6 ms·

Sure, they want to rewind to a time when your bank account was unsecured and banks themselves had 0 regulation. Because it's a heck of a lot easier to make mon

by tw04 5y ago

Sure, they want to rewind to a time when your bank account was unsecured and banks themselves had 0 regulation. Because it's a heck of a lot easier to make money when you can take massive risks with other people's money while lying to them and claiming there's no risk at all.

corey_moncure 5y ago
The inverse take on this is that entrenched rich interests made all their money during such periods and have now used regulation to "pull up the ladder behind them". People who are foolish with their money will always find a way to lose it.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Coinbase is worth $50 billion. I like Brian Armstrong more than I like the typical finance CEO, but his company is definitely an entrenched rich interest, and if we treat them as a scrappy underdog we're going to let them get away with things they probably shouldn't. You should be skeptical on principle when a billionaire tells you that a financial regulator is being unfair to them.
  - itsme24543 5y ago
    in fact they make a lot of money from institutional investors https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/116855/inside-coinbases-game-plan-to-be-a-one-stop-shop-for-wall-streets-largest-investors https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/116855/inside-coinbases-..., so def not an underdog.
hajile 5y ago
Central banking is itself insecure. In 2008, the banks failed. They put a gun to the heads of everyone in America and said "bail us out or you lose everything". So the bankers kept all their profits and everyone else lost big. That is just one of many central bank failures. The only difference from the many small bank system that came before is that instead of a bank here or there failing and everyone else moving on, all banks fail at the same time. Don't count on that FDIC money either. It is setup as if only one or two banks will partially fail at any given time. In massive failures, there's not enough money to secure what they promise to secure (thus the gun to your head). The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending where a bank gets $100 and then proceeds to loan out $900. That would require banks to have much smaller profit margins and maybe even become not-for-profit entities, but we certainly can't entertain that idea..
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Your issue is not with the central bank. It is with the social contract a nation state has with its citizens (which is expressed through monetary policy), which can't be solved through code.
  - frm210 5y ago
    The social "contract" is only useful up to the point that it is enforceable. Cryptography can in fact hide much from the state.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending where a bank gets $100 and then proceeds to loan out $900. That is simply not true. It's a fiction (of sorts) told by people who feel fucked by the financial system.
  - hajile 5y ago
    It is basically true. I work hard and get paid $100 for what I did. I then deposit $100. The bank loans $90 to person X. Person X gives the money to person Y for some good or service. Person Y deposits $90 and now there is $190 in the bank. The bank loans $81 to person X+1. Person X+1 gives the money to person Y+1 for some good or service. Person Y+1 deposits $81 and now there is $271 in the bank. The bank loans $72.90 to person X+1. ... The last person deposits and there is now $900 in the bank when only $100 worth of actual work has been done. $900 has been printed out of nothing and the original $100 has been devalued. I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank gets 5-25% interest off of $900 in imaginary money (future earnings, whatever). If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > The last person deposits and there is now $900 in the bank when only $100 worth of actual work has been done. $900 has been printed out of nothing and the original $100 has been devalued. Are you claiming that when person x gives $90 to person y for some good or service, no work was done? It seems to me that there were 3 transactions totalling 271$ in goods or services rendered, and $271 put into the bank. > If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested. Yes, because you aren't subject to the various banking regulations. Oftentimes privileges come with responsibilities. > I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank Well of course, leaving your money in a savings account is kinda dumb. You too should invest it in a more active way if you want to make a profit.
cyanydeez 5y ago
thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked. but ir the srgument is its a savings account then theres regulatory structures for that which i doubt they are covered either. people ultimately praise "disruption" itself when half the time its mostly breaking laws that may or may not have grown excessive redtape
- dzamo_norton 5y ago
  > thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked. Modulo any discernible path to profitability.

by tw04 5y ago

corey_moncure 5y ago

The inverse take on this is that entrenched rich interests made all their money during such periods and have now used regulation to "pull up the ladder behind them". People who are foolish with their money will always find a way to lose it.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Coinbase is worth $50 billion. I like Brian Armstrong more than I like the typical finance CEO, but his company is definitely an entrenched rich interest, and if we treat them as a scrappy underdog we're going to let them get away with things they probably shouldn't. You should be skeptical on principle when a billionaire tells you that a financial regulator is being unfair to them.
- itsme24543 5y ago
  in fact they make a lot of money from institutional investors https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/116855/inside-coinbases-game-plan-to-be-a-one-stop-shop-for-wall-streets-largest-investors https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/116855/inside-coinbases-..., so def not an underdog.

hajile 5y ago

Central banking is itself insecure. In 2008, the banks failed. They put a gun to the heads of everyone in America and said "bail us out or you lose everything". So the bankers kept all their profits and everyone else lost big. That is just one of many central bank failures. The only difference from the many small bank system that came before is that instead of a bank here or there failing and everyone else moving on, all banks fail at the same time. Don't count on that FDIC money either. It is setup as if only one or two banks will partially fail at any given time. In massive failures, there's not enough money to secure what they promise to secure (thus the gun to your head). The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending where a bank gets $100 and then proceeds to loan out $900. That would require banks to have much smaller profit margins and maybe even become not-for-profit entities, but we certainly can't entertain that idea..

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Your issue is not with the central bank. It is with the social contract a nation state has with its citizens (which is expressed through monetary policy), which can't be solved through code.
- frm210 5y ago
  The social "contract" is only useful up to the point that it is enforceable. Cryptography can in fact hide much from the state.
phkahler 5y ago
>> The real answer is to do away with the fractional reserve lending where a bank gets $100 and then proceeds to loan out $900. That is simply not true. It's a fiction (of sorts) told by people who feel fucked by the financial system.
- hajile 5y ago
  It is basically true. I work hard and get paid $100 for what I did. I then deposit $100. The bank loans $90 to person X. Person X gives the money to person Y for some good or service. Person Y deposits $90 and now there is $190 in the bank. The bank loans $81 to person X+1. Person X+1 gives the money to person Y+1 for some good or service. Person Y+1 deposits $81 and now there is $271 in the bank. The bank loans $72.90 to person X+1. ... The last person deposits and there is now $900 in the bank when only $100 worth of actual work has been done. $900 has been printed out of nothing and the original $100 has been devalued. I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank gets 5-25% interest off of $900 in imaginary money (future earnings, whatever). If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > The last person deposits and there is now $900 in the bank when only $100 worth of actual work has been done. $900 has been printed out of nothing and the original $100 has been devalued. Are you claiming that when person x gives $90 to person y for some good or service, no work was done? It seems to me that there were 3 transactions totalling 271$ in goods or services rendered, and $271 put into the bank. > If I printed $900 and loaned it out, I'd be arrested. Yes, because you aren't subject to the various banking regulations. Oftentimes privileges come with responsibilities. > I get 0.05% interest off my hard work while the bank Well of course, leaving your money in a savings account is kinda dumb. You too should invest it in a more active way if you want to make a profit.

cyanydeez 5y ago

thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked. but ir the srgument is its a savings account then theres regulatory structures for that which i doubt they are covered either. people ultimately praise "disruption" itself when half the time its mostly breaking laws that may or may not have grown excessive redtape

dzamo_norton 5y ago
> thats basically what uber did to the taxi system and it worked. Modulo any discernible path to profitability.