6 ms·

It is fascinating to watch and so shortly after Yellen's tone-deaf speech about how btc is inefficient compared to traditional banking system. I almost spat out

It is fascinating to watch and so shortly after Yellen's tone-deaf speech about how btc is inefficient compared to traditional banking system. I almost spat out my coffee. Has she tried sending a wire outside of US lately? edit: Almost makes you wonder if it was a targeted attack.

partiallypro 6y ago
Your comment would make sense if the global banking system went down, instead it was just a tool the Fed uses with Banks.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  You are right. I will keep the edit as is.
Jimmc414 6y ago
Reddit also went down. GME is also going parabolic this PM along with AMC coincidence?
- sjg007 6y ago
  People must really like the stock.. is this a merry-go-round?
notyourday 6y ago
> Has she tried sending a wire outside of US lately? Costs at most about $35 for any size wire, shows up in a corresponding bank within a day. If the corresponding bank is not the ultimate destination, takes whatever the amount of time it takes for the end transaction to complete. In event of a bank mess up on a transfer, the wire gets rejected/credited back. For banks that do "online" FedWire rather than batched, wires show up and are credited within seconds. What, exactly, is the problem? P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I don't want to presume, but what you are describing is a theory of how it is supposed to work. That theory holds up for a majority (~80%+ depending on an institution - I am not willing to make more specific statements ) of wires, but remaining 20% can be held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. edit: "P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. " That may have been true/acceptable before - back when time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
  - notyourday 6y ago
    > but remaining 20% can held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. AML, OFAC will absolutely take time and no interbank transfer would bypass it in any US chartered bank as they are triggered during a match in the FedWire or any other system that uses the Fed. KYC and fraud investigations are triggered by the originating bank, most likely because the account has been flagged. Until the account is cleared any transfers out of the account would trigger them and delay them. KYC-type and fraud investigations could also be triggered by the receiving bank if the account is either flagged or the activity is matching certain parameters - it is less likely but possible. Should that happen, no matter what is the method that was used to credit the account is likely to trigger it. > For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case. > That may have been true/acceptable before, where time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user. It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      1 in 5 seems like a high proportion to me. I will admit that I find it mildly aggravating that people wave away a genuine complaint with 'it only happens in 1 out of 5 cases'. Is it an acceptable ratio? Would we accept a plane that lands for non-routine issue 1 out of 5 times? >> That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case. I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%? >> It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes. Having dealt with those mistakes, I still maintain that it is there cover the bank.
soheil 6y ago
Maybe she meant it's inefficient in a way that for the government to track money it has to do a lot more work compared to the existing systems in place with the banks. Not lying seems to very important to government officials but equal level of misleading truths are totally acceptable [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34912959 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34912959
wilsocr88 6y ago
I think you're noticing the autoimmune reaction of a corrupt central bank to the first real competition it has ever received. There are many private institutions in the US experiencing similar growing pains.
Geee 6y ago
We could also think this just as a marketing trick for the digital dollar. And as we know, they need the digital dollar to be able to track movement of money, obsoleting financial privacy completely.
cageface 6y ago
Yellen's tone-deaf speech Tone deaf in what sense? What tone should she strike? BTC is comically inefficient.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Compared to what? Public companies with thousands of employees, shareholders and interest in ensuring BTC remains a niche? Are you sure you are not arguing the way you do simply because status quo is preferable and predictable?
  - cageface 6y ago
    Yes quite sure thanks. Crypto will have to grow all these other encumberances before it can become something ordinary people can use instead of a normal bank.
- omgJustTest 6y ago
  She is making a lot of speeches... and it would probably better to play close-to-the-vest on issues yo
omgJustTest 6y ago
Yellen is the definition of tone deaf.

partiallypro 6y ago

Your comment would make sense if the global banking system went down, instead it was just a tool the Fed uses with Banks.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
You are right. I will keep the edit as is.

Jimmc414 6y ago

Reddit also went down. GME is also going parabolic this PM along with AMC coincidence?

sjg007 6y ago
People must really like the stock.. is this a merry-go-round?

notyourday 6y ago

> Has she tried sending a wire outside of US lately? Costs at most about $35 for any size wire, shows up in a corresponding bank within a day. If the corresponding bank is not the ultimate destination, takes whatever the amount of time it takes for the end transaction to complete. In event of a bank mess up on a transfer, the wire gets rejected/credited back. For banks that do "online" FedWire rather than batched, wires show up and are credited within seconds. What, exactly, is the problem? P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I don't want to presume, but what you are describing is a theory of how it is supposed to work. That theory holds up for a majority (~80%+ depending on an institution - I am not willing to make more specific statements ) of wires, but remaining 20% can be held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. edit: "P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. " That may have been true/acceptable before - back when time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
- notyourday 6y ago
  > but remaining 20% can held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. AML, OFAC will absolutely take time and no interbank transfer would bypass it in any US chartered bank as they are triggered during a match in the FedWire or any other system that uses the Fed. KYC and fraud investigations are triggered by the originating bank, most likely because the account has been flagged. Until the account is cleared any transfers out of the account would trigger them and delay them. KYC-type and fraud investigations could also be triggered by the receiving bank if the account is either flagged or the activity is matching certain parameters - it is less likely but possible. Should that happen, no matter what is the method that was used to credit the account is likely to trigger it. > For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem. That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case. > That may have been true/acceptable before, where time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user. It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    1 in 5 seems like a high proportion to me. I will admit that I find it mildly aggravating that people wave away a genuine complaint with 'it only happens in 1 out of 5 cases'. Is it an acceptable ratio? Would we accept a plane that lands for non-routine issue 1 out of 5 times? >> That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case. I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%? >> It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes. Having dealt with those mistakes, I still maintain that it is there cover the bank.

soheil 6y ago

Maybe she meant it's inefficient in a way that for the government to track money it has to do a lot more work compared to the existing systems in place with the banks. Not lying seems to very important to government officials but equal level of misleading truths are totally acceptable [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34912959 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34912959

wilsocr88 6y ago

I think you're noticing the autoimmune reaction of a corrupt central bank to the first real competition it has ever received. There are many private institutions in the US experiencing similar growing pains.

Geee 6y ago

We could also think this just as a marketing trick for the digital dollar. And as we know, they need the digital dollar to be able to track movement of money, obsoleting financial privacy completely.

cageface 6y ago

Yellen's tone-deaf speech Tone deaf in what sense? What tone should she strike? BTC is comically inefficient.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Compared to what? Public companies with thousands of employees, shareholders and interest in ensuring BTC remains a niche? Are you sure you are not arguing the way you do simply because status quo is preferable and predictable?
- cageface 6y ago
  Yes quite sure thanks. Crypto will have to grow all these other encumberances before it can become something ordinary people can use instead of a normal bank.
omgJustTest 6y ago
She is making a lot of speeches... and it would probably better to play close-to-the-vest on issues yo

omgJustTest 6y ago

Yellen is the definition of tone deaf.