pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @fanis 26 Jan
Interesting to see more and more of this kind of services pop up, with Lightning present from Day 1. Of course it makes a lot of sense, and it would almost seem absurd today to launch something like that without Lighting support, but that wasn't the case just 1-2 years ago.
A side note. Taken from their website:
I know it's just wording, but if the service takes a 1% cut, then it's clearly not directly from the customer's wallet to yours. It's instant, automatic withdrawal to your wallet at best.
There's a clear tension between services that offer instant automatic withdrawals to your own wallet and can charge their fee before performing the withdrawal ; and services like Zaprite that don't want to be in charge of your funds at any point, and thus can't take a fee on each transactions and hence have to rely on charging a monthly subscription. My guess is they don't address the same market, and the Zaprite model starts to make sense when you begin to see steady cahsflow in sats going through.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 10 Dec
Actually, no. Flash does allow P2P payments directly to a self-custodial wallet. The difference is they use Nostr Wallet Connect. This allows for direct debit. So in order for the merchant to get paid via Flash tools, he needs a NWC enabled wallet. After he gets paid to his wallet, Flash then triggers the payment of the fee to their own wallet. It's actually really cool to see how it works! Definitely an innovation that will unlock a bunch of use-cases and revenue models
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @fanis 11 Dec
Interesting, thanks for pointing it out! It's a clever way to take the fee, although it has the drawback of not being atomic. But then if a merchant blocks the payment of the fee to Flash, they can terminate this merchant's account, and they can no longer use the service.
reply