4 ms·

But people often don't want to "run their own bank", they want to run something like a bank without the hassle of running a bank, i.e. way less regulations etc.

But people often don't want to "run their own bank", they want to run something like a bank without the hassle of running a bank, i.e. way less regulations etc. (which is why it is happening in crypto space, not in real money space). Otherwise, why not create a little coop bank with like-minded people? For me, the option to "run your own bank" does actually exists for small-ish groups already. While the current level of financial and banking regulation is certainly debatable, creating super lightweight version of banks might not necessarily the way forward.

hkt 5y ago
Came here to say this. Credit unions are a thing, and it is increasingly easy to offer debit cards (via aggregators) through them. There's even open source software to help: https://www.fineract.dev/ https://www.fineract.dev/
logicalmonster 5y ago
> Otherwise, why not create a little coop bank with like-minded people? The problem isn't the bank organization itself: it's the money that you deal in. Regardless of your bank structure, whether it's some typical commercial bank or some kind of cooperative association, you're still left holding a fiat currency that is inflated on a whim. The beauty of crypto (and especially Bitcoin) is that there's either a fixed amount, or at least the rate of change of the money supply (inflation) is at least perfectly transparent and mathematically provable.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  If you believe the money is "wrong" then Bitcoin won't safe you, nothing will safe you totally, in fact. Whether or not the money supply is fixed or not doesn't matter, you can make one type of money worthless vs. another form of money (happened so many times in history, and not necessarily due to inflation). And Bitcoin's hard cap is based on incentives and code, i.e. it could be changed (difficult to see in reality absent some really strong outside coercion, perhaps). Another attack on the value of Bitcoin could be from a state actor using nearly unlimited resources to take over most of the mining or validating and using it against it. I.e., there are ways to degrade it as a store of value (other than just arresting everyone found using, for example).
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    Virtually everything in life is about smart risk management. Some things are just far more likely to happen than others. Which of these 2 things are more likely to happen? 1) An attack or change on Bitcoin that renders it completely valueless or unusable 2) Governments inflating fiat currencies and robbing you of your wealth I'd say that 1 is merely theoretically possible, but 2 is about as close to complete metaphysical certainty as you can get.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Currencies are not to store or create wealth. No-one in their right mind holds anything close to "wealth" in cash-like things (heck, not even bonds really). In defense against 2), I'd venture it is probably better to own production assets (and parts thereof) rather than crypto. Also, if inflation is sky high and destroying everything left and right, they could very well come for 1). So there is a spectrum of inflation where crypto might(!) be a hedge, but similarly a lot of other assets might(!) deliver said hedge. Just because it is limited in supply does not mean people will always imbue it with value (stamps are great example of staff that is dropping in value as far as collectables are concerned). Now where I could see an issue is then with people who don't have "wealth" but some savings that get inflated away and potentially limited asset selection to invest in. Whether or not crypto will help, is up to crypto, not some law of nature, though.
      - logicalmonster 5y ago
        > I'd venture it is probably better to own production assets (and parts thereof) rather than crypto. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your response, but I think your response is too focused on my use of the word "wealth". Obviously, genuinely wealthy people have a large part of their assets tied up in physical assets that might serve as a hedge like land, resources, real-estate, businesses, and likely aren't anywhere close to entirely liquid. I'm more focused on the impact of inflation on normal people. An average person of average or below average means likely holds most of their life savings in cash-like things or even literal cash. Being able to afford land, an investment property, a factory, a McDonalds franchise, or physical assets isn't even on their radar screen. The average person of average means is screwed by inflation far more than the wealthy because they have far less of an ability to buy real assets that might always have some value. The reason inflation makes me angry is that it's a stealth tax, primarily on the poor. Whatever else you want to say about Bitcoin, the fact that there can only ever be 21 million units is extraordinarily positive in this respect.

hkt 5y ago

Came here to say this. Credit unions are a thing, and it is increasingly easy to offer debit cards (via aggregators) through them. There's even open source software to help: https://www.fineract.dev/ https://www.fineract.dev/

logicalmonster 5y ago

> Otherwise, why not create a little coop bank with like-minded people? The problem isn't the bank organization itself: it's the money that you deal in. Regardless of your bank structure, whether it's some typical commercial bank or some kind of cooperative association, you're still left holding a fiat currency that is inflated on a whim. The beauty of crypto (and especially Bitcoin) is that there's either a fixed amount, or at least the rate of change of the money supply (inflation) is at least perfectly transparent and mathematically provable.

RandomLensman 5y ago
If you believe the money is "wrong" then Bitcoin won't safe you, nothing will safe you totally, in fact. Whether or not the money supply is fixed or not doesn't matter, you can make one type of money worthless vs. another form of money (happened so many times in history, and not necessarily due to inflation). And Bitcoin's hard cap is based on incentives and code, i.e. it could be changed (difficult to see in reality absent some really strong outside coercion, perhaps). Another attack on the value of Bitcoin could be from a state actor using nearly unlimited resources to take over most of the mining or validating and using it against it. I.e., there are ways to degrade it as a store of value (other than just arresting everyone found using, for example).
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  Virtually everything in life is about smart risk management. Some things are just far more likely to happen than others. Which of these 2 things are more likely to happen? 1) An attack or change on Bitcoin that renders it completely valueless or unusable 2) Governments inflating fiat currencies and robbing you of your wealth I'd say that 1 is merely theoretically possible, but 2 is about as close to complete metaphysical certainty as you can get.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Currencies are not to store or create wealth. No-one in their right mind holds anything close to "wealth" in cash-like things (heck, not even bonds really). In defense against 2), I'd venture it is probably better to own production assets (and parts thereof) rather than crypto. Also, if inflation is sky high and destroying everything left and right, they could very well come for 1). So there is a spectrum of inflation where crypto might(!) be a hedge, but similarly a lot of other assets might(!) deliver said hedge. Just because it is limited in supply does not mean people will always imbue it with value (stamps are great example of staff that is dropping in value as far as collectables are concerned). Now where I could see an issue is then with people who don't have "wealth" but some savings that get inflated away and potentially limited asset selection to invest in. Whether or not crypto will help, is up to crypto, not some law of nature, though.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      > I'd venture it is probably better to own production assets (and parts thereof) rather than crypto. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your response, but I think your response is too focused on my use of the word "wealth". Obviously, genuinely wealthy people have a large part of their assets tied up in physical assets that might serve as a hedge like land, resources, real-estate, businesses, and likely aren't anywhere close to entirely liquid. I'm more focused on the impact of inflation on normal people. An average person of average or below average means likely holds most of their life savings in cash-like things or even literal cash. Being able to afford land, an investment property, a factory, a McDonalds franchise, or physical assets isn't even on their radar screen. The average person of average means is screwed by inflation far more than the wealthy because they have far less of an ability to buy real assets that might always have some value. The reason inflation makes me angry is that it's a stealth tax, primarily on the poor. Whatever else you want to say about Bitcoin, the fact that there can only ever be 21 million units is extraordinarily positive in this respect.