4 ms·

> because crypto is actively user hostile The "marketing" of "everyone should keep their own wallet" is off, as it was initially only for the computer savvy. B

> because crypto is actively user hostile The "marketing" of "everyone should keep their own wallet" is off, as it was initially only for the computer savvy. But that is also the main selling point. If you want to have it, you get full control. The average user is better off keeping their coins in an online wallet/exchange. We wouldn't expect them to interact directly with bank/forex/stock back-end networks and not fuck something up. The main difference here is that they can if they want to. > It's always the customer's fault, never the technology. No, the field is still green and over-hyped, lots of gullible "investors" coming in, scammers follow. The regulations have not fully caught up. Even with some regulations, I assure you, if you choose a shady bank or a broker for stocks you can lose your money just as easily. If you don't keep the coins yourself it becomes a question of who to trust. I really don't see what that has to do with "the technology".

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> Even with some regulations, I assure you, if you choose a shady bank or a broker for stocks you can lose your money just as easily. Can anyone even cite a single banking exit scam in the United States in recent history? The closest I can think of is Ponzi schemes like Madoff, but those were operated as businesses, not banks. Meanwhile, we hear about multiple crypto exit scams per year. More if you include all of the suspicious coin disappearances that were blamed on hacks. It would be nearly impossible for an actual bank owner in the United States to abscond to a foreign country with customer funds and avoid consequences, and even more unlikely that those customers wouldn't be made whole. But with cryptocurrency banks, being able to abscond with funds and avoid traceability/consequences is almost a core feature. I don't understand how anyone can think traditional, regulated, insured banks are in any way equivalent to unregulated, international crypto exchanges. The two couldn't be any more different when it comes to safety.
- kuroguro 6y ago
  > Can anyone even cite a single banking exit scam in the United States I'm from east EU so I can't comment on US, but we've had at least two major banks go under (that I can remember) due to some shady manipulations. A lot of people lost a lot of money. > in recent history Part of my point is that the regulations aren't here yet. We've had hundreds of years of experience with dealing with banks. They're so highly regulated precisely because there's been plenty of fraud. > regulated, insured banks are in any way equivalent to unregulated, international crypto exchanges Exactly! They aren't even near equivalent without the regulation. But I don't see why they couldn't come close with proper regulation.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> Even with some regulations, I assure you, if you choose a shady bank or a broker for stocks you can lose your money just as easily. Can anyone even cite a single banking exit scam in the United States in recent history? The closest I can think of is Ponzi schemes like Madoff, but those were operated as businesses, not banks. Meanwhile, we hear about multiple crypto exit scams per year. More if you include all of the suspicious coin disappearances that were blamed on hacks. It would be nearly impossible for an actual bank owner in the United States to abscond to a foreign country with customer funds and avoid consequences, and even more unlikely that those customers wouldn't be made whole. But with cryptocurrency banks, being able to abscond with funds and avoid traceability/consequences is almost a core feature. I don't understand how anyone can think traditional, regulated, insured banks are in any way equivalent to unregulated, international crypto exchanges. The two couldn't be any more different when it comes to safety.

kuroguro 6y ago
> Can anyone even cite a single banking exit scam in the United States I'm from east EU so I can't comment on US, but we've had at least two major banks go under (that I can remember) due to some shady manipulations. A lot of people lost a lot of money. > in recent history Part of my point is that the regulations aren't here yet. We've had hundreds of years of experience with dealing with banks. They're so highly regulated precisely because there's been plenty of fraud. > regulated, insured banks are in any way equivalent to unregulated, international crypto exchanges Exactly! They aren't even near equivalent without the regulation. But I don't see why they couldn't come close with proper regulation.