> I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. W

> I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. Well I am also open to changing my mind -- would you mind explaining how you know this? Is the implication here that the regulation and operational heft of banks will be sure to apply to any new challengers? > In the scenario you posit, the market has to have consolidated around a few key players. Coinbase wins over Visa for instance. What incentive does CB then have to charge lower prices to merchants? Why shouldn't they help themselves to the same margins that Visa were enjoying? I think that it's natural for markets to consolidate around a few key players, almost inevitable in the capitalistic system. I'm positing that it is much easier to challenge Coinbase than it is to challenge any existing banking infrastructure in the US, so you get a much better chance of actual competition and prices being pushed down. The pool of people who can start a crypto exchange and the group of people who can open up a bank in the US are of wildly different size.