The only indication that Bitcoin might be better than incumbents is this line: "According to Rossiello, it’s still the fastest and easiest way for her to pay her lawyer in San Francisco and developers in Europe."
The hint at her anecdote not holding true in the general case comes right after: "While BitPesa is still happy with Bitcoin for now, Rossiello did note that it’s annoying that on-chain transactions have become much more expensive.
Rossiello went as far as to say there will be a mass exodus away from Bitcoin if a countermeasure for high fees is not deployed within the next twelve months; however, she pointed to the Lightning Network as a possible solution to this issue."
OK so the CEO of a Bitcoin payment company is annoyed that Bitcoin is increasingly worse than alternatives and she is hoping the Lightning Network will redeem it, otherwise there will be a "mass exodus".
That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payments and reads more like all other blockchain things: an experiment. Experiments are good as long as we're keeping track of their costs and being honest about the results.
>That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payment
It obviously is for the CEO who continues to use Bitcoin despite the annoyances, so I'm not really following your logical leaps, nor do I have the energy to chase you through your goalpost moving. You said there are no beneficial uses, and I provided you with one example.
I'm looking for evidence that Bitcoin is better suited than alternatives. Your example is a CEO who is not sure herself but who is currently trying to make it work... but is ready to leave Bitcoin if it doesn't change soon. She said herself that if Bitcoin doesn't change, the alternatives are better and there will be a "mass exodus". That literally proves my point.
You can say that I said "beneficial use cases" and show me that you can actually send money using Bitcoin. But that's like me showing you a 5-wheeled car and saying "see, you can get from A to B in a 5-wheeled car therefore a fifth wheel is beneficial". That's not sufficient and the CEO of BitPesa seems painfully aware of this.
Maybe she's hoping that Bitcoin improves before she needs to change the core of their system and value proposition, which would cost a lot of time and money? Who knows?
That's quite a statement. Did you mean without beneficial use cases that you personally know of? Example I posted somewhere in this thread: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/31/bitpesa-ceo-...