[0] "A network fee of 2.5% (with a cap of $500) will be deducted from your investment amount for settlement, custody, and trading costs associated with your payment in USDC". Very cheap indeed.

[1] [2] Blockchains offer no guarantees off-chain. Everything that happens in the real world boils down to the oracle problem. You need trusted third parties in supply chains, a cryptographic signature would essentially achieve the same thing.

Fair critique — AngelList is pretty aggressive with its fees. If you're willing to handle settlement + custody yourself, it's much cheaper.

The oracle problem is very real (and solvable). Even ignoring the ability to transact within the same system where provenance is maintained, I tend to think that trusted third-parties moving their supply chain operations into a public ledger which is verifiable across time is more advantageous than point-in-time cryptographic signatures.

But why? Rolling out SEPA ICT globally would have benefit far more people in far better ways.

The ability to send money instantly from any regular bank account to any other regular bank account, without any fees, that's what we should aim for.

Cryptocurrencies do this worse than the existing banking tech (e.g., the mentioned SEPA ICT).

> But why?

Mostly US bureaucracy and central banks + states having their own agendas. At this point, world governments have had how many years to figure this out? It's no better than 2009 in the US.

Much of the world doesn't have SEPA ICT. And much of the world probably doesn't want to support a euro-centric system (e.g. Serbia). Also, about ~1B people in the world are unbanked.

Decoupling the geopolitical aspects from the settlement layer is a big advantage to crypto. USDC/Circle is free to censor whomever they'd like, but the Ethereum blockchain isn't going to halt at the whims of the SEC or any other regulator.