Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin Patents

Mastercard Submits Fresh Trademark Application For Crypto Tech (crypto.news) 18

According to a recently discovered patent application, Mastercard plans to develop software optimized for bitcoin and blockchain transactions. The second-largest payment-processing corporation also aims to facilitate crypto-based transactions by reducing connections between virtual asset service providers. Crypto News reports: The trademark application is a fascinating window into Mastercard's plans for the future of digital currency. Details have been revealed about creating a downloadable application programming interface (API) designed to verify transactions inside blockchain networks and ease the handling or trading of cryptocurrency. By standardizing this API software, communication between VASPs may be streamlined and crypto transactions easier. Mastercard wants to set up a platform for financial institutions to exchange customer information to verify compliance. This new step is significant for Mastercard's fast-growing presence in the cryptocurrency sector. The corporation announced its intention to offer a limited number of cryptocurrencies on its network in February 2021.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mastercard Submits Fresh Trademark Application For Crypto Tech

Comments Filter:
  • Or.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @06:16AM (#63617640) Homepage

    "Mastercard plans to develop software optimized for bitcoin and blockchain transactions"

    OR... They just see the writing on the wall, write up and submit a patent with the sole purpose of cashing in and get a cut if someone else goes through the trouble of doing blockchain stuff.

    Patents mean nothing regarding intent, tons of them are collected and gathering dust for no other reason than mutual-assured-destruction in case one of their competitors wants to prevent them from doing something blatantly obvious that everyone is doing which THEY were able to patent in the past -- "sure, technically we may be violating your patent, but YOU are violating a thousand of ours as well so why don't we all just forget about it"

  • by takionya ( 7833802 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @07:39AM (#63617726)
    Must be something seriously wrong with real money that they're investing in this virtual snake-oil. If it costs more in energy to "trade" in crypto then it can't be a vuable long term source of wealth.
    • Must be something seriously wrong with real money that they're investing in this virtual snake-oil

      From their perspective there is something wrong with it, but that something is only that not all the transactions are done with it. They are planning to remedy the situation by chasing the other transactions, too.

      If it costs more in energy to "trade" in crypto then it can't be a vuable long term source of wealth.

      Just because it uses more doesn't mean the use is unsustainable.

      I mean, with PoW it is, but that's not the only kind of system. Also, since when have the banks cared about sustainability?

  • Err...isn't that the entire point of a blockchain?
    • And there's nothing that suggests that anything about the patent is going to address one of the fundamental problems with a large distributed blockchain -- the transaction rate limit. The number of transactions going through a credit card company far outstrips what the big cryptocurrencies are capable of.
  • I too would like to make money fa$t on a pyramid scheme that has already fallen apart.

    Maybe I can trademark "fail", "collapse", and "crook". I bet there would be a lot of money in licensing those terms to media outlets.

  • What could possibly go wrong?

  • All it would take is for Discover or Amex to fork XLM or XRPL, slap a stablecoin of their own onto it, and build a new payment card system on top of that for it to be game over for MasterCard and Visa.

    The cost to execute a XLM or XRPL transaction is about a penny on a bad day. They have extremely high throughput and energy costs that are on par with current fintech if not better. Vendors who use Discover or Amex get paid in the stablecoin. Like any stablecoin, they have to go to the issuer (Amex or Discover

    • Ignoring unlikely customers/sellers adoption, countries would never allow a wide usage of stablecoins, as long as it is a niche, it's (semi)ok otherwise, nope. It would compete with upcoming hideous CBDCs for example. States want full control of their money and people enjoy it (crypto wallet hacked => bye bye but with fiat banks/states protect you)
  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @09:28AM (#63617924)

    In big patent happy companies, employees will do whatever they can to write patents, whether or not they plan to do anything or even if they don't even know *how* to implement the patent (the latter is not *supposed* to be possible, but ability to BS around something you don't know is sufficient. If you dig through any companies patents/applications, most of them never get done.

    It's also a slow process. So even if it is 'fresh' now, it's likely been a very long time in the making. *Particularly* if it's not linked to specific plan, a patent can just simmer on the backburner for a year or so before a company even starts to file.

    In terms of strategy, it may still be a fine strategy even after the collapse of the market, as they may anticipate that either the cryptocurrency of today or some evolution of the concept may be relevant one day.

    In any event, the patents out there are a minefield and anything you do likely violates a patent you've never heard of. Even if you actually can do it and the patent holder couldn't have actually implemented their idea, you still get screwed. One mitigating factor is that there are also good odds that the company will never even notice the resemblence of something to their patents they don't even keep specific track of.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      The summary is confusing patents with trademarks. From the article it seems that it really is about a trademark rather than a patent.
      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        Ok, the actual article is clear. The headline said "trademark" then the summary said "patent" so I just assumed the headline was off. Reading the actual article is clear, so the summary is just... weird...

  • It's covering the bases, CYOA, FOMO, all of this and more.

    Much industry is really just beating your competitors to market (common with Internet platforms), or inventing a thing others will have to catch on to/up to (Walkman!), or seeing past their innovation and trying to leapfrog them (Ethereum?). Sometimes you leapfrog over and over until the process reaches practical limits, or some other innovator tramples you with an entirely new thing (cell phones beat/become Music Player?)

    So I think MasterCard is emp

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...