Bitwage

https://www.bitwage.co

by markmassie • 12 years ago

102 86 12 years ago

lukasm• 12 years ago

I'd refuse the job offer if the company would pay me in bitcoin. Volatility is not acceptable.

Having said that, there is a market for companies that hire remote workers and they could use it for automating the process of exchanging, accounting fiat1 -> BTC -> fiat2

yen2234• 12 years ago

The existing banking system, for all its warts, is a proven, secure system for exchanging fiat1 -> fiat2. Bitcoin's use case has to be a lot stronger than merely being a substitute for TTs.

SG-5• 12 years ago

If you're willing to deal with delays and exchange rate fees, sure.

mhluongo2• 12 years ago

We must define secure differently.

bildung• 12 years ago

Wouldn't want to be paid in BTC either, also because of the volatility.

I do think it would be a nice thing for speculative side jobs, though: The extra income gets stashed away automatically, and I would only look again at it a few years later :)

Daviey• 12 years ago

Sure, if you are /actually/ paid using bitcoin. I think what is being suggested is bitcoin is really used as an interim currency, or transfer protocol - to avoid the cost and time of current international banking processes.

Therefore, you would still be paid in a real currency, and the underlying number of bitcoins used in the transfer is not relevant.

However, this product seems to be suggesting paid it bitcoins - which I would also not be able to accept. :)

SG-5• 12 years ago

There's nothing stopping you from converting the BTC to fiat the moment you get paid, or for a service to automatically do this like BTC merchant services (no idea if this service does it).

For merchants Bitpay guarantees that you'll get the exact fiat value transferred to your bank account that the item was originally priced at.

octo_t• 12 years ago

I wouldn't want my salary to be measured in BTC. If you got hired in December, when the price was $900/BTC, at say 1000 BTC pa salary (so $90k pa), these days you would be on a $60k salary.

mroset• 12 years ago

I understood the parent post to be saying that they wouldn't feel comfortable with a wage negotiated in bitcoins. 2 BTC/week means $1200 today, but next pay period, maybe it'll be $500, or maybe $5000. That kind of volatility persists regardless of whether you convert it immediately.

If the wage were negotiated in USD, but paid in Bitcoin, that'd be much more usable.

telot• 12 years ago

Anyone know of the tax benefits/pitfalls of paying (and being paid) in bitcoin?

logicchains• 12 years ago

It certainly makes tax evasion easier, if that counts. Not as easy as paying/being paid in cash, but far easier than other electronic means of payment (in the sense that it currently offers more anonymity).

Gotperl2• 12 years ago

It isn't legal in most US states. Almost all states have laws that dictate employees working within that state have to be paid in US currency

greenyoda• 12 years ago

And payroll taxes certainly need to be paid in US currency. The IRS and state tax departments don't accept Bitcoin.

baddox5• 12 years ago

To cite one example, here's Texas:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LA/htm/LA.61.htm

piratebroadcast• 12 years ago

Website looks like shit.

untilHellbanned• 12 years ago

For a just launched product and having made several websites myself, I have to disagree. I think it is quite professional for a first version.

What do you think looks better? Have you seen major bank websites, e.g., Bank of America's? They are really terrible on many levels (usability, performance).

mhluongo2• 12 years ago

They claim to be the first, but what about BitPay? https://bitpay.com/bitcoin-payroll-api

practicalpants• 12 years ago

"Investor Links"...

This feels like a 'me too' thing. I don't personally see the value in it either.

amatera• 12 years ago

I don't get the point. I get BTC for my Job. Beside the heavy variations about how much 1 BTC is in my currency, how do i buy things with that? Sure, some etailers like Dell accept it. But if i ask now my local supermarkt how much BTC is needed to pay, i would see in a lot of overwhelmed faces. Same counts for my rent and so on. So what exactly is the benifit of this service? (Maybe i don't get the whole "bitcoin"-Thing anyway)

droopyEyelids• 12 years ago

This is awesome because it's another step in the path of creating an autonomous corporation. I can't believe we're actually watching this happen.

Oculus• 12 years ago

It'd be more interesting to see how the built-in smart contracts in Bitcoin can be used to secure payments/work in the freelancer/client model.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

The rhetoric around explanations of the utility of cryptocurrency has changed a lot in the past few years.

These days, the major emphasis is on circumventing the fees/processes associated with banking (as opposed to the libertarian and/or anonymity rhetoric, which dominated a couple years ago). As a witness, this landing page.

And I think the rhetoric has converged to the strongest argument -- political ideology aside, the only true substantial marketplace advantage of BC over sovereign currency is the ability to side-step the banking industry.

But then, this makes Bitcoin mostly a cottage industry taking advantage of technology to side-step banking regulations. I see two likely outcomes -- regulations are extended to BC and BC companies start charging as much as banks to compensate for the inherent riskiness of the business, or banks push for regulatory reform while making their services significantly cheaper and faster.

I hope for the latter, because if fiat -> fiat transaction is your only goal, cryptocurrency is just an inefficient hack. If I just want to transfer some cash to someone, I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it. There's no reason to broaden the attack surface and add yet another middle-man (I mean, entrepreneur).

In reality, I expect a combination of the two former scenarios will cripple BC, and that a new era of internet cash transfer services will serve this market instead.

opinologo4• 12 years ago

Bank fees are due to the cost of fraudulent operations and chargebacks which doesn't exist in Bitcoins since transactions, once confirmed are not reversible. Instead you can use escrows while paying with Bitcoins.

Secondly the Bitcoin network is much more efficient in terms of economic resources used for make transactions possible so you can expect that fees will be smaller as well.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

transactions, once confirmed are not reversible.

Oh wonderful! So if I (as a customer or as a service) make a mistake I'm completely hosed. And since the service isn't insured (yay no regulation), a mistake on one customer's account can harm everyone else.

My point was that this business model exposes everyone to unacceptable risk, and therefore isn't sustainable with or without regulation.

Instead you can use escrows while paying with Bitcoins.

Escrow is not a competitive advantage.

Secondly the Bitcoin network is much more efficient in terms of economic resources

Fiat -> BTC -> Fiat adds an unnecessary link to the Fiat -> Fiat transfer. How could this possibly be more efficient?

There are two sets of reasons.

The first are essential -- insurance, regulation, etc.. My claim is that BC's competitive advantage in these settings will evaporate with scale.

The second set is inessential -- banks got lazy and greedy. Again, at scale BC has no advantage over lean cash transfer startups or even just banks cutting the fat when BC becomes anything close to a threat.

For me, the best-case scenario is that BC startups are successful, force banks to reform, and then languish in obscurity since the extra step of indirection isn't necessary for fast/safe/cheap cash transfers.

adammcnamara• 12 years ago

Countries like Canada have done exactly this, extending anti-money laundering and terrorist financing disclosure rules to BTC. http://www.coindesk.com/federal-bitcoin-law-canada/

The real benefit is time of transfer. ACH is infuriatingly slow. If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

BTC could (theoretically) make daily payroll possible. The net benefit to society could be substantial. Payday loan activity would drop considerably. Some, but not all, credit card use would drop. All of the instruments that help "time shift" money could become far less necessary, along with the substantial fees associated with it.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

ACH is infuriatingly slow.

Tell me about it.

If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

Right. It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. OR the inherent risk to consumers which comes with lack of regulation.

The real benefit is time of transfer.

To what extent does this benefit come from not being subject to regulation? (edit: not rhetorical; I've no idea)

If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

But the check still arrives on Friday, so the benefit is really to the business rather than the employee. This negates the employee-centric benefits you mention in the next paragraph (pay day loans, credit cards, etc.)

That is, unless the business is giving advances on payroll. But I think that's something companies don't do for reasons unrelated to choice of currency and transfer time. (edit: I suppose another alternative is that you could pay your employees more often because the process is cheaper and faster. That would be a big win. But I think other cash flows would in some cases prevent this from happening unless everything is done in BTC.)

edit: Die off is a bit harsh? I don't want fiat->btc->fiat because it's just silly, but of course if btc causes reforms in the banking industry I sincerely hope btc companies make a huge amount of money in the process :-)

edit2: Also, thanks for the link!

Gotperl2• 12 years ago

The real benefit is time of transfer. ACH is infuriatingly slow. If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

Ya, this isn't true. the ACH spec does say 3 business days, but 2 of those days are for redundancy. In all normal cases a transaction submitted today can and will post tomorrow. Your bank may not allow this for individual transactions, but it isn't because ACH can't accommodate it.

Source: I run a payroll company doing $1B annually in ACH transactions.

teh_klev• 12 years ago

The real benefit is time of transfer. ACH is infuriatingly slow. If you'd like a payroll run to arrive in employee accounts on a Friday, it must be initiated almost a week prior.

In the UK we have a thing called the Faster Payments Service [0]. It has (for now) ten participating banks which cover probably 95% of PAYE UK employees - all the big high street banks are on the scheme. I see my salary in my account in sometimes less than 30 minutes after the company payroll has been run.

I realise there will be edge cases such as employees who work offshore as I did for three or so years, but I kept my UK bank account and that bank's Visa Debit card pretty much works everywhere in Europe (it certainly wasn't a problem in the Republic of Ireland).

The only other caveat to the above is that I work for a SME (Small to Medium sized Enterprise) and SME's do tend to be a bit more agile and run their payroll in-house. Realistically, you probably wouldn't expect to see large enterprises such as BT or Vodafone choosing BitCoin.

I'm not dissing the idea of Bitwage, but in the UK it'd be solving an edge case problem.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_Payments_Service#Partic...

napoleond3• 12 years ago

I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it

I'd rather do that too, but it's unlikely to ever happen; not for international transfers between any country. There is a tangible economic cost (trust, through all the financial institutions involved in each country, and the work required in meeting the regulatory requirements that protect that trust, and in fact the work required in creating and maintaining those regulations) to transferring cash internationally under the current paradigm which has been solved more efficiently in the Bitcoin network.

I agree with you that Bitcoin is far from perfect, but I think calling it a cottage industry is extremely short-sighted. I think what's more likely to happen is that, long-term, banks will either converge around using a blockchain-based mechanism of some sort to transfer funds or the Bitcoin economy will come of age outside of the existing financial industry, at least as the transport layer for fiat exchange.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

which has been solved more efficiently in the Bitcoin network.

Except bitcoin hasn't solved the problems with international transfers. Bitcoin's just ignored them. There's a huge difference, and I don't think ignorance is sustainable at scale.

There is a tangible economic cost

I actually lose a couple hundred usd a month right now. So, I really do sympathize.

I think what's more likely to happen is that, long-term, banks will either converge around using a blockchain-based mechanism of some sort to transfer funds

Maybe. That would be fine with me. I'm not really sure I understand why banks would do that vs. just using social processes, since those processes still need to exist in order the address the problems with international transfers and have been around a lot longer than bitcoin.

I think calling it a cottage industry is extremely short-sighted.

I mean cottage industry in the most literal sense of the term, and was referring to the present and historical situation. And I think that's fair -- very few people are employed full-time doing BTC-related work, and I don't imagine the profit margins are insanely high (or even non-red in some cases).

api• 12 years ago

I remember thinking this a few years ago... that cryptocurrency would be to banking what Napster was to records. This is particularly going to be true on the international scale.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

Thanks, that's a perfect analogy.

zanny2• 12 years ago

I'm a believer that fiat state controlled currency is fundamentally flawed and destructive for societies and economies. And bitcoin is a global phenomenon - China can do all it wants to block it, and the market rebounds just fine. It can work without the US as well, albeit there will always be black markets.

But bitcoin is a step towards approaching the ultimate forms of value exchange. It eclipses its predecessors in every regard, especially considering anything one might find "lacking" in btc can be solved by businesses built on top of it (chargebacks and instant confirms at coinbase, etc).

But centralized currency will always have the implicit inefficiencies of central planning. I don't think bitcoin is necessarily the right algorithm for a money meant to replace the day to day currency of an economy (peercoin or doge are much better equipped to do so, with either reduced blockchain maintenance / size, or increased monetary base expansion without a finite limit) but the concept, money backed by cryptography, is the best solution we have to provide universal exchange semantics between human beings. Nothing else even comes close, and like others have said, that is no more apparent than trying to buy or sell goods or transfer funds outside your fenced in economy running in some local state currency.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

It's uninformative to conflate monetary policy with the underlying material/technology used for currency. The two are totally and entirely unrelated. It's like claiming that changing from paper to (still fiat) coins is good because this would cause a fundamental shift in the nation's purportedly destructive monetary policy and also paper rips which is a bummer. So coins > paper, clearly.

Which is to say, you are really making two totally independent claims. One is at least plausible and the other isn't.

The first is that bitcoin provides a viable alternative to current methods for exchanging fiat currency. This is probably the most sensible argument for cryptographic currency, and I think is worth discussing. The discussion below delves into some specific arguments on this issue.

Your second claim is that decentralized cryptographic currency will or ever could/should replace state-backed fiat currency. I don't think this is a particularly useful point to discuss, since informed prediction is impossible and the prescription mostly amounts to political persuasion.

edit: but also, the US could switch to a cryptographic currency with all of the practical benefits of bitcoin, and still retain basically the same amount of control over its currency. Technology can never solve big political problems.

beaner• 12 years ago

It seems to me less that the "rhetoric" has changed, than that the set of people who use bitcoin has simply greatly expanded to individuals with increasingly less revolutionary ways of interpreting the currency. The people in it from 3 years ago still have the same beliefs. The people in it from 3 months ago are digging it because it's more popular among their colleagues, and they have to justify it somehow. "Lower fees" is the only thing they can come up with.

nmrm17• 12 years ago

That's an interesting hypothesis about why the dominant rhetoric has changed.

I think another one is that people are starting to use bitcoin for real-world use cases, and finding and addressing specific pain-points is far more likely to generate revenue than trying to convince others of your take on monetary policy.

blake8086• 12 years ago

Something else that can change is fiat -> fiat transactions become progressively less useful if everything supports BC transactions.

baddox5• 12 years ago

the only true substantial marketplace advantage of BC over sovereign currency is the ability to side-step the banking industry.

I see that as pretty much synonymous with the traditional libertarian rhetoric, considering that the banking industry is considered (at least by libertarians, and probably a lot of other people too) as essentially one with government.

IgorPartola• 12 years ago

What would be great is if your company could do its banking in BTC, while you get paid in your fiat currency. Basically, a service that makes worrying about the conversation rates and the conversion process easy.

For example, currently you can use your US-based credit card to buy something from the UK. The price will be converted, and you will be charged a small fee, but your credit card company will take care of everything. Doing the same here would be pretty cool.

martingordon• 12 years ago

IANAL and I haven't kept up with what the Fed have said about Bitcoin, but couldn't every Bitcoin service out there fall under banking regulations as a result of ABC v. Aereo? Basically, if it looks like bank/money transfer service/etc, then it is one, regardless of the underlying technology.

sadris• 12 years ago

BTC is property, not currency. US has a minimum wage law. Won't work.

billions• 12 years ago

When wages are paid through Bitcoin, the fundamental Bitcoin incentive loop will be complete. The primary advantages of Bitcoin, including transaction fees and privacy, are lost when converting local currency to/from Bitcoin via markets. When conversion is no longer necessary transaction volumes will climb exponentially.

kernelcurry• 12 years ago

So, it BitCoin still a viable Currency? I thought it was going down hill...

rob_mccann• 12 years ago

I tried signing up but it seems like it only accepts US phone numbers :(

kaonashi• 12 years ago

https://www.bitwage.co/about#t6

Bitwage

Related Stories