Author Topic: AskADoctor.dac (Healthshares)  (Read 6749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
Anyhow I put my idea out there. Study it and if the time comes where it begins to make sense then this thread will be pulled up.
Agree to that :)

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
How do you define future proof?
When you cannot predict the political or technological atmosphere 5 or 10 years away you want to design your technology to be future proof. That is the main reason why we are all here discussing Bitshares instead of Bitcoin.

You don't want to have to redesign your solution after the fact because by then it could be too big and too important. The impact of artificial intelligence, as well as the Internet of Things will require a careful design which scales to utilize these technological trends.

Technically a decentralized tx is always more expensive, you need to update the database with all nodes instead of just on one server.
Expensive? But more free, secure, private, resilient? I suppose you could have said the Internet at one point was more expensive than just using the phonebook but that has switched around and now using the whitepages is more expensive than the Internet when you can consider the difference in capabilities. You could still use the whitepages or go library but it's actually more expensive because it costs much more time. You also don't have the convenience of being able to do it from home.

In the future we will be diagnosed from home. We'll want to be able to consult with doctors. Doctors will want to get paid, we'll want freedom, security, privacy and convenience once biohacking becomes popular.


Also these nodes have to be (monetarily) incentivized to stay online and have to have a (monetary) motive to stay honest.
So? That's not how people judge value. You're thinking as an accountant and maybe as an accountant you would be right but people don't care about that. What they want to know is whether they can get the same features or better with greater privacy, security and freedom. If the answer is yes then tell me why people wouldn't want it? If people want it then it can make money regardless of if some centralized less functional version is cheaper.

E-commerce payments (Visa, paypal etc) are different than the tx internal to this platform. Visa etc. are only expensive because they are vulnerable to be defrauded and because of all kinds of state requirements (know your customer, licensing etc.). Therefore a Proof of stake system could be less expensive for payment applications. But in our case there would be no charge backs and no kyc or licensing requirements...
There could be all of that and it would still be cheaper in my opinion. There is no reason why you couldn't do KYC or chargebacks. Licensing requirements I don't even know what that means.
No offensive btw luckybit :) It's a fruitful discussion.

No offense taken. It's understandable that people will think this idea is a bit out there. The purpose behind this is that if we are going to have P2P insurance why would we stop there?

We would still have to rely on legacy systems which use outdated centralized technology. The problem with centralized technology is that it's not as free, it's not as secure, and it's not as private. These are facts inherent in the design of the technology itself.

For example if you have to use a centralized Internet to get advice from a doctor then if your government takes a hostile position they could simply block the DNS and now you cannot access the site? Hackers who don't want this could simply hack the site and then give everyone's most sensitive biological information to really bad people?

How are we going to deal with a world where computers know more about us than we could ever know about ourselves? All of our genes sequenced, all sorts of extremely private information has to be stored. We need the ability to let certain people access it and give us advice but we currently don't have any safe place to store it.

How do you want to solve this problem? I say we should go decentralized and turn it into a DAC. Over time technology itself which would be directed by economic incentives would solve the problem. I don't see how you can do it with a centralized company because which company do you trust to have all the worlds biological information? Do you want Google to know you like that? How about Facebook?

Anyhow I put my idea out there. Study it and if the time comes where it begins to make sense then this thread will be pulled up.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 10:52:13 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
gamey, what do you mean by
Quote
DACs have a form of cost not being calculated, and that is the time involved in the learning curve and installation of the DAC.
?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
How do you define future proof?

Technically a decentralized tx is always more expensive, you need to update the database with all nodes instead of just on one server. Also these nodes have to be (monetarily) incentivized to stay online and have to have a (monetary) motive to stay honest.
E-commerce payments (Visa, paypal etc) are different than the tx internal to this platform. Visa etc. are only expensive because they are vulnerable to be defrauded and because of all kinds of state requirements (know your customer, licensing etc.). Therefore a Proof of stake system could be less expensive for payment applications. But in our case there would be no charge backs and no kyc or licensing requirements...

No offensive btw luckybit :) It's a fruitful discussion.

Hosting websites is absolutely dirt cheap.  Some guys will say you need an Amazon cloud account and pay $200 a month min, others will say a good $20 a month provider will work fine.  A lot depends on your traffic and whether you'll be DDOSed or if the service will remain around.

DACs have a form of cost not being calculated, and that is the time involved in the learning curve and installation of the DAC.

You also bring up a good point.  I'd be very surprised if chargebacks are a serious issue in the 'pay for medical advice' world.  Thats another area DACs shine at, but not sure it is a problem we are solving.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I like the idea and actually to be applied in all kind of professions not only healthcare somehow...

Quote
What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?
[/b]

 +5% to the above but...

I don't think it is very easy though since everyone can search on the net for healthcare advice from doctors and anything basically for free. But even if you can find anything you want for free people still visit their doctor who they know and trust.

Therefore for healthshares or any other proffesionshare to succeed people behind those shares should be well known names and not anyone. And if you find those few strong names and you form the DAC team it is again centralised and no different than just pay them for advice.

Yep. Bingo!  If Google does the same job just as well, where is the value ?  Google will answer just about any question with multiple well thought out answers.  The only difference that I can see here is that you'd be assured the answer comes from a doctor.  Doctor's aren't perfect by any stretch.  I suppose you get to interact with a doctor, but most doctors want to give physical examinations.  Otherwise a person would be just as well to sit in front of an expert system and be diagnosed.

I don't think you're going to get the same quality advice if t's free. What if your question requires some actual thought and research by a doctor and is not something basic?

Remember we are talking about being future proof. The kinds of technology and amount of information which will exist in the next few years will be far more advanced than what we see today on Google. Google might or might not do it but they have been talking about Google health for a long time and so far they haven't done it.

Popular names isn't what I trust. That is what you might trust and in that case you can ask Doctor Oz or Doctor Phil. I trust track record and if a Doctor has no track record then I wouldn't have anything to go by so we need to have Doctors who have a very good track record and reputation. You can do some or all of it decentralized if you choose to.

The only reason I'm seeing for why we shouldn't do it is because Google or some other centralized company is doing it. That's not really a good reason not to do it. If it wouldn't be profitable or if you wouldn't use it then those are reasons not to do it.

I do think Google has the resources to do it but I don't think theirs would scale up because you're relying on Doctors providing free advice. Free advice isn't going to be as high quality or high priority as paid advice. If you want a Doctor for example to review your medical history and your genetic information to give you paid advice that currently costs quite a bit of money in a centralized way but it could be made significantly cheaper if decentralized because there would be no middleman.

Information is going to increase dramatically. As Doctors have to analyze more information and it becomes more personalized then you will need very personalized advice. Going to Google or the current sites will get you very generic advice which is great for very common symptoms or problems but it's not going to be what people will be paying for.

Google allows you to determine consensus on your own by examining all the answers.

For a DAC to determine reputations you are going to have some reputation system that has been in place for some time or be relying on external data. 

Free does not mean bad.  Wikipedia is a great source and it is all free.  Also people are paid to write things that are made free.  Being passionate about something is a greater motivator than a relatively modest amount of money.

Paid does not equate to quality.  Also, if a doctor is writing something that will be read by dozens if not thousands of people, they might put in a little extra work.  I've had poor diagnoses from recommended doctors before. It happens and I'm sure I'm not alone.

DACs have a list of "things to work with" as Dan posted once.  IMO a DAC needs to seriously utilize some of those aspects to be considered.

There are a ton of existing web-sites out there that you could slap DAC name on.. but unless they benefit from what a DAC brings us, it will be a hard sell to any developer or anyone who at least sorta understands DACs and where they provide value.

Otherwise you make a ton of assertions which I don't see as being true.  Medical industry doesn't advance that much every few years.  I am not saying compete with Google, I'm saying using a search engine to google up answers. (google as in a verb, not a noun)  I know nothing about google health, but I'm trying to understand why someone would download a DAC to ask a doctor a question when they could just as well go to "askaodoctor.net".  You haven't even begun to propose the vetting process of this DAC for doctors etc.

"Future proof" means that the government or some central authority will try to shut it down and the service needs to be resistant.  I don't see the government trying to silence doctors on the internet.. At least there is nothing I've ever read like this.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
How do you define future proof?

Technically a decentralized tx is always more expensive, you need to update the database with all nodes instead of just on one server. Also these nodes have to be (monetarily) incentivized to stay online and have to have a (monetary) motive to stay honest.
E-commerce payments (Visa, paypal etc) are different than the tx internal to this platform. Visa etc. are only expensive because they are vulnerable to be defrauded and because of all kinds of state requirements (know your customer, licensing etc.). Therefore a Proof of stake system could be less expensive for payment applications. But in our case there would be no charge backs and no kyc or licensing requirements...

No offensive btw luckybit :) It's a fruitful discussion.
 

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I like the idea and actually to be applied in all kind of professions not only healthcare somehow...

Quote
What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?
[/b]

 +5% to the above but...

I don't think it is very easy though since everyone can search on the net for healthcare advice from doctors and anything basically for free. But even if you can find anything you want for free people still visit their doctor who they know and trust.

Therefore for healthshares or any other proffesionshare to succeed people behind those shares should be well known names and not anyone. And if you find those few strong names and you form the DAC team it is again centralised and no different than just pay them for advice.

Yep. Bingo!  If Google does the same job just as well, where is the value ?  Google will answer just about any question with multiple well thought out answers.  The only difference that I can see here is that you'd be assured the answer comes from a doctor.  Doctor's aren't perfect by any stretch.  I suppose you get to interact with a doctor, but most doctors want to give physical examinations.  Otherwise a person would be just as well to sit in front of an expert system and be diagnosed.

I don't think you're going to get the same quality advice if t's free. What if your question requires some actual thought and research by a doctor and is not something basic?

Remember we are talking about being future proof. The kinds of technology and amount of information which will exist in the next few years will be far more advanced than what we see today on Google. Google might or might not do it but they have been talking about Google health for a long time and so far they haven't done it.

Popular names isn't what I trust. That is what you might trust and in that case you can ask Doctor Oz or Doctor Phil. I trust track record and if a Doctor has no track record then I wouldn't have anything to go by so we need to have Doctors who have a very good track record and reputation. You can do some or all of it decentralized if you choose to.

The only reason I'm seeing for why we shouldn't do it is because Google or some other centralized company is doing it. That's not really a good reason not to do it. If it wouldn't be profitable or if you wouldn't use it then those are reasons not to do it.

I do think Google has the resources to do it but I don't think theirs would scale up because you're relying on Doctors providing free advice. Free advice isn't going to be as high quality or high priority as paid advice. If you want a Doctor for example to review your medical history and your genetic information to give you paid advice that currently costs quite a bit of money in a centralized way but it could be made significantly cheaper if decentralized because there would be no middleman.

Information is going to increase dramatically. As Doctors have to analyze more information and it becomes more personalized then you will need very personalized advice. Going to Google or the current sites will get you very generic advice which is great for very common symptoms or problems but it's not going to be what people will be paying for.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 04:34:14 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Quote
Tell me why it couldn't or shouldn't be a DAC.
DAC doesnt just mean internal currency. To me it is required to call it a DAC that the service itself (no only the currency used in the system) depends on a public ledger. You could distribute the data about the docs maidsafestyle across many computers. But I guess that would be limiting to the service and it for sure is complicated. The question is what do you win there? A centralized system is always cheaper and can hand this low costs on to the users...

I don't think a centralized system is cheaper at all. And I'm not just talking about having some internal currency with a website. The web app would only be the front end.

At the core you need a public ledger because there should be actual markets and market functions. For example if you take counterparty and how that works you can offer to buy or sell something. What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?

When the question is answered then you need a public ledger to track who answered it and how correct they are so that reputations can be built. You also need to keep track of the price of certain information using a sort of bid and ask.

A centralized website definitely wouldn't be cheaper because you cannot scale it in the same way. Assume MaidSafe works and we can have cheap storage and computing resources which can scale? If that is the case why would you run a centralized website which you have to pay or charge customers some sort of subscription fee when you can let it pay for itself?

Some unknowns are whether or not they can really do distributed computation and put something like Watson on top of MaidSafe or on top of some decentralized network. Let's say that becomes possible?

The decentralized version of this business is future proof and if it does become possible then you now have an abundance of computing power to diagnose people with (along with the advice/opinions of doctors). If you're doing it centralized are you saying it makes sense to build the super computer yourself and compute with that? What happens when it's time to upgrade or maintenance costs? Oh and don't forget you have to store patients most private information on some central server which makes absolutely no sense if something like MaidSafe works at all.

Patient information could be secured by the fact that patients are anonymous. Only they would have the private key, only they would control who can access their medical records.

You have many great ideas! But you can have most (maybe all) of that on a central server: Bid/Ask (like ebay), replier tacking, database (like wikipedia). You can automate everything on one server too. And user side is decentralized anyway already. With a DAC the accounting side of things would be decentralized in addition. Everytime you want to make a tx it costs. Decentralized payments are always more expensive than a similar centralized version. What you get from decentralization is a big degree of trustlessnes but it costs. All bitcoin transactions together (about 400 in 10 Minutes) cost 25 BTC ever 10 minutes (28USD on average for 1 tx). With POS it is significantly lower but more (I dont know how much) than if you change one ledger on one server. I tried to find out about the costs of a DPOS system here... I dont know how low it can get...

You can have the whole web on a central server but why would you think thats better than having it decentralized? I see no advantage to having it on a central server.

You could say Bitcoin wouldn't exist if it were centralized so it had to be decentralized but a lot of centralized companies aren't future proof and can't scale because they are centralized.

For example MaidSafe or Ethereum could be used and that would be decentralized and cheaper while also being future proof. If there is an advance in AI then the combined processing power of thousands of computers can probably take advantage of it at some point.

Storage would also be better off decentralized. Unless you're saying you would want to store the website on a central server but store the user information decentralized but then the website can be taken offline by DDOS. Why not put the decentralized domain name system to use as well?

Quote
Decentralized payments are always more expensive than a similar centralized version.

Where did you pull this from? Paypal, Western Union, Mastercard, Visa, are they all less expensive than Bitcoin? I don't know where you got this idea or if you just made it up.

The argument you're making is that Bitcoin doesn't scale but when did I suggest Bitcoin or Proof of Work? Transaction fees do cost but even if somehow it were to cost more for me to do it decentralized I would rather do it decentralized. Hackers will target health information and other similar documents. We need to store those extremely sensitive documents in the most secure manner possible which means encrypted and decentralized.

Let's assume for sake of argument that DPOS is more expensive for the user? It still depends on how you define expensive. If you value your privacy then it's significantly less expensive.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 04:24:31 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I like the idea and actually to be applied in all kind of professions not only healthcare somehow...

Quote
What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?
[/b]

 +5% to the above but...

I don't think it is very easy though since everyone can search on the net for healthcare advice from doctors and anything basically for free. But even if you can find anything you want for free people still visit their doctor who they know and trust.

Therefore for healthshares or any other proffesionshare to succeed people behind those shares should be well known names and not anyone. And if you find those few strong names and you form the DAC team it is again centralised and no different than just pay them for advice.

Yep. Bingo!  If Google does the same job just as well, where is the value ?  Google will answer just about any question with multiple well thought out answers.  The only difference that I can see here is that you'd be assured the answer comes from a doctor.  Doctor's aren't perfect by any stretch.  I suppose you get to interact with a doctor, but most doctors want to give physical examinations.  Otherwise a person would be just as well to sit in front of an expert system and be diagnosed.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
I like the idea and actually to be applied in all kind of professions not only healthcare somehow...

Quote
What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?
[/b]

 +5% to the above but...

I don't think it is very easy though since everyone can search on the net for healthcare advice from doctors and anything basically for free. But even if you can find anything you want for free people still visit their doctor who they know and trust.

Therefore for healthshares or any other proffesionshare to succeed people behind those shares should be well known names and not anyone. And if you find those few strong names and you form the DAC team it is again centralised and no different than just pay them for advice.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile


Here we go with the regulation killing innovation. What if this technology could save your life, do you care more about regulation?



Actually, I suggested a way around it in my earlier response. I agree with you that the health care system is a mess and people deserve better. Maybe this can be part of the solution.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
Tell me why it couldn't or shouldn't be a DAC.
DAC doesnt just mean internal currency. To me it is required to call it a DAC that the service itself (no only the currency used in the system) depends on a public ledger. You could distribute the data about the docs maidsafestyle across many computers. But I guess that would be limiting to the service and it for sure is complicated. The question is what do you win there? A centralized system is always cheaper and can hand this low costs on to the users...

I don't think a centralized system is cheaper at all. And I'm not just talking about having some internal currency with a website. The web app would only be the front end.

At the core you need a public ledger because there should be actual markets and market functions. For example if you take counterparty and how that works you can offer to buy or sell something. What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?

When the question is answered then you need a public ledger to track who answered it and how correct they are so that reputations can be built. You also need to keep track of the price of certain information using a sort of bid and ask.

A centralized website definitely wouldn't be cheaper because you cannot scale it in the same way. Assume MaidSafe works and we can have cheap storage and computing resources which can scale? If that is the case why would you run a centralized website which you have to pay or charge customers some sort of subscription fee when you can let it pay for itself?

Some unknowns are whether or not they can really do distributed computation and put something like Watson on top of MaidSafe or on top of some decentralized network. Let's say that becomes possible?

The decentralized version of this business is future proof and if it does become possible then you now have an abundance of computing power to diagnose people with (along with the advice/opinions of doctors). If you're doing it centralized are you saying it makes sense to build the super computer yourself and compute with that? What happens when it's time to upgrade or maintenance costs? Oh and don't forget you have to store patients most private information on some central server which makes absolutely no sense if something like MaidSafe works at all.

Patient information could be secured by the fact that patients are anonymous. Only they would have the private key, only they would control who can access their medical records.

You have many great ideas! But you can have most (maybe all) of that on a central server: Bid/Ask (like ebay), replier tacking, database (like wikipedia). You can automate everything on one server too. And user side is decentralized anyway already. With a DAC the accounting side of things would be decentralized in addition. Everytime you want to make a tx it costs. Decentralized payments are always more expensive than a similar centralized version. What you get from decentralization is a big degree of trustlessnes but it costs. All bitcoin transactions together (about 400 in 10 Minutes) cost 25 BTC ever 10 minutes (28USD on average for 1 tx). With POS it is significantly lower but more (I dont know how much) than if you change one ledger on one server. I tried to find out about the costs of a DPOS system here... I dont know how low it can get...
 

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Quote
Tell me why it couldn't or shouldn't be a DAC.
DAC doesnt just mean internal currency. To me it is required to call it a DAC that the service itself (no only the currency used in the system) depends on a public ledger. You could distribute the data about the docs maidsafestyle across many computers. But I guess that would be limiting to the service and it for sure is complicated. The question is what do you win there? A centralized system is always cheaper and can hand this low costs on to the users...

I don't think a centralized system is cheaper at all. And I'm not just talking about having some internal currency with a website. The web app would only be the front end.

At the core you need a public ledger because there should be actual markets and market functions. For example if you take counterparty and how that works you can offer to buy or sell something. What if you want to sell an answer to a question? What if you want to buy an answer to a question? What if you want professionals to bet on whether or not the answer is correct?

When the question is answered then you need a public ledger to track who answered it and how correct they are so that reputations can be built. You also need to keep track of the price of certain information using a sort of bid and ask.

A centralized website definitely wouldn't be cheaper because you cannot scale it in the same way. Assume MaidSafe works and we can have cheap storage and computing resources which can scale? If that is the case why would you run a centralized website which you have to pay or charge customers some sort of subscription fee when you can let it pay for itself?

Some unknowns are whether or not they can really do distributed computation and put something like Watson on top of MaidSafe or on top of some decentralized network. Let's say that becomes possible?

The decentralized version of this business is future proof and if it does become possible then you now have an abundance of computing power to diagnose people with (along with the advice/opinions of doctors). If you're doing it centralized are you saying it makes sense to build the super computer yourself and compute with that? What happens when it's time to upgrade or maintenance costs? Oh and don't forget you have to store patients most private information on some central server which makes absolutely no sense if something like MaidSafe works at all.

Patient information could be secured by the fact that patients are anonymous. Only they would have the private key, only they would control who can access their medical records.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 05:26:28 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
Tell me why it couldn't or shouldn't be a DAC.
DAC doesnt just mean internal currency. To me it is required to call it a DAC that the service itself (no only the currency used in the system) depends on a public ledger. You could distribute the data about the docs maidsafestyle across many computers. But I guess that would be limiting to the service and it for sure is complicated. The question is what do you win there? A centralized system is always cheaper and can hand this low costs on to the users...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 05:11:21 pm by delulo »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Theoretically, you could do this for any professional service: medicine, veterinary medicine, psychology, law, accounting. One trick would be licensing and regulation. In the U.S., these professions largely are regulated at the state level, so someone operating nationally would need a lot of licenses. Better yet, with enough scale, the organization could be big enough to have experts in every populous state and foreign jurisdiction. And why stop with those professions? Astrologers, odds makers, meditation gurus, personal trainers...

Here we go with the regulation killing innovation. What if this technology could save your life, do you care more about regulation?

You're right we would have a problem with peer to peer health insurance, as well as these decentralized information services. The only question we should be asking is if it's technically possible, because we don't control the government.

Of course you want to make sure every doctor is licensed because bad doctors will give bad advice but I think we will need this service. Does it make sense to go to a doctors office or make a phone call to a doctor or to send our private information to a centralized easily hacked website when we can do it in a better way? Can we use market incentives to optimize for good advice from the general population?

Obama's healthcare.gov was absolutely terrible by design but the government spent a fortune to launch that centralized website which isn't even future proof. The government does not tend to design in a future proof manner. We need to design a better way of doing healthcare which is future proof and figure out how to regulate it technologically so that we don't need to use as much of the old fashioned regulation strategies.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 05:11:19 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads