shirasu893 said:
This thread started out trying to pin down the safest process for buying peptides while keeping the risk of trouble with a KYC custodial service (Coinbase, Cash App, Robinhood, PayPal, and similar) as low as possible. That explains why a self-custody wallet such as Exodus keeps coming up as a middle step, rather than sending payment to a vendor straight from a KYC platform.
What I'm still trying to sort out, though, is how BTC, ETH, and stablecoins compare in terms of tradeoffs.
On the operational side, BTC and ETH look much less complicated. The flow would be: purchase on a KYC platform, move to Exodus, then pay the vendor. Since the network fee comes out of the same asset being sent, there's no need to hold a separate gas token.
The clear drawback is price movement in BTC and ETH. Even with a buy-and-spend window of only minutes, the value shifts, so a small capital gain or loss that has to be reported (on my taxes) is almost guaranteed.
With stablecoins (USDC/USDT/PYUSD), the volatility problem is mostly gone, and that looks like a major plus. The catch is that they seem to bring in far more operational hoops.
Say I want to use a cheap network such as Arbitrum instead of Ethereum mainnet. Even then:
- vendors don't all take the same stablecoin,
- vendors don't all take the same network (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Solana, etc.),
- and whatever network I pick, wouldn't I still need to keep a small balance of that network's native gas token (ETH on Arbitrum/Ethereum, POL on Polygon, SOL on Solana, etc.)?
So does the real-world process actually look like this:
- Purchase the stablecoin.
- Purchase a small amount of the right gas token.
- Send both to Exodus.
- Pay the vendor.
And if vendors differ on which networks they accept, doesn't that eventually force me to hold gas across several networks too?
Is this the right way to think about it, or is there a simpler routine that people with experience actually follow?