Bitcoin valuation "crashed" -$4k USD (I think that's about 8-10%?) just two days ago on the 7th (and within the span of 4 hours, check the charts); if you had created your transfer that morning and they received it the next day to "cash out" to USD, you would have lost a lot of the valuation of your transfer.
> But the delay is after the bitcoins are converted to fiat (...)
If you're trying to discuss aspects of the transaction then either you focus specifically on the crypto-to-crypto part of the transaction, or the fiat-to-fiat. The crypto-to-crypto part of the transaction is arguably fast but you are forced to address Bitcoin's volatility, which makes it unsuited as a store of value. The fiat-to-fiat aspect of the transaction on the other hand is arguably slower than simple bank transactions, and often with higher cost.
Every crypto proponent is doing a colossal disservice to crypto by portraying a romanticized and intensely rose-tainted view of crypto. In truth you're just setting up everyone around you to be disappointed. Between magical schemes where crypto transactions are magically instant and cost-free and pretending that crypto is not highly volatile (see the last Bitcoin 50% crash a couple months ago, or yesterday's flash crash) you're unwittingly pulling a bait-and-switch and in the process turning everyone away from it.
If it takes the converting entity 24 hours to perform KYC checks (& perform whatever other settlements they need to do to convert), do they give you the conversion rate at the time you asked for it or at the time they did the conversion? Or do you get the worst of the two?
yeah and it "pumped" +$3k USD 2 days before that. If you have created your transfer before it and they "cashed out" after it they would have gained valuation of the transfer.
You completely ignored the the part where OP said they often made money in REAL LIFE and injected your own hypothetical of how they could lose money if they chose to buy, send, and sell their assets at a very specific worst case scenario point in time...
Has nothing to do with "real life". They could either win money, or lose money, that's how volatile bitcoin is. The fact they got lucky and transferred in moments where they made money, doesn't make it a better "real life" scenario. Just makes it a lucky scenario, anecdata that might have been the complete opposite.
But if he was making money on average (which he said he did), then bayesian logic would imply that the average outcome would be to make money. So it's not luck, it's the average outcome.
The "unlucky" and unusual event in this case is losing money on Bitcoin based on the prior evidence.
