaction volume a hundred times. That is, it initially contains ten megabytes, how many transactions are collected in ten minutes - so many will be included in one block, period. Of course, there are standard answers that we will rewrite the protocol, put a patch, and so on, but this already means that the technology is not suitable in its current form.
')
The second thing I don’t like is the speed of transactions. I still believe that in the digital world, even ten minutes is not prohibitively long . The lack of real-time transactions is a brake on so many things, so somehow you need to speed them up.
Thirdly, many are dissatisfied with the fact that Bitcoin was originally created on a not very clear basis. Its amount is not commensurate with the size of the world economy - and it claims too much weight without any security. As a result, currencies appear that promise to solve all these problems - technical and conceptual.
However, the prevalence of Bitcoin works for the benefit of it. And here, it seems to me, the point of no return has already been passed. That is, the question is not whether it will be dominant and unique, but how big the gap will be from the next one. In principle, nothing prevents the world from being multi-currency. For different purposes, in different modifications, dozens of virtual currencies can coexist, and the weight between them can be distributed quite equally. Or on the contrary, Bitcoin may become the only standard, and all the others simply stall.
In principle, I believe in cryptocurrencies, and I think that it is right to not give the state the right to print at all and somehow manage such a class of instruments as currency, because the state often abuses it. The classic position of bitcoin and crypto-currency anarchists is that the government prints money to hide deficiencies and to wage wars. Too easy tool to extract money for their needs.
Will this be exactly bitcoin? One way or another, society needs some kind of cryptocurrency, common, beyond the power of America, which now controls the dollar all over the planet, not subject to any states at all, so that there is not even any motive and leverage, let's say, to manage such a class of tools as money. It is possible that because of their inherent problems, Bitcoin will eventually be bypassed by Bitcoin-2 or some other coin. But now he has come so far away from other cryptocurrencies that, very likely, after numerous patches, it is he who will eventually dominate.
Technically, Bitcoin is ready for any changes. You can rewrite every line of the algorithm, replace everything, all principles, including block size, encryption, bitcoin size, alter if more than half of the computers agree.
So this is a political question: if the advanced community recognizes some need, but the mass of computers and their inertia will be so high that any rational arguments, arguments, the call of the public lead to nothing, it is a fork or an alternative care. If, after all, adequate mechanisms of persuasion - for example, the same Bitcoin Foundation makes a statement that yes, guys, we evaluated a lot, here are the open protocols of all decisions, conversations, arguments, and we came to the conclusion that this should be done and we call community to support such changes - work, then there will be a patch and a fundamental change in some of the current parameters.
From the point of view of the evolution of statistics, initially creating the eye in its current form is ideally impossible. It is impossible to create an initially ideally completed product: any organism, any structure must evolve. The only question is whether it will be possible to evolve in that structure, which is nevertheless tied to the fifty-percent quorum, or still at some point the machine will be such that no single point-personality of the movement will change. Then there will be only fork or alternative.
I believe in the idea of ​​free distribution of information, in distribution systems in which key information is stored in a distributed form and is not subject to change, manipulation, concealment, and so on, in the absence of control for key types of information - the complete absence, including the state. I believe that it is in this direction that it is necessary, and the community will strive. And it is with the help of the blockchain, I think we will go step by step towards this goal. The first blockchains that we will see are private blockchains - for example, banks' commonwealth. That is, it will not be completely distributed across all members of the community. There may be state blockchains, interstate, for example, at the European level, and so on.
First of all, they will be used to store registers of second importance - we are unlikely to see personal information like passport data in the blockchain in the near future, but, say, driver's license data, medical cards and the like, not the most sensitive information can be transferred there. From the whole environment of the countries that I follow in principle, I communicate, Estonia came closest to this. Estonia is a very technologically aggressive country in principle - they have ambitions, for example, to become the first virtual country and populate Estonia with virtual Estonians. They develop virtual citizenship, I even heard that the state already buys 21.co bitcoin computers at schools. Therefore, I would not be surprised if the first examples are either at the level of the same stock exchange, or on secondary registers of IT technology, and in the future this could potentially lead, for example, to the fact that all personal data, that is, identification documents, passports will sit on the blockchain.
Now the size of the blockchain of the same Bitcoin has grown very large, complicating the ability to store it entirely in each user. But if this is a problem, then temporary. First, it is impossible to compress data using a hash. Take, for example, the system of smart contracts: the full text, naturally, will not be stored anywhere, all this will be displayed in a hash and the key will be stored, without which it will not be possible to restore the full text of the contract, but it can be said whether the contract shown is really it was entered because the contract is hashed with the same algorithms, and is compared with the original key.
This is the meaning of hashing: even if you need a library of Congress to check if at least one bit has been touched or at least a piece of paper has been torn out of a book, you can completely drive it into one half-page-long hash, and this hash will be absolutely unique for the entire library . So you can always say: yes, this is the library in this form before the letter was registered here.
Secondly, after all, the amount of information produced by man is of course. In principle, seven billion passports are issued, each is endowed with some number of bits, bytes, and so on, and this is in principle the final figure. Let it be a terabyte, let a hundred terabytes, but this is the final figure. And according to Moore’s law and empirically, data storage density doubles every two years. Ten years ago it was impossible to imagine that everything was printed, all books could be stored on one flash drive - and now it’s hard to imagine that all the information produced by humanity can fit there. The logic of technology development suggests that in a hundred years we will be able to store everything at all, every action, every breath and every step . Just because the information produced is finite, and its storage is still subject to Moore's law: let's move to a quantum repository, move to DNA storage, and so on - so far, like, there is no end to the fact that the storage of information can decay in principle at some level .
I believe that all the opportunities to earn money on a bitcoin boom, which once were, are no longer available to an individual person. The same mining: professional miners are so advanced that, conditionally, you stick a microchip into an atomic or hydroelectric power plant - and mine . Individuals alone can not keep up with them.
Economically, there are two vector forces - one against the other. On the one hand, the Bitcoin economy is expanding - this is a plus. On the other - the same regulatory risks, etc., there is always a non-zero risk that somehow the states will unite, outlaw Bitcoin, and, even if they are not technically pulled out - this is impossible - but they will bring it to the point when it becomes dangerous to use it both unprofitable - as with drugs or weapons to play. An individual, most likely, will not begin to muddle with it - and then this, of course, kills all the savings.
With regard to trading, trying to make money on exchange rates - it is also available to the ordinary user, as well as the usual game on the stock exchange. I think, professionals have already occupied this niche so much that a private person has nowhere to settle in it. Much better, even if you are alone and it really interests you, to build some kind of a startup three hours a week: user interfaces, wallets. There are a bunch of related services that even one person, if he invests several hours a week, can do.
I myself do not use bitcoins in everyday life. They interest me only professionally so far: I treat those people who want to understand everything first, clarify, and only after making sure that it is accurate, correct and reliable - to become a user. And for the time being, the employees are only paying with real money.
I can not even advise to save, because I'm not exactly sure that they will grow up to date. The course of one Bitcoin and its domination do not intersect one hundred percent. They correlate, but not one hundred percent. Therefore, it is possible that the course of Bitcoin will remain the same, and it will become the dominant and the only one. Theoretically possible.
But at the same time, if the limit of twenty million bitcoins persists, at some point the limit will be reached, that is, the universe will be filled, and then the question will arise as to how the entire world economy will fit into these twenty million. I doubt very much that this will happen. Overly doubt. Because it means that we simply reward everyone who stores Bitcoin, not earned money. Much more likely is the scenario when society says: “ Guys, we have to increase the number of coins, and, having found mechanisms, when there is still some value behind the increase , and this process should be done smoothly and nevertheless increase the mass gradually to a much larger ".
I think that from all points of view, such a process is most likely and would be more correct, including a social point of view, because, after all, I do not believe philosophically, or from all other parties, to reward people for anything something
The alternative would mean massively revalue the courses, which would mean a completely inadequate return of the invested value. That is, the economic future of Bitcoin - either the transition to other currencies, or an increase in the money supply. I think these two scenarios are much more likely.
Lithuania is now one of the leaders in financial technology. An example of this is that Barclays has built an R & D center for several hundred people in Vilnius, which is engaged in quite serious infrastructure platforms, solutions for the entire Barclays group all over the world. Western Union has built a giant innovation center in Lithuania. Fifteen percent of all Western Union employees are based in Lithuania. That is, Lithuania declares that IT in general and Fintek in particular are the main priorities that promise, at least, the maximum at all levels of the state in terms of quick consideration, friendly attitude to all businesses related to this, from investment to operations .
Because in such a small country as Lithuania you are either defined with several verticals and you over-focus on them, or you do not exist. That is, to fight for the production of iron or to extract oil does not threaten us. But somehow we must live, therefore, isolate, calculate some very narrow specializations and over-focus on them - this is the only thing ...
Estonia is also active, but it is a much smaller market. One million against three million people - at this level it is a significant difference. Roughly speaking, the number of specialists you can physically plant is much more limited. Not to mention the fact that in Lithuania there are much more universities, much more is the output of IT specialists. In addition, they have different priorities. For example, one of the over-ambitions of Estonia is still the concept of e-government, but it is a lot of resources, thinking, and so on. A lot of resources are spent on this, on the cards of e-residents of Estonia. This is what is now heard and on everyone’s affairs. And fintek is Lithuania’s publicly declared ambition, this is our super-vertical, and we will make every effort to consider and support it at any level from the tax inspectorate to banks, regulators, and so on. And the presence of such players as big as Barclays is an example for the international community, which we can do, and these big guys are sitting in vain here, and this is good ground to push further. These centers train specialists, they come back and circulate in a few years, starting with startups and ending with international corporations.
Even in the global context, according to Fintek, Lithuania is in the leading positions. This is one of the few areas where Lithuania is twenty years ahead of America. I had the opportunity to live and work in the States: until now, the average American accountant sends wages by checks — physical paper checks to his employees. I am not kidding. Between themselves, businesses are calculated by physical paper checks.
Homer's favorite type of mail: weekly check from work
Until very recently, even such an advanced corporation as Google sent a physical check to its partners in Lithuania. That is, they print a check in America, a month later, by usual slow mail, this check goes to a partner’s mailbox in Lithuania, he takes it physically to a bank, the bank sends this check back to America to his correspondent bank after a slow mail, two more weeks, that correspondent bank credits correspondent money to a US account. We were partners with Google five or seven years ago, not such a long past. And on average, the money was credited to our account approximately three months after the receipt of the check. Due to the fact that in America there is much greater inertia, their Fintek sector is very underdeveloped. For example, only this year they only began to issue the first chip credit cards. Last year, they never took with chips. Everywhere there were magnetic cards, and I personally twice in the past year copied in restaurants, stole a card and walked around Los Angeles, paying with my card double. I really felt it all on myself. Twenty-first century, what can be talk about security, if you just scan a restaurant in a restaurant and go shopping with her? I’m not saying that having taken two photos by the phone, on the Internet and in front, enjoy with might and main.
In Lithuania, 70% of online payments are direct bank transfers. That is, not credit cards. Bank transfer is 100% reliability. Without any forms, addresses, zip codes and mother's maiden names. Fill nothing, it's instant. We have a digital signature law. On my sim card, my digital signature is equivalent to a physical one. The bank allows me to do anything, validating me, authenticating via phone. All this is advanced, and the most interesting thing is that it is not just technically possible, but also people use it. Seventy percent of bank-link payments instead of credit cards is an indicator of mass. This scale I have not seen either in Germany or in Britain or in Scandinavia. That is, in terms of the implementation parameters and the real use of all these new technologies in fintek, Lithuania, I think, is more advanced than anything I have seen in the Western world.
Our fund basically invests in various new technologies. There are four verticals that we traditionally support: mobile technologies, 3-D printing, market-place and fintek.
Fintek is somewhat broader than just blockchain and bitcoins, it includes smart payments and card-linking - when deals and discounts are attached to specific customer bank cards.
In the sixteenth year, we focused on fintek - more than half of our investments will definitely go here - and yes, we look specifically at Bitcoin, but we also look at the three other verticals. This is a blockchain, this is smart payments, this is card-linking. But in terms of Bitcoin specifically, I, as an investor, do not have enough courage to invest in, let's say, rather controversial businesses like exchangers and other things that directly meet with regulators. This is a risky investment for me, but there are a lot of derivatives and related areas, which may well use the advantages of the same Bitcoin, and still not be beyond what regulators consider to be unauthorized.
I will be glad to talk with Russian startups. I answer everyone on Linkedin - for professional communication this is an ideal platform. However, we must bear in mind that in the sixteenth year we are one hundred percent focus on startups only in Lithuania. That is, if the question of relocating and developing in Lithuania is welcome.
Early or late to the bitcoin you will need to apply the Multiplication Spell
The conversation immediately took an interesting turn: it was about the flaws of Bitcoins. Well, right, who needs the 100,500th article about how good and beautiful bitcoin is? Next, I quote Ilya's direct speech.
Bitcoin inconsistency: weakness of the idea against the power of coverage
Bitcoin is imperfect according to a number of criteria, both technical and philosophical-organizational. Flaws laid in the protocol itself is still at the concept level. One of the most frequently called ones is the size of a block of ten megabytes, which is not yet reached, but it goes to that. And without rewriting the entire protocol again, you cannot increase the amount of transaction volume a hundred times. That is, it initially contains ten megabytes, how many transactions are collected in ten minutes - so many will be included in one block, period. Of course, there are standard answers that we will rewrite the protocol, put a patch, and so on, but this already means that the technology is not suitable in its current form.
')
The second thing I don’t like is the speed of transactions. I still believe that in the digital world, even ten minutes is not prohibitively long . The lack of real-time transactions is a brake on so many things, so somehow you need to speed them up.
Thirdly, many are dissatisfied with the fact that Bitcoin was originally created on a not very clear basis. Its amount is not commensurate with the size of the world economy - and it claims too much weight without any security. As a result, currencies appear that promise to solve all these problems - technical and conceptual.
However, the prevalence of Bitcoin works for the benefit of it. And here, it seems to me, the point of no return has already been passed. That is, the question is not whether it will be dominant and unique, but how big the gap will be from the next one. In principle, nothing prevents the world from being multi-currency. For different purposes, in different modifications, dozens of virtual currencies can coexist, and the weight between them can be distributed quite equally. Or on the contrary, Bitcoin may become the only standard, and all the others simply stall.
In principle, I believe in cryptocurrencies, and I think that it is right to not give the state the right to print at all and somehow manage such a class of instruments as currency, because the state often abuses it. The classic position of bitcoin and crypto-currency anarchists is that the government prints money to hide deficiencies and to wage wars. Too easy tool to extract money for their needs.
Will this be exactly bitcoin? One way or another, society needs some kind of cryptocurrency, common, beyond the power of America, which now controls the dollar all over the planet, not subject to any states at all, so that there is not even any motive and leverage, let's say, to manage such a class of tools as money. It is possible that because of their inherent problems, Bitcoin will eventually be bypassed by Bitcoin-2 or some other coin. But now he has come so far away from other cryptocurrencies that, very likely, after numerous patches, it is he who will eventually dominate.
Bitcoin will have to change - or yield
Technically, Bitcoin is ready for any changes. You can rewrite every line of the algorithm, replace everything, all principles, including block size, encryption, bitcoin size, alter if more than half of the computers agree.
So this is a political question: if the advanced community recognizes some need, but the mass of computers and their inertia will be so high that any rational arguments, arguments, the call of the public lead to nothing, it is a fork or an alternative care. If, after all, adequate mechanisms of persuasion - for example, the same Bitcoin Foundation makes a statement that yes, guys, we evaluated a lot, here are the open protocols of all decisions, conversations, arguments, and we came to the conclusion that this should be done and we call community to support such changes - work, then there will be a patch and a fundamental change in some of the current parameters.
From the point of view of the evolution of statistics, initially creating the eye in its current form is ideally impossible. It is impossible to create an initially ideally completed product: any organism, any structure must evolve. The only question is whether it will be possible to evolve in that structure, which is nevertheless tied to the fifty-percent quorum, or still at some point the machine will be such that no single point-personality of the movement will change. Then there will be only fork or alternative.
Blockchain era
I believe in the idea of ​​free distribution of information, in distribution systems in which key information is stored in a distributed form and is not subject to change, manipulation, concealment, and so on, in the absence of control for key types of information - the complete absence, including the state. I believe that it is in this direction that it is necessary, and the community will strive. And it is with the help of the blockchain, I think we will go step by step towards this goal. The first blockchains that we will see are private blockchains - for example, banks' commonwealth. That is, it will not be completely distributed across all members of the community. There may be state blockchains, interstate, for example, at the European level, and so on.
First of all, they will be used to store registers of second importance - we are unlikely to see personal information like passport data in the blockchain in the near future, but, say, driver's license data, medical cards and the like, not the most sensitive information can be transferred there. From the whole environment of the countries that I follow in principle, I communicate, Estonia came closest to this. Estonia is a very technologically aggressive country in principle - they have ambitions, for example, to become the first virtual country and populate Estonia with virtual Estonians. They develop virtual citizenship, I even heard that the state already buys 21.co bitcoin computers at schools. Therefore, I would not be surprised if the first examples are either at the level of the same stock exchange, or on secondary registers of IT technology, and in the future this could potentially lead, for example, to the fact that all personal data, that is, identification documents, passports will sit on the blockchain.
About data storage
Now the size of the blockchain of the same Bitcoin has grown very large, complicating the ability to store it entirely in each user. But if this is a problem, then temporary. First, it is impossible to compress data using a hash. Take, for example, the system of smart contracts: the full text, naturally, will not be stored anywhere, all this will be displayed in a hash and the key will be stored, without which it will not be possible to restore the full text of the contract, but it can be said whether the contract shown is really it was entered because the contract is hashed with the same algorithms, and is compared with the original key.
This is the meaning of hashing: even if you need a library of Congress to check if at least one bit has been touched or at least a piece of paper has been torn out of a book, you can completely drive it into one half-page-long hash, and this hash will be absolutely unique for the entire library . So you can always say: yes, this is the library in this form before the letter was registered here.
Secondly, after all, the amount of information produced by man is of course. In principle, seven billion passports are issued, each is endowed with some number of bits, bytes, and so on, and this is in principle the final figure. Let it be a terabyte, let a hundred terabytes, but this is the final figure. And according to Moore’s law and empirically, data storage density doubles every two years. Ten years ago it was impossible to imagine that everything was printed, all books could be stored on one flash drive - and now it’s hard to imagine that all the information produced by humanity can fit there. The logic of technology development suggests that in a hundred years we will be able to store everything at all, every action, every breath and every step . Just because the information produced is finite, and its storage is still subject to Moore's law: let's move to a quantum repository, move to DNA storage, and so on - so far, like, there is no end to the fact that the storage of information can decay in principle at some level .
How simple Vasya earn on the cue ball
I believe that all the opportunities to earn money on a bitcoin boom, which once were, are no longer available to an individual person. The same mining: professional miners are so advanced that, conditionally, you stick a microchip into an atomic or hydroelectric power plant - and mine . Individuals alone can not keep up with them.
Economically, there are two vector forces - one against the other. On the one hand, the Bitcoin economy is expanding - this is a plus. On the other - the same regulatory risks, etc., there is always a non-zero risk that somehow the states will unite, outlaw Bitcoin, and, even if they are not technically pulled out - this is impossible - but they will bring it to the point when it becomes dangerous to use it both unprofitable - as with drugs or weapons to play. An individual, most likely, will not begin to muddle with it - and then this, of course, kills all the savings.
With regard to trading, trying to make money on exchange rates - it is also available to the ordinary user, as well as the usual game on the stock exchange. I think, professionals have already occupied this niche so much that a private person has nowhere to settle in it. Much better, even if you are alone and it really interests you, to build some kind of a startup three hours a week: user interfaces, wallets. There are a bunch of related services that even one person, if he invests several hours a week, can do.
I myself do not use bitcoins in everyday life. They interest me only professionally so far: I treat those people who want to understand everything first, clarify, and only after making sure that it is accurate, correct and reliable - to become a user. And for the time being, the employees are only paying with real money.
I can not even advise to save, because I'm not exactly sure that they will grow up to date. The course of one Bitcoin and its domination do not intersect one hundred percent. They correlate, but not one hundred percent. Therefore, it is possible that the course of Bitcoin will remain the same, and it will become the dominant and the only one. Theoretically possible.
But at the same time, if the limit of twenty million bitcoins persists, at some point the limit will be reached, that is, the universe will be filled, and then the question will arise as to how the entire world economy will fit into these twenty million. I doubt very much that this will happen. Overly doubt. Because it means that we simply reward everyone who stores Bitcoin, not earned money. Much more likely is the scenario when society says: “ Guys, we have to increase the number of coins, and, having found mechanisms, when there is still some value behind the increase , and this process should be done smoothly and nevertheless increase the mass gradually to a much larger ".
I think that from all points of view, such a process is most likely and would be more correct, including a social point of view, because, after all, I do not believe philosophically, or from all other parties, to reward people for anything something
The alternative would mean massively revalue the courses, which would mean a completely inadequate return of the invested value. That is, the economic future of Bitcoin - either the transition to other currencies, or an increase in the money supply. I think these two scenarios are much more likely.
About Lithuania and Estonia in the international division of innovations
Lithuania is now one of the leaders in financial technology. An example of this is that Barclays has built an R & D center for several hundred people in Vilnius, which is engaged in quite serious infrastructure platforms, solutions for the entire Barclays group all over the world. Western Union has built a giant innovation center in Lithuania. Fifteen percent of all Western Union employees are based in Lithuania. That is, Lithuania declares that IT in general and Fintek in particular are the main priorities that promise, at least, the maximum at all levels of the state in terms of quick consideration, friendly attitude to all businesses related to this, from investment to operations .
Because in such a small country as Lithuania you are either defined with several verticals and you over-focus on them, or you do not exist. That is, to fight for the production of iron or to extract oil does not threaten us. But somehow we must live, therefore, isolate, calculate some very narrow specializations and over-focus on them - this is the only thing ...
Estonia is also active, but it is a much smaller market. One million against three million people - at this level it is a significant difference. Roughly speaking, the number of specialists you can physically plant is much more limited. Not to mention the fact that in Lithuania there are much more universities, much more is the output of IT specialists. In addition, they have different priorities. For example, one of the over-ambitions of Estonia is still the concept of e-government, but it is a lot of resources, thinking, and so on. A lot of resources are spent on this, on the cards of e-residents of Estonia. This is what is now heard and on everyone’s affairs. And fintek is Lithuania’s publicly declared ambition, this is our super-vertical, and we will make every effort to consider and support it at any level from the tax inspectorate to banks, regulators, and so on. And the presence of such players as big as Barclays is an example for the international community, which we can do, and these big guys are sitting in vain here, and this is good ground to push further. These centers train specialists, they come back and circulate in a few years, starting with startups and ending with international corporations.
Even in the global context, according to Fintek, Lithuania is in the leading positions. This is one of the few areas where Lithuania is twenty years ahead of America. I had the opportunity to live and work in the States: until now, the average American accountant sends wages by checks — physical paper checks to his employees. I am not kidding. Between themselves, businesses are calculated by physical paper checks.
Homer's favorite type of mail: weekly check from work
Until very recently, even such an advanced corporation as Google sent a physical check to its partners in Lithuania. That is, they print a check in America, a month later, by usual slow mail, this check goes to a partner’s mailbox in Lithuania, he takes it physically to a bank, the bank sends this check back to America to his correspondent bank after a slow mail, two more weeks, that correspondent bank credits correspondent money to a US account. We were partners with Google five or seven years ago, not such a long past. And on average, the money was credited to our account approximately three months after the receipt of the check. Due to the fact that in America there is much greater inertia, their Fintek sector is very underdeveloped. For example, only this year they only began to issue the first chip credit cards. Last year, they never took with chips. Everywhere there were magnetic cards, and I personally twice in the past year copied in restaurants, stole a card and walked around Los Angeles, paying with my card double. I really felt it all on myself. Twenty-first century, what can be talk about security, if you just scan a restaurant in a restaurant and go shopping with her? I’m not saying that having taken two photos by the phone, on the Internet and in front, enjoy with might and main.
In Lithuania, 70% of online payments are direct bank transfers. That is, not credit cards. Bank transfer is 100% reliability. Without any forms, addresses, zip codes and mother's maiden names. Fill nothing, it's instant. We have a digital signature law. On my sim card, my digital signature is equivalent to a physical one. The bank allows me to do anything, validating me, authenticating via phone. All this is advanced, and the most interesting thing is that it is not just technically possible, but also people use it. Seventy percent of bank-link payments instead of credit cards is an indicator of mass. This scale I have not seen either in Germany or in Britain or in Scandinavia. That is, in terms of the implementation parameters and the real use of all these new technologies in fintek, Lithuania, I think, is more advanced than anything I have seen in the Western world.
Where Nextury invests
Our fund basically invests in various new technologies. There are four verticals that we traditionally support: mobile technologies, 3-D printing, market-place and fintek.
Fintek is somewhat broader than just blockchain and bitcoins, it includes smart payments and card-linking - when deals and discounts are attached to specific customer bank cards.
In the sixteenth year, we focused on fintek - more than half of our investments will definitely go here - and yes, we look specifically at Bitcoin, but we also look at the three other verticals. This is a blockchain, this is smart payments, this is card-linking. But in terms of Bitcoin specifically, I, as an investor, do not have enough courage to invest in, let's say, rather controversial businesses like exchangers and other things that directly meet with regulators. This is a risky investment for me, but there are a lot of derivatives and related areas, which may well use the advantages of the same Bitcoin, and still not be beyond what regulators consider to be unauthorized.
I will be glad to talk with Russian startups. I answer everyone on Linkedin - for professional communication this is an ideal platform. However, we must bear in mind that in the sixteenth year we are one hundred percent focus on startups only in Lithuania. That is, if the question of relocating and developing in Lithuania is welcome.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/372805/
All Articles