3 ms·
You can build one thousand money transfer networks better than the banking system - it's irelevant, the incumbents will never let them exist at scale. Financial
by yholio 8y ago
You can build one thousand money transfer networks better than the banking system - it's irelevant, the incumbents will never let them exist at scale. Financial intermediation is a trillion dollars industry, do you think the industry will just let some small startups and OSS developers steal their lunch? No, they will lobby to hell, they will pressure all regulatory agencies, they will scream "money laundry, corruption and pedophiles!". In the end all you will get are paypals and stripes, thin tech veneers over thick banking gravy.
Cryptocurrecies succeeded to some degree precisely because they were not merely transfer networks - indeed, despite the dubious usability as such. They succeeded because they created their own units of value along with the transfer system, speculative virtual assets that allowed then to bootstrap without being grandfathered by the banking industry.
A social token that would strive for a balance between privacy and against criminal behaviour could be imagined. But it would need to follow a similar path, neither banks nor governments desire to relinquish any control over their currencies.
- ian0 8y ago1. Remittance networks are constantly being disrupted. Just look at Transfer-to, Transferwise, Ozforex etc. And the real wallets are just starting (eg Alipay). Whats not disrupting international remittance markets is crypto. And the reason is that it didnt solve any problems! - Western union built the largest and easiest cash-in cash-out network for non-banked customers. THEN it sat on this network and collected lots of forex fees. - Banks persuaded people that they were safe places to store their money. THEN they sat on this and collected fees from forex. If crypto could do either of those things it would see adoption. As its stands its light years away from being usable or trustworthy - so this isn't going to happen anytime soon. 2. Financial intermediaries don't make that much money. Eg compare the market cap of your countries largest switch with that of its largest bank. Banks make most of their money from loaning and investing money, not payments. If crypto had potential they would be selling you it with interest. 3. There are entirely rational arguments against crypto being legalised as currency. And if we are to move forward with replacing our unit of value it would be wise to understand why, example: - Countries rely on taxation to provide social services, how will crypto adoption impact? - People are easily swindled, how will crypto prevent that? - People dont like it when their money suddenly devalues overnight - how will crypto prevent that? Believe it or not its not a vast conspiracy. The majority of what regulators do is to react to some past monetary catastrophe. There are ways ahead but seriously - it's time to get practical with solutions. Yes. It's a beautiful algorithm. Yes, everyone hates fees, financiers and inequality. But no, the algorithm alone isn't going to help us fix that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- fabricexpert 8y agocouldn't you have made this exact argument 30 years ago about operating systems for computers?