2 ms·
> Bank transfers handle the problem by simply delaying full access to the money, at least for larger amounts, until banks on both ends have checked everything.
by strogonoff 4y ago
> Bank transfers handle the problem by simply delaying full access to the money, at least for larger amounts, until banks on both ends have checked everything.
They are doing it for good reasons, presence of malicious agents (money launderers, etc.) exploiting trust requires it. (In fact, I’d argue banks are getting away with not doing it enough with very moneyed customers.)
Blockchain does not eliminate this need in current age—either equivalent institutions would have to be reproduced all anew, or we need to end the motivations that make people want to exploit financial system in the first place.
And if we do address the latter (the only sustainable solution in the long run), then what is the benefit of blockchain and all? Isn’t it just pure overhead then?
- junofan 4y ago> what is the benefit of blockchain and all? The design space is way bigger, so you can create better solutions. “Trust institution X” is a special case. I can open a position on my favorite DEX (trusting the DEX administer, which can be a centralized authority, not to push an upgrade that drains my balance) and also trust that my position can be liquidated (due to incentives for anybody to submit the liquidation transaction, thereby not having to trust that a centralized liquidation bot won’t have somehow failed at that exact moment). You could design a brokerage system where accountholders must trust the broker with personal details like SSN, etc, but don’t have to trust the broker not to disable buy/sell buttons due to solvency issues.
- strogonoff 4y ago> don’t have to trust There we go again. Why are we avoiding trust?