I think the only thing cheaper may be to find some company that allows international wire for very cheap, and that normally requires holding a lot of fiat in the bank.
Since USD is an official currency of El Salvador, you can just send a USD wire without currency conversion fees, that can be up to $50 -- but Fidelity charges $0. [3]
You could also set up a Wise multi-currency account, which is supported in El Salvador. You'll get banking details in the US (and many other jurisdictions) to which you can ACH money free of charge, or receive a Fedwire for $7. [1]
[edit] If you need to send small amounts of money, Wise is hard to beat. If you need to send big money, InteractiveBrokers Forex trading is the definition of market rate, and their commission is 0.002% (2/10th of a basis point), minimum $2. So, $20 per million.
This has been a solved problem for a very long time.
[1] https://wise.com/multi-currency-account/
[2] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-best-way-to-understand-b...
[3] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/wire-transfers-wh...
Transferring crypto, without KYC (which is a real concern for persons from central america who may not have documentation for a bank account or legal status in the US), for $~3 in transfer fees plus whatever rate they can get face-to-face (which could be near 0% exchange fee) is damn good. I doubt most of these marginalized workers in the US (not all El Salvadorans, I'm sure there are plenty of rich ones with Fidelity accounts who haven't been the utilitarian use case for crypto transfer) could do better without packing up a bundle of cash and travelling to El Salvador on a plane.
Anyone can sign up with a Fidelity account just as easily as they can sign up with an exchange, to send free USD denominated wires. As for whether counter-parties in ES charge for wire receipts, I don't know! Receiving is generally far less expensive than sending.
You appear to have completely skipped over Wise, which I pointed out to you is better in ... every way, and completely free of charge?
> Transferring crypto, without KYC...
Transferring crypto, without KYC, is a real concern to every developed country on earth. And I believe the Salvadoran sanctioned wallet KYCs ya too.
> ...which is a real concern for persons from central america who may not have documentation for a bank account or legal status in the US
I'm sorry, why are we building a system to make being an illegal immigrant easier again? I'm pro-immigration, and an immigrant myself. However, this is a country of laws is it not? Generally speaking I think we should open up immigration much more broadly. However, I also don't think it's a stretch to say if you're here illegally that's a bad thing and we shouldn't make it easier to do that?
> I'm sure there are plenty of rich ones with Fidelity accounts who haven't been the utilitarian use case for crypto transfer) could do better without packing up a bundle of cash and traveling to El Salvador on a plane.
Crypto is always available for money launders and criminals, yes.
I know it isn't fruitful here to discuss whether illegal immigrants should exist (maybe we should block all their access to money supply so they and their family can starve). But they do exist, and they will seek out the lowest cost non-KYC options, and crypto looks to be a decent bet. There are other people as well without documents, such as homeless who have long lost them and people born in weird situation where their parents never sought legal documents for their existence.
>Crypto is always available for money launders and criminals, yes.
As are banks and fiat.
Well, no, remember that asylum is legal immigration and asylees and claimants are free to use the banking system. A properly and fairly executed asylum system actually threads the needle here nicely.
Of course they shouldn't exist, we both agree.
Given the system is imperfect what should we do, is the question you're asking I think.
My answer is not "build circumvention tools" but instead "advocate for reform." In the same way I think drugs should be legal, but instead of building a darknet marketplace - which solves zero existing problems and creates 10 more new ones - I instead advocate for drug decriminalization and prison reform. And safe injection sites. This makes the world a better place.
> As are banks and fiat.
Of course, but that system tries to stop them with the things you rail against, like AML and KYC rules - whereas crypto welcomes them with open arms.
That's a fundamental difference. Whatever is built upon it is fruit of the poison tree, rife with adverse selection.
I maintain that building tools to circumvent constitutional laws you happen not to like is a bad thing. I think that energy is better expended advocating for better legislation. It's hard, but it's infinitely better.
> Whatever is built upon it is fruit of the poison tree
To you; to me it's built on the tree of liberty.
>building a darknet marketplace - which solves zero existing problems
The existing problem was that people would show up in cash in person, and often without either parties being vetted. The darkmarket did not totally solve this problem but it did help it, by creating a rating system and allowing people to buy items without needing to put themselves in the vicinity of a potentially dangerous drug den.
Sometimes direct action is more empowering to the common man than legislation. As Cody Wilson said when he made the 3d gun popular, it was a political act that the world just has to deal with. Bringing crypto into this world "legislated" into reality a way to move funds in a way the legislature failed to by blocking the path of those who are conventionally blocked by KYC and AML. I don't know that every El Salvadoran can just wait indefinitely for legislation to pass for their money to come in from their family members working in the US. Every dollar taken away from them from the likes of Western Union et al is money straight out of the mouth of possibly impoverished family members, and we shouldn't begrudge these people the tools to fund their unbanked families at a fair rate.
Woah. Hold up. There's no KYC for holding anything. There's always been KYC for obtaining fiat. For withdrawing fiat. For depositing fiat. For getting paid in fiat. For paying other people in fiat. It's not the holding at issue, it's the transacting.
> ...and transactions above 10k are on the honor system for cash purchases.
No, they certainly are not. Any withdrawals or deposits of over 10K USD at a bank will require an ID and get you a CTR or SAR filed. If you tried to get 100K in fiat you will almost certainly get a CTR or SAR filed on you. You'll probably get a call from a bank manager, a compliance officer and/or someone from FinCEN. Ditto on the deposit.
In fact, transactions under 10K also often get CTRs filed. [1]
If you aren't withdrawing it the person who did will get the filings.
> There's also minimal checking of those that leave our borders; someone could easily cross into Mexico with 100k in a breifcase of Swiss Francs and no one would be the wiser.
Potentially, but unlikely. You cannot get 100K of cash lawfully without presenting ID. If you did, you committed a crime to get it, it was probably laundered, and you probably paid 2-10X that amount to launder it. You're probably a criminal.
To wind up with an undocumented, untraceable 100K in a briefcase, either you or someone else committed a crime.
This is part of the reason people do not cross borders with 100K in cash. It's a crime to do so without reporting it, so if found it'll be seized. It's trivial to find $100K in cash strapped to someone or on an Xray.
They tend to instead obtain gift cards and move portfolios of that.
> To you; to me it's built on the tree of liberty.
No, crime is not liberty. It's crime. Crime is the violation of my liberties and the code of civil society because you think rights you don't have are more important than rights I do have.
Again you completely ignore Wise as a much better, less volatile solution to the problem.
The problem you're describing, and the world you're describing, feels a bit like finance fanfic.
> The existing problem was that people would show up in cash in person, and often without either parties being vetted. The darkmarket did not totally solve this problem but it did help it, by creating a rating system and allowing people to buy items without needing to put themselves in the vicinity of a potentially dangerous drug den.
No the issue with drug legislation is it impinges on the freedoms of average citizens and directly harms them via prison. A darknet market does nothing to alleviate the issue at hand.
From a bank, or a money transmitter, or a traditional employer -- sure. But I could spange on the side of the road or get picked up at a home depot and do some work and get cash without KYC no problem, same for selling some personal goods or goods I buy and then sell at a markup or any number of common cash transactions.
>No, they certainly are not. Any withdrawals or deposits of over 10K USD at a bank will require an ID and get you a CTR or SAR filed. If you tried to get 100K in fiat you will almost certainly get a CTR or SAR filed on you. You'll probably get a call from a bank manager, a compliance officer and/or someone from FinCEN. Ditto on the deposit.
At a bank sure. If you sell a car for $15k you're supposed to report the transaction on the honor system but in reality people could take that cash, buy $15k worth of gold from a variety of sources and there would be no reporting anywhere despite the fact you sold $15k of assets and then bought $15k more of assets.
>Potentially, but unlikely. You cannot get 100K of cash lawfully without presenting ID. If you did, you committed a crime to get it, it was probably laundered, and you probably paid 2-10X that amount to launder it. You're probably a criminal.
Sure you can. I could pressure wash houses for $200 a house and do one everyday for 500 days. Or I could ask for spare change by the side of the road; doing that daily for a few years could probably get you 100k in a rich area and you wouldn't even need to speak English or have an ID or any relationship with a bank whatsoever, just the ability to bury your earnings in a hole somewhere.
>This is part of the reason people do not cross borders with 100K in cash. It's a crime to do so without reporting it, so if found it'll be seized. It's trivial to find $100K in cash strapped to someone or on an Xray.
Yes it is a crime, yet it happens all the time. The US/Mexico border is one of the most porous in the world, and I can tell you as someone has has crossed it multiple times that I have never been X-rayed entering mexico (they do have an X-ray but the guy manning it is asleep/gone/not interested much of the time). And this lack of X-ray is despite the fact the US border patrol has a SERIOUS SERIOUS hair up their ass for me that results in my long detainment everytime I enter the US (I've never broken a law but there's some weird file in my record that I'm a nefarious agent due to some actions in some 3rd world nations.)
>No, crime is not liberty. It's crime
Transferring and owning crypto is not always a crime. And crime is not necessarily bad. For instance, it is a crime to carry a hand gun in public for defense in Hawaii without a virtually unobtainable license, yet the constitution pretty clearly says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The government says servers have to pay taxes on all their tips, yet sometimes ones struggling to get by opt to not pay to fund imprisoning drug users or blowing up brown people abroad. Sometimes "crime" is liberty. In the US crime does not have to have a victim (like moving 100k in cash across the border) so it is not synonymous with a "violation of your liberties" or rights.
>Again you completely ignore Wise as a much better, less volatile solution to the problem.
No I specifically mentioned that to use Wise without fees it's an issue for the unbanked, which is a major problem in El Salvador. I'm glad the plight of the unbanked is "fanfic" to you. We all know the rich legal citizens who are banked have the financial upper hand including in international transactions.
>No the issue with drug legislation is it impinges on the freedoms of average citizens and directly harms them via prison.
We're in agreement here on the root cause, but unfortunately even marijuana is illegal federally despite many surveys showing the majority of the US does not want it criminalized. Even if drugs were legal, I'm not sure a casual crack user would benefit from going to a crack dealer full of broke people that feel they need it to survive ( I don't even feel all that safe going to some gas stations that people constantly ask for gas money at). But yeah I think crack and heroin should be sold off amazon and drug laws do impinge on the freedoms of average citizens, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I don't know why you would rather people buy crack from some street dealer than buy it off an at least superficially vetted dealer on the darknet for whom there are at least reviews stating it's not laced with fentanyl.
> No I specifically mentioned that to use Wise without fees it's an issue for the unbanked, which is a major problem in El Salvador. I'm glad the plight of the unbanked is "fanfic" to you. We all know the rich legal citizens who are banked have the financial upper hand including in international transactions.
You uh, got some numbers to back up your assertions? Unbanked people are un-banked because they don't have money. Do you know of a lot of wealthy folks without bank accounts?
I'm gonna need to see some stats on all of this. Everything you've said is theoretical, hypothetical, and I'm going to need an understanding of exactly how often these scenarios play out. If it's just that, then it doesn't matter.
> For instance, it is a crime to carry a hand gun in public for defense in Hawaii without a virtually unobtainable license, yet the constitution pretty clearly says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It actually doesn't, because if it did, you'd be right, and that law would be unconstitutional.
The point at issue is the "well regulated militia" bit and I defer to the Supreme Court's interpretation. Plus the whole context thing. America isn't a civil law society, its a common law society which means law is subject to interpretation and precedent. The text alone isn't the source of truth. In Quebec, it would be, because their legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. Americas is not. [1]
Anyways, this has been fun - you think crime is good when you personally disagree with the law, I think the law should be respected until changed, and that advocacy is the path. Nobody agrees with all of the law, but it works because we all respect it anyways. I don't think it should be a crime to hold a dead lobster less than 6" long. However, respecting the law is fundamental to a society. If you don't agree, we won't come to terms.
[1] https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-...
Likely unbanked people working without any work authorization working for cash can be seen at the hardware store daily where I live. I invite you to come to any major city near a border and see it with your own two eyes. Or maybe they just looked and acted really mexican but didn't want to get a very easily gotten regular job and preferred shit wages by the side of the road? I don't need to "cite" something I have seen with my own two eyes. And do you seriously think illegal movement of hard cash across borders is fanfic? I understand if maybe you live in rich or ethnically homogeneous enclave or are otherwise not exposed to the poors and the illegal immigrants that I see every day; from that perspective maybe it does seem like a distant fiction. Do you really think people working for cash to remit abroad is not a thing? If you do, I admit defeat without so much as a citation.
>I'm gonna need to see some stats on all of this. Everything you've said is theoretical, hypothetical, and I'm going to need an understanding of exactly how often these scenarios play out. If it's just that, then it doesn't matter.
Here ya go![1] Most Salvadorans are unbanked. If your theory that the unbanked are just the people without money (which I dispute below), then it stands that the unbanked are probably most in need of remittance, and get the largest marginal utility from unbanked low transfer cost methods such as crypto (particularly such as LTC and BCH with have only pennies transaction fee).
>Unbanked people are un-banked because they don't have money
Or because they lack documents (even if they are legal citizens). Or because they are an American in a foreign country and no bank there wants to comply with FATCA reporting requirements. Or because they have money, but not _enough_. Or because they have some enemy in government, or lack a permanent address or proof of address. Recently I was rejected for a bank account because I was moving and had no address, despite having good income and assets and a valid passport recognized by the bank and our government as the authoritative identity document. Your view of the unbanked is naive and simplistic.
>Do you know wealthy people without bank accounts?
Not off hand, but there are plenty of Americans with large amounts of unbanked money. Such as this man who had 87k seized by the road side despite doing nothing wrong [3] (he did have a bank account but preferred not to store cash there). You won't have to dig long to find examples of truckers and other folk who keep large stores of cash outside the banking system, that we only know about because their money was seized by some overzealous thief in Blue by the side of the road.
>It actually doesn't, because if it did, you'd be right, and that law would be unconstitutional.
Actually it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. I live in a state where I can conceal carry without a license. I do it everyday, and guess what -- no one has ever noticed because it makes zero difference to anyone else unless someone tries to fatally hurt me or my family. If I did it in Hawaii the only difference would be if I ever successfully defended myself or my family I would go to jail for exercising my constitutional rights.
>, I think the law should be respected until changed
And if you were in the US at the time of the American Revolution, you'd be left screaming about how it's against the law to fight the British and how we should all just solicit the King for a change. The law definitely doesn't "work" for the many victims of the drug war, the people in jail for having both a joint and a gun, or the many immigrants not quite as lucky as you that have been deported from the country after performing even military service [2].
I think crime is good when there is no victim and it expands liberty. I think crime is good when the law is unjust. I don't think all criminals are bad, and no I don't agree to your terms. There have been a number of successful, well respected, and honorable men who thought the same.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1011424/el- salvador-bank-account-ownership-rate-type/
[2] https://theconversation.com/deported-veterans-stranded-far-f...
[3] https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/nevada-troopers-t...