October AMA with the Devs

AMA Feature Image



Community Manager: Welcome everybody for the first GRAFT developer AMA! We’ve been collecting questions across our various social media channels, which lead developers, Slava and Dan will be responding to. This channel will be reserved strictly for questions and answers. We will give the community a few moments to respond in the Discord #graft-lounge and Telegram, and determine if there are any follow-up questions we have time to address. I will be working to keep things moving so that we can get through as many questions as we can in the short amount of time that we have. Please note that if your question doesn’t get answered, it will remain in the pool for follow-on AMAs.

With that, let’s begin with our first question…


Question: Could you talk a little about the software development process that Graft uses? What development methodology does Graft use? Is it an industry-standard model (such as agile, incremental, or waterfall) or something custom designed? Perhaps you could walk us through how the process works, for example how a concept goes from initial idea to implementation to testing to competition?

Dan: We use an agile methodology with two-week sprints.  The system is quite complex with many components that we have to time together into planned releases.  We started with formal testing but are quickly migrating towards community supported rollouts.  You can see how various pieces stitch together looking at our development roadmap.


Question: I currently scan various blockchain projects. I’ve noticed several unresponded pull requests that seem to be ignored. In understanding C++ for a number of years. They seem to be solutions for a drastic fix. I cannot involve myself in a blockchain that the dev doesn’t fix issues in a timely manner. How can i invest with any courage the dev and the project is community oriented if they do not listen to pull requests!

Is there any particular reason why PR are being ignored and is the super node RTA going to launch without any review from all pull requests?

Slava: We pay attention to all pull requests. Pull requests however are not “just push an approve” button activity – they have to be vetted, tested, incorporated into the release schedule, and timed for the appropriate network update (fork) – all these things take time and are gated by the development and release schedule.


Question: It is appreciated that the Graft Team have said many times that people who buy GRFT aren’t investors. But if GRFT is truly a ‘community’ coin then it would help if someone is available to give one consistent message from the Graft team to the people that form the community. There is often misinformation and confusion in the telegram and elsewhere because there isn’t someone from the core team that is managing communication with the community. Will you be hiring an individual or team to manage communication with the community?

Dan: We are sometimes constrained as to what we can share due to incomplete conceptual framework (we start out with broad brush strokes and then fill in the details as we move closer to implementation), private info from 3rd parties that we’re not at liberty to share (such is often the case with exchanges or other partners), or simply are working on something that may or may not pan out and we try to avoid situations where we overpromise and underdeliver.  As engineers, we tend to communicate once something is done and no uncertainties remain – we’re learning however to communicate more, bear with us.


Question: In the current alpha implementation, the RTA SuperNode requires a hot wallet with full spend keys on the VPS running the SuperNode.  This seems dangerous: if we imagine graft at $1, that means a T4 is holding a hot wallet worth a quarter of a million USD, which makes it a tempting target for hacks—someone who gains access to the VPS could steal the entire stake plus any transaction fees.  Why did Graft decide to go with a hot wallet approach as opposed to the cold-stake approach (of submitting stakes as time-locked transactions on the blockchain) commonly used by other Masternode systems?

Slava: First, it’s important to take into account the specifics of the Cryptonote protocol – proof of balance in a CryptoNote wallet is not as easy as doing the same in “”regular”” non-private blockchains. Second, we are aware of this issue and already have it in the backlog, so it will be resolved in the future RTA release.


Question: The recently announced stimulus plan for supernodes was unveiled without any details at all as to how it will work.  This has led the community taking wild guesses as to how it might work (e.g. with the unofficial calculator floating around) and what the payoffs might be.  Proper planning for potential supernode operators requires the actual details.

When do you plan to formalize the stimulus payoff details so that people can start deciding whether or not they want to run supernodes?

Dan: The stimulus plan will take a bit of flushing out.  We have defined the general direction and the targets for the incentives and will be filling in the details as we get to the roll out stage.  The goal is to make the network perform at roughly 100k tx monthly volume.


Question: There has been quite some discussion recently on the GRAFT blockchain telegram channel about the upcoming Monero CNv2 fork and the impact it may have on the GRAFT blockchain. Some are convinced that the fork will lead to a substantial migration of ASIC/FPGA hashrate to GRAFT (being the most profitable CNv1) from XMR. This in turn could lead to centralization of the network, a potential drop in value (as the farms are less like to hold their GRAFT) and even outright attacks. It would be great to get more information from you on this topic, if you plan to fork to CNv2 or any of the CNv1 derivates in the coming months?

Slava: The GRAFT dev team is working on the patch. We will announce the date of the hard fork shortly.


Question: Where are we with Verifone and Ingenico exactly? What will be procedure for merchant to turn on GRAFT as currency on their POS machines, and will it require manual update?

Dan: Regarding Verifone software – it is done and ready for the rest of the network – of course there are iterations and updates happening on that as we go as all these things are interconnected. Using GRAFT on Verifone terminals only requires Engage-compatibility. Engage is their app platform – they are rolling it out to various models starting with the newest / most capable ones.  To enable GRAFT, the merchant has to go to Verifone marketplace, add the app to their merchant account, configure the wallet and few other payment gateway options. As simple as that. Regarding Ingenico – we are waiting for the platform upgrade from their side and opening API’s – tentatively Q1 2019, so for now our primary goal is to get the Verifone terminal to work flawlessly.


Question: Could you briefly share the Graft Team marketing plan and road marks that you are following to implement the plan?

Dan: Here’s an example of what we’re thinking and driving towards. https://www.graft.network/merchant-service-provider/ . Please keep in mind however, that this is a decentralized, community project, so core team’s involvement in marketing and distribution is focused on working on core software and integrations.


Question: Many people have attempted to send coins from the mobile wallet to Cryptopia. The transaction fails because the mobile wallet does not support non-integrated payment ID’s. The users then contact Cryptopia about the lost coins and then Cryptopia asks for a payment ID. There are a few problems with this all too common scenario, but the biggest problem in my opinion is that the mobile wallet does not provide access to transaction ID’s. Will the mobile wallet soon be able to display transaction ID’s?

Slava: 1) Cryptopia is the only exchange that does not support integrated addresses. We’ve contacted their devs several times and asked to implement this support. They promised to do it but never provided any ETA. By the way, they do not support integrated address for Monero or other CryptoNote coins, not just GRAFT. Here is the latest response from Cryptopia devs: “We’ve escalated this issue and hope to have an ETA for you in the near future. We haven’t forgotten about it.” 2) In the next releases of the wallets we plan to add both detached payment id & full transaction history (including Tx ID).


Question: When will the results of the RTA alpha testing (bug reports/fixes/etc.) be made public? Or if they won’t be, when will you start accepting public bug reports for RTA supernodes?

Slava: As you may have noticed, we have started communicating the development status on a weekly basis providing lots of details to the community.  The results of the testing feed back into the development with the end result of a public alpha and then beta state of the product.


Question: Do you plan to conduct any external security audit of the platform (RTA/Exchange brokers/etc.) before the final production release?

Slava: One-time security audits are largely ineffective (subpar, expensive, and short lived) as the code changes literally every day.  The code is open to the community to examine and find bugs.  We’re also looking into implementing a bug bounty program.  (Note that both GRAFT co-founders are CISSP certification holders and have serious infosec background.)


Question: What is the long-term plan for continuing Graft’s management?  Some other coins have defined organization structures that are designed to continue without the present Dev teams.  Has the Graft team thought about how Graft will be managed on an ongoing basis once the project reaches maturity?

Dan: Good question.  We recognize that there is a natural evolution in a decentralized project governance as the project matures.  We are considering a DAO path potentially, taking notes from other leading projects, and looking to incorporate some of the innovative models (like quadratic voting) that provide equalized participation.


Question: Multiple sites out there already support payments with cryptocurrency.  How’s GRAFT different?

Dan: The primary purpose of the GRAFT project is to build a DECENTRALIZED payment network – the fact that it can process crypto payments is one of the important by-products, not the be all and end all. The devil is in the details – centralized payment brokers go against the principles of decentralization and they don’t scale. GRAFT’s goal is a decentralized payment network with no borders, no single party controls, no (or marginalized) banks, agnostic to the currency you pay with.


Question: I’ve heard that early supernode holders will be incentivized to participate in the graft network and I applaud that. Doesn’t it make sense to incentivize merchants to encourage graft usage by offering a transaction fee holiday for some time period up front?  You could still pay the network supernode participants out of the coins set aside for incentives (or not).  I think that incentivizing the vendor will go MUCH further towards promoting crypto adoption.

Dan: Yes, we’re thinking about incentivizing other eco-system participants and have thought about waving the transaction fees for the merchants for period of time.  It’s not clear whether it’s strong enough of an incentive for them to adopt a new payment network if they didn’t have an interest in it before.  We are thinking that the focus with merchants should be on creating awareness in the industries that are notoriously hard to get merchant services in, as well as making it super easy for them to integrate GRAFT into their existing systems and processes.


Question: Service Brokers are going to be One of the most critical part of the Graft Ecosystem. Considering an example where Bitcoin payment is made by a buyer and Merchant’s payout choice is in Fiat USD. This is the most obvious use case I could think of. And the kind of liquidity needed for converting BTC to USD is going to be huge (to make settlement seemless). I fear individuals (SN owners) could provide this liquidity. Unless a major exchange could be a service broker I personally feel this will be difficult. Hard fact being we are facing difficulties in listing Graft on a bigger exchange, so what’s the plan on getting a high liquidity exchange?

Dan: You’re right – payout brokers are one of the keys to the functional network. We anticipate the liquidity to come from both smaller and larger brokers. The plan is that once the project gains recognition and adoption in the marketplace, the exchanges will open up as it’s a very lucrative market for them.  At this time we have a number of smaller payout brokers who have registered their intent to provide these services to the network.


Question: One problem with almost every cryptocurrency is the boundless growth of the blockchain data. One of the numbers that got pulled from the reward post was 100k transactions per day.  Graft transactions average about 12kB, so put those together and you get the blockchain growing by 1.2GB/day.  It’ll hit nearly 100 gigs after 2 months, nearly 500 gigs after a year.Does Graft have any long-term plan to reduce that storage requirement at the node and/or supernode level?

Slava: This is common problem for all blockchains, not just a specific problem to GRAFT. The current short-term solution is merging recent Monero code which introduced a new method of proofs for confidential transactions – Bulletproof – which is supposed to reduce the blockchain size by 80%.

https://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf
https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/6781/what-are-bulletproofs


Question: We appreciate your efforts to involve the community in the project, how would you like to improve this relationship over the next few months?

Dan: Thanks for this question. As a decentralized project, we have to really pull back on implementing roll-out and adoption plans for the network and rely on the community to take over and form their own geographic and industry clusters with their own promotion and business plans for the network.   We will know that the network is thriving if there are initiatives, ideas, local governance, and business models that go well beyond what was envisioned by the founding team.


Question: How does GRAFT handle void transaction? Is that similar to void transaction of Credit cards?

Slava: Void transactions are typically handled by the point of sale, before it even comes to the settlement. If payment is processed, some payment processors allow voiding such transaction. On blockchain it is impossible to reverse (void) a transaction after it is added to the transaction pool (even before it’s added to the block), so RTA “void” should be replaced by refund (return) transaction.


Community Manager: Excellent. Well that concludes today’s AMA. I want to thank Dan and Slava for taking the time out to answer questions. We are happy to get through so many, and look forward to future sessions. Thank you all!


AMA With the Devs – October 18th

GRAFT AMA with the Devs
Have a burning question about the GRAFT Network? Marketing plan? Adoption? Community involvement? Technical questions? Submit your question(s) and get an answer! In a continued effort to increase engagement with our community and educate the market, the GRAFT Team will be hosting an AMA live on Telegram and Discord on October 18th, at 12pm EDT.

Questions will be categorized and collected through a Google form to make the best use of time and format.

* PLEASE SUBMIT ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. You will have the opportunity to post another question after submission. This allows us to keep the questions concise, organized and minimize duplication.

SUBMIT QUESTIONS HERE: https://goo.gl/forms/10VVUaqcWqp9Kg2y1

FORMAT:
  • Questions will be moderated by our Discord Community Manager, and answered by GRAFT devs.
  • Q&A will be delivered simultaneously on Telegram and Discord via the GRAFT Bridge Bot.
  • We have an hour for the AMA. Will try to get through as many questions as we can, with target of 20. The remaining questions will be held over for the future monthly AMA rounds.
  • Afterword, a summary will be posted to the GRAFT blog, and then pushed to all social media channels.
Happy GRAFTing!

Fundraising Initiative (clarification)

Earlier this week we published a form for project contributions in form of donations on the home page. We would like to take a moment to explain the rationale behind it and address the concerns raised by some members of the community.

We collected modest funds during the ICO, further affected by the falling market. While sufficient to carry out the main development track we’ve committed to, there are ancillary initiatives the community has expressed interest in or that have potential to increase awareness or improve adoption, that do not fit into our current budget.

Tier 1-2 exchange listings are expensive, and while they add to the liquidity of the token, they do not represent the “critical path” for the project and therefore are not allocated for in our current budget. We do however recognize there are different groups within the community for which liquidity is important. We also recognize that in order to speed adoption of the GRAFT ecosystem, it’s important to have as many gateways to the GRFT token as possible for increased visibility and to present opportunities for participants to engage where they feel most comfortable, i.e. their favorite exchange.

In addition to exchange listings, we have additional projects we can get involved in, like the ColdPay card. These projects require significant capital investment upfront.

To enable these new initiatives, we are opening up the project to voting and donations as a way for the community to indicate their appetite for us delivering on these initiatives and help fund these projects.

We have heard a few concerns so far from the community and would like to address those:

  • No specifics on the exchanges
    Most exchanges we enter into negotiations with ask for a non-disclosure agreement. They do it so that the negotiated amounts are not widely known and to avoid getting inundated with inquiries from the community. We will disclose what we can, when we can. (This is of course not applicable to community vote listings)
  • No transparency on the donation wallet
    The criteria for the payment system was that we could collect the shipping address data alongside the donation, and the promotion claim would be inextricably linked to the donation to prevent abuse. We can and will create a separate swipe wallet for the balance to be seen by the community.
  • Community doesn’t have enough visibility into the projects and use of funds
    We heard you – we’re adding a way to vote for these initiatives. Vote here


Engineering Update: Pay-in Broker and Payment Gateway Demo

While we’ve been focusing on stabilizing the Full Supernode based RTA (real-time authorizations), part of the team has been diligently working on the other components that are necessary to make the main GRAFT Network use case (paying with any digital currency with your favorite wallet) a reality – namely Payment Gateway and an Pay-in (aka Accept) Broker, and it’s time to show some progress!

Pay-in broker is a type of an exchange broker that provides alt-currency acceptance for the network. It’s a critical piece required to enable any digital currency acceptance at the POS with the wallets of user preference.

Payment Gateway provides a layer between the payment terminal and a network that’s meant to handle business logic and part of the remote wallet functionality.

Real-time Transactions – GRAFT vs Electroneum, etc.

Electroneum recently announced real-time transactions available as beta on their network. We wanted to take some time to shed some light on the difference in approaches between solutions like Electroneum and GRAFT.

With their approach, Electroneum is effectively following the centralized model of Bitpay, Coinbase, Coingate, GoUrl.io, and many other centralized crypto payment processing gateways in that they issue an authorization immediately as the transaction enters the transaction pool, without waiting for confirmations on the network. There is little innovation in this approach which is well-known to the industry. With centralized entity in the middle, the buyer and the merchant must rely on trusted party just like with traditional plastic payment processing, which means compromise on privacy, security, and a single point of control.

Unlike Bitpay and other centralized payment gateways, Electroneum shifts the risk of transaction not getting confirmed onto the merchant rather than absorbing it themselves.

The vendor does not get the cryptocurrency instantly, but our system acts as a trusted 3rd party to ensure the ETN or other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin is sent (our patent covers ETN, Bitcoin and other cryptos). The vendor knows the payment is sent and will make its way to the blockchain, so they can allow instant checkout – and the customer can walk out of the store with their cup of coffee or checkout online etc.
https://electroneum.com/2018/06/12/announcing-instant-payment-beta-vendor-application/

This illustrates the fundamental difference in approach where GRAFT is decentralized and utilizes an independent authorization sample (selected from the distributed network of supernodes) to validate the transaction, and independent exchange brokers to handle off-network (alt currency) acceptance risks when handling real-time payments.

GRAFT’s approach not only minimizes the risk of real-time transaction processing, but distributes to remaining risk (and reward) to the right party. It also allows acceptance of alternative cryptocurrencies, where Electroneum’s current approach is limited to ETN currency.

Finally, but importantly, GRAFT builds a payment network eco-system as opposed to providing a single vendor solution, which is the essence of decentralization that’s at the very core of the blockchain-based cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

*** Note that our intent is not to pick on Electroneum with this article – we’re merely trying only to bring some clarity in what sets GRAFT apart from other payment solutions, using Electroneum as one of the better representatives of this class of centralized solutions.

RTA now working in a sales workflow!

Please remember this day – September 6, 2018. After several issues were fixed, GRAFT RTA transaction now works in a point-of-sale workflow, end to end, on alphanet, and it’s stable! It takes just a couple of seconds to process the payment! There is still some work left to be done before we move to beta, but… it works!

We will be publishing a full development update soon shortly. Payment Successful

Comments on Square’s Cryptocurrency Payment Network patent

Square has made the news recently with a patent on Cryptocurrency payment network with real-time transactions.

We’re very excited about this development as it completely validates the approach we’ve taken with the GRAFT blockchain!

Another important question one might ask is “Will GRAFT project be impacted by this development”?

We will be studying Square patent further and any action we might want to take, but we wanted to provide a brief summary of our initial thoughts on the subject:

  • Square’s provisional application was dated later than GRAFT published its first white paper (July 15, 2017), providing GRAFT an excellent basis for prior art argument should this ever come to a head.
  • There are enough substantial differences in GRAFT and Square’s approaches starting with Square’s emphasis on a private, closed system, while GRAFT’s being on an open, decentralized approach
  • Decentralized open source projects are extremely resistant to outdated IP prosecution practices as there’s not single central commercial entity to go after
  • Square is not known for predatory IP behavior, which could be the case if the patent was issued or sold to a patent troll. We believe that Square filed the patent to ensure their own “freedom to operate”.
  • Additionally, the fact that the patent was granted proves that there was little known prior art (GRAFT nonwithstanding) before July 2017 which is when GRAFT white paper was published and Square provisional application filed.

    Finally, patent doesn’t equal product. Square and its competitors will be considering whether to develop these systems in-house or to use an existing public network like GRAFT.

    All in all, we view this development as a very positive one both for the industry and for GRAFT.

    With that said, we would like to ask for our community’s help in raising the visibility of the fact that GRAFT implementing the system that Square has attempted to patent – this is a very opportune time to do this building on the attention this patent has generated. Please help bring this up on the appropriate social media and discussion threads.

Exchange Brokers Explained!

Exchange Brokers are a critical component of the system, paving the way for pay-how-you-want-it / receive-how-you-want-it capability. Exchange brokers (pay-in / pay-out / interchange) are open to both large and small participants. Watch the new video from All Things GRAFT about how the exchange brokers work

Airdrop cancellation

We don’t take promises lightly. Ever. And this time is no exception. This, however, is a situation when reconsidering a promise is warranted. The airdrop idea to compensate for the disparity for the ICO buyers was not well thought out (as frequently pointed out by the community) and if we were to proceed, would result in unintended consequences such as significant GRFT float dilution and potential additional downward pressure on GRFT pricing, negatively affecting ALL GRAFT stakeholders including ICO participants.

As such (after much deliberation) we have decided that it is better to cancel the airdrop altogether now and remove this cloud from the market, providing the project with the best chance of organic growth.

We believe that taking this action now will allow GRAFT to best capitalize on the progress with RTA, go to market partners, and other exciting developments we’ll be announcing shortly.

With that said, we will keep looking for other ways to thank our early supporters (in ways that don’t involve dramatic increases in GRFT circulation)

We hope you understand our decision and we can move past this issue, focusing on technology and go-to-market.

Best Regards,

Sincerely,

GRAFT Team

What’s Real and What’s Not in the Blockchain Payment Space



The Blockchain Payment solutions space has recently become a very hot topic, with both legitimate developments and a multitude of questionable claims. This article attempts to separate facts from fiction by outlining the lay of the land and Graft’s competitive positioning based on our view of the space.

With that in mind, let’s start with some definitions of key components of the electronic payment chain:

Payment processor — a service provider that processes a payment authorization, settles the transaction, and deposits a merchant payout.

Payment network — a network (or protocol) that provides an infrastructure for processing payments by coordinating the activity among multiple participating parties.

Payment gateway — a service that provides access to a payment network. These categories are important when deciphering what various providers are trying to do.

Centralized Payment Processors

The first class of payment solutions that are operating today are the centralized payment processors such as Coinbase and Bitpay. To enable crypto payments, these players simultaneously act as a payment gateway, a payment processor, and a clearing house. There’s nothing significantly wrong with this approach other than the fact that 1) it goes against the principles of decentralization; 2) it’s not a network, but rather a single entity; 3) it doesn’t scale very well because a payment processor needs to be able to handle an unlimited volume of the transactions and provide cross-border support; and 4) they represent a single point of failure and, more importantly, a single point of attack making themselves extremely attractive to hackers.

Solution Integrators

Integrators usually take existing blockchains and make them work for a specific use case. In the case of payments, they would be the “last mile” solution for making Dash, for example, work at the point of sale. Integrated solutions usually work okay but they only support specific point-of-sale systems, specific merchants, and have limited flexibility. They also decide who gets to participate in the ecosystem and they essentially act as a bank by fulfilling a lot of the clearinghouse functions themselves.

Payment Blockchains

This category includes legitimate blockchain projects that attempt to facilitate cryptocurrency payments. Dash and Ripple are good examples of payment blockchains, as they have made significant advances in facilitating the use of blockchains for payments. Dash implemented on-demand privacy and on-demand speed, whereas Ripple implemented inter-blockchain swaps.

Payment Networks

Payment network implies that there are multiple participants that are being connected together to form a network. In the case of traditional credit/debit card processing networks, they are bridging the issuing banks, acquiring banks, and payment processors into something that works in the context of a single transaction.


Source: PYMNTS.com

Processing a payment at the point of sale is a complex chain of events that includes obtaining pre-authorization or authorization from the issuing bank through the acquiring bank, putting funds on hold, releasing the payment for settlement, and, finally, clearing the payment by transferring the funds from the user’s issuing bank to the merchant’s bank account.

In the case of cryptocurrencies, use of such a network implies pre-authorization by verifying and placing funds on hold in real-time, transferring the payment from the payer’s wallet in the currency of their choice, converting that currency into the currency of choice for the merchant, and distributing the fees — all this is accomplished by accepting and coordinating services from service providers. This is exactly what a network like GRAFT is doing (while providing integration points for the point-of-sale applications, and in a decentralized manner to boot!).

There’s only one other network-like solution (other than GRAFT) that’s looking to resemble some fragment of a payment network: the Lightning Network. However, the Lightning Network concerns itself with instant currency swaps, without much regard for fees or compatibility with the merchant point-of-sale systems and processes. It also relies on pre-existing payment channels, making it suitable for repeat transactions as opposed to what you would see in the point-of-sale environment.

Suspects

Unfortunately, the blockchain space is rife with projects looking to capitalize on general lack of knowledge to pass themselves off as a legitimate payment solution in order to raise funds. They call themselves payment networks without building anything resembling a network, or a blockchain payment solution without having anything close to a viable solution. Their white papers are usually vague and full of buzzwords with little substance of the specifics of implementation. It’s often painful to watch millions, if not billions, of dollars being flushed into projects that show no signs of real technology or other innovation.

Here are some “giveaways” that can help identify suspicious projects:

  • They are based on ERC20, EOS, or other smart contract tokens rather than dedicated blockchains.
    It’s very easy to create these tokens, but unless the project will act as a bank and take on the brunt of arbitrage in releasing the funds before they themselves collect those funds, there’s no way for them to overcome the speed issue. They are also subject to the underlying network fees that the token is built on.
  • They advertise a “crypto credit card” that can be processed by a traditional credit card network.
    The impossibility here is that none of the traditional payment networks will license anyone but an issuing bank to accept network-backed payments. Unless the crypto credit card is backed by their own issuing bank which gets licensed by a traditional payment network (an unlikely scenario), this claim is quite dubious. Those that manage to pull off this feat will become a single-bank-backed, centralized solution, at the complete mercy of the local regulatory environment and traditional network continuous licensing.
  • They are creating their own point-of-sale devices.
    It’s easy to private label a payment terminal found on Alibaba or similar manufacturer marketplaces. The problem with this is a merchant will not place a new terminal into the store without PCI and other rigorous certifications, not to mention that it would have to integrate with their point-of-sale software. Adding new terminal to a store, or especially a chain of stores, is an extremely difficult and expensive process which implies significant integration, certification, testing, and employee training costs that must be thoroughly justified.

Summary

There are distinct and important differences in payment solutions, with true payment networks providing the most open and flexible option for payment processing, while centralized and integrated processors can provide “point” solutions.

There is quite a bit of disinformation in the cryptocurrency payment processing space, so it’s important to understand how payment ecosystems work in order to tell fact from fiction as you proceed to navigate this treacherous market space.

GRAFT vs. Others