pull down to refresh
That's not what I was arguing at all though. I'll just ask a question, maybe that will make my last objection clear, because it is worth discussing.
Scenario:
I, normie-opti, migrated in from Eastern Turkey, and I have a great desk job with a US company in Boston. I make about 40x what the entirety of my family back home combined makes, so I wanna send back some cash rather than buy a mansion. I pay my taxes, have my citizenship, all is in order. My salary gets paid through ACH, directly to my Chase account. Sending money directly to their Ziraat Bank account from Chase is difficult due to politics, so I want to use a middleman that makes sure the money gets there.
Please correct me if I am living in the past and a scenario like this is no longer a US reality
Now, my question is:
In which way is Strike as a remission service superior to remitly, for me?
It’s not. Remitly will have to do for you!
Turkey isn’t supported.
But if your country was supported you could ACH your paycheck to strike and then send the family funds to their bank account and it arrives in a few minutes.
How isn’t it? Its an exchange a touch point. This short sightedness you share is unfortunate.
I rather someone use Strike then remitly. You take wins where you can get them.
I was brought to Bitcoin by coinbase in 2017. By your logic I should have waited for some crappy no liquidity no KYC exchange to come along and buy $50 worth of bitcoin so I can remain counter culture is somewhat lame!
Everything is a battle the normal state of existence is rest. If people didn’t battle for bitcoin it would still be amongst the computer nerds