[dead]
Sorry if that sounds unnecessarily harsh. It’s not directed at you, parent commenter. I agree that this is the exact use case crypto was meant to solve. I just think it’s a tragedy how Blockstream and co have crippled bitcoin and its development.
Plus the exchange fees for Bitcoin is way higher than what regular payments processors charge.
The problem I have with it, is that the technology is inefficient at solving the problem as compared to a central authority issuing currency. Something using e.g. blind signatures sounds really cool but the tech was ahead of its time (paper stems from 1983) and by now it doesn't sound cool and new anymore. Example implementation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash
Common misconception. You basically need currencies tied to countries (more precisely, OCAs or optimal currency areas, characterised by either 1. homogeneity with respect to external shocks (not the case e.g. within Europe), 2. complete factor mobility (not the case e.g. within Europe), or 3. transfer payments (that is, fiscal support)).
In other words: If there were one currency (only), even with the stability of entire countries behind it, it would still fluctuate too much to be very useful. Or, to put it different again: You need FX. One currency is not enough.
But that's not at all why the person you're responding to criticized it!
Better to use USDC on Base or Ethereum instead. or maybe USDT on Tron like many people around the world do.