I have come to the conclusion that adding Bitpay or other intermediaries is a toxic step in crypto-evolution, partly because it extends the life/utility/appeal of fiat indefinitely and - despite first impressions - it actually works against crypto progress.

My moment of enlightenment(?) came when I tried to renew a VPN contract and pay with crypto. The VPN provider's payment button redirected to Bitpay. A glitch resulted in Bitpay acceptiing my crypto payment, and the VPN provider (merchant) saying they did not receive it from Bitpay, that they had no leverage with Bitpay but that I should "reach out" to Bitpay to try and claw my payment back (so I could pay it again). Grumpiness aside, my takeaway was that if you value crypto as a privacy-enabler, then such privacy is at risk if you have to engage with the intermediary in a transaction, Bitpay in my example.

Bitpay and its various equivalents have genuine appeal, especially for merchants, but they subvert the peer-to-peer essence of crypto transactions and, in effect, become one more PayPal overhead.

That said, I take no position on the vending-machine++ funding proposal. My comments are about the general case of intermediaries in crypto transactions and my suggestion is that crypto design structure should always thwart the use of intermediaries, despite arguments from ease (I get it) or the temptation to grow markets (I get it).

Put another way, I value DASH over BTC partly because it more closely embodies the peer-to-peer model that was once normal in fiat. Adding an intermediary to any crypto subverts that peer-to-peer model, as I just learned the hard way when a transaction went awry - up to then, I was fairly pleased with the one-click convenience of intermediaries such as Bitpay. I had lost sight of my goals, blinded by ease of use.