The difference with crypto is that you're not going to be filing a Regulation E dispute against someone on the other side of the planet.
"Since Regulation E is virtually unknown outside of the financial services industry, few people — let alone customers — know the process of filing a claim."
Oh come on. Zelle and the banks are literally banking on the fact that they are protected by exactly these sorts of unknown processes. Are you really advocating for more of that?
> The difference with crypto
The difference with crypto is that contracts, written in code, can be used to do escrow that don't require a third party centralized company like Zelle to handle the transfers. They also work across borders. No need to tie up the US legal system with 'Regulation E' cases over $1700 rent payments or having to hire lawyers to sue banks.
My point is that, we can work to make this stuff better, or we can keep the status quo of having to learn about 'regulation e'. I'm on the side of working to make this better.
I wish those were called something else. They aren't actually contracts in the sense most people understand the term. And, being code (and immutable, if I understand it), I don't find their existence reassuring from a safety point of view. But that's neither here nor there.
> No need to tie up the US legal system
As (highly) imperfect as it is, the legal system does, at least, provide mechanisms to correct injustices.
People say that crypto is just re-inventing what already exists and a lot of it is doing that... I'm ok with that. What exists is not always the best solution.
