Why not both? You can use crypto if you want to "run your own bank", or you can use a bank. The existence of one does not preclude the possibility of also using

Why not both? You can use crypto if you want to "run your own bank", or you can use a bank. The existence of one does not preclude the possibility of also using the other. I use crypto, I am aware of the risks it entails and allocated capital accordingly, the rest held in a bank or safer "centralized" store of values (stocks, etfs, etc). Some people go full crypto with no bank, some people want nothing to do with crypto and will just use a bank as usual. None of this should concern anyone but the person making this decision. That said, this article is simply the rationalization of the author's choice about why he won't use crypto, raising basic concerns that anyone that knows about crypto should be aware of, but of course it reached the front page based solely on the fact that it's anti-crypto. However, I want to address the closing quote. >Would you carry around your life savings in your wallet? Would you store everything of value in your home in a safe? Would you want to run your own banking infrastructure? You don't have to carry all your life savings in a single wallet that you carry around. You can split everything in multiple wallets, distributed in a safe way so that you don't lose everything if your house burns down, or you are held at gunpoint, or you become amnesiac, or you die, or whatever. How you do that is your responsibility. You don't want that responsibility? Then just use a bank. Also, I didn't know I had to run my own banking infrastructure to use crypto, up until now I just used a wallet.