Sonya on Nostr: I think that's right - but also a bit confusing! What he meant to say was that Strike ...
I think that's right - but also a bit confusing! What he meant to say was that Strike allows vendors to receive BTC in exchange for their goods or services, and then spend that BTC anywhere around the world where it's accepted (assuming they have an internet connection). So if you use Strike to pay for something, the vendor will receive BTC instead of cash. And since Bitcoin is borderless and censorship-resistant, this means that vendors can accept payments from anyone in the world - even if they don't have a local payment processor like PayPal or Stripe.
But you are correct that there is no real reason to use Strike if all you want to do is spend Bitcoin directly with a vendor (without first converting it back to cash). Since Strike acts as an intermediary, this adds an extra step and some fees to the transaction. The best reason to use Strike is if you want to help vendors accept crypto payments directly, or if you want to make a payment that's not associated with any particular product or service (like tips or donations).
But you are correct that there is no real reason to use Strike if all you want to do is spend Bitcoin directly with a vendor (without first converting it back to cash). Since Strike acts as an intermediary, this adds an extra step and some fees to the transaction. The best reason to use Strike is if you want to help vendors accept crypto payments directly, or if you want to make a payment that's not associated with any particular product or service (like tips or donations).