106 sats \ 5 replies \ @nerd2ninja 5 Mar \ on: Offering a discount when paying in Bitcoin bitcoin
I personally would do the typical 3% surcharge for using a credit card (convenience fee), plus a 3% fiat to Bitcoin conversion fee for using fiat (a 6% convenience fee basically).
I don't expect discounts on Bitcoin payment methods to be the sole reason for someone to look into Bitcoin. I do expect it will help with community building with other Bitcoiners as to get off of fiat.
As that community grows, there may be certain merchants who are part of this business network who don't deal in fiat at all. People like Nigerians (who yes, have a culture of scamming, but I'm hopeful about business practices that allow Bitcoin especially to navigate that) or El Salvadorians (simply because they don't have a bank and sending in cash would be too expensive and difficult for the customer)
This network of businesses would I believe attract fiat only users. It would be uniquely opened up to markets with cheaper prices than the fiat system and/or be uniquely higher quality. The people who participate in this community would seem comfortable and confident at all times and when everyone else is fighting inflation, figuring out what's going on with us might be attractive.
Another thing I think about sometimes, is we've put a lot of focus on accessibility and that's great and all, but I think we haven't put enough effort into "the Gucci strategy" which is the marketing of exclusivity and intentional inaccessibility. You see this in metal credit cards and in and out (secret menu animal fries).
For cases such as these, you could do a 50%, 100% 200% surcharge for using fiat or make it "Bitcoin exclusive" as in fiat not accepted here, you couldn't afford it. This is a market where branding is extremely important. "Yes, you have a bag, but its not a Gucci bag" or "Yes, you have a phone, but its not an iPhone".
Now, I understand this marketing strategy might be rather repulsive to Bitcoiners, but it might be kind of normal as the Bitcoin business community grows. At the very least, the cheaper products that we would get exclusive access to as a result of having access to unbanked markets would at the very least stir up the exclusive access fragrance a bit.
Now, I understand this marketing strategy might be rather repulsive to Bitcoiners,
Not trying to argue to are implying the contrary - but whether something is repulsive to bitcoiners should not be the ruler used to measure whether something is a good strategy to expand bitcoin use.
reply
Well I say that because Bitcoiners have to operate the business that works in this way.
reply
This is a market where branding is extremely important. "Yes, you have a bag, but its not a Gucci bag" or "Yes, you have a phone, but its not an iPhone". Now, I understand this marketing strategy might be rather repulsive to Bitcoiners
What I think is repulsive to bitcoiners is using a brand name as an indicator of status (appealing to shallow materialism/hedonism), rather than values/principles. The status thing, if it were to be done at all, should be based on achievements that fiat cannot buy. For me, having a Gucci bag or an iPhone is an indicator of lower status.
There have been a few "luxury" brands that have tried accepting bitcoin/"crypto" already. How has it gone for them and for bitcoin adoption so far? I would say it hasn't moved the needle or it might have even been damaging the bitcoin brand, in associating it with hedonism and shallowness.