5 ms·

Anyone who still has any significant amount of money in any CEX, Coinbase included, is either not paying attention or irredeemably naive. It's especially tires

Anyone who still has any significant amount of money in any CEX, Coinbase included, is either not paying attention or irredeemably naive. It's especially tiresome the fact that people keep pointing at these disasters claiming "crypto has failed", when reality is the exact opposite: CEXs are the exact antithesis of the core crypto idea of decentralizing trust. "Not your keys, not your coins" keeps being proven right.

danuker 4y ago
Not your keys, not your coins. Also, be mindful of what the FDIC (or its equivalent in your country) insures per bank account. It might be worth it to use multiple accounts.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Please be aware that the FDIC *does not insure against losses from these exchanges*. Do not put money into any crypto exchange, relying on the FDIC to protect you in the event the exchange goes bust.
  - danuker 4y ago
    You are correct. What I was pointing out is that actual regulated banks are also prone to failures, especially in these trying times. Because they also hold a fractional reserve.
    - marticode 4y ago
      In developed countries, banks are rarely left to completely fail nowadays, the small ones are usually taken over by the big ones, and the big ones are bailed by governments/regulators.
      - birracerveza 4y ago
        It's not a problem, until it is. Mh, sounds familiar.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lxgr 4y ago
        Rarely isn't never: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... That list seems to include buyouts, though, i.e. cases in which the FDIC didn't actually have to directly disburse funds. In Europe, there were two bank failures that I know of in the last few years that required tapping into the regional FDIC equivalents. In at least one of them, quite a few depositors actually lost money (due to having savings in excess of the insured maximum).
        jmalicki 4y ago
        In quite a few buyout cases, the buyer only buys what's left after the FDIC pays out any losses. The FDIC prefers to do it this way since having an intact set of customers is valuable to the acquiring bank and helps defer the cost and especially administrative overhead of disbursing insured funds. "Purchase and Assumption Transaction. This is the preferred and most common method, under which a healthy bank assumes the insured deposits of the failed bank. Insured depositors of the failed bank immediately become depositors of the assuming bank and have access to their insured funds. The assuming bank may also purchase loans and other assets of the failed bank." https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      We haven't seen any indication that a wave of bank failures is coming. We haven't seen any failed banks in a couple of years. Now, that could change and we could see a recurrence of the wave of bank failures that started in 2008 and slowly tapered off, but your argument for that can't just be a hand wave at "trying times" and "fractional reserve" because the numbers currently show the opposite: https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/ https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/ Still smart to keep total accounts per type per bank under the insurance limit (currently $250,0000), and to directly verify that your accounts are actually insured using the FDIC's tool: https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/aii/ https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/aii/
      - kmonsen 4y ago
        Did any depositors loose money in 2008 from bank failures? If not when was the last time regular depositors lost money?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        shkkmo 4y ago
        I don't think that information is public to protect privacy...but any balances over the limit in a failed bank would result in non-insured losses.
        jmalicki 4y ago
        That's actually not true [1] - the FDIC has continued the practice of covering balances over the insured limit despite not being required to. [1] https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/will-fdic-keep-protecting-failed-banks-uninsured-deposits https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/will-fdic-keep-protec...
        shkkmo 4y ago
        Interesting, glad they're doing that but ok probably best not to count on that policy if you don't have to.
1970-01-01 4y ago
Crypto ads all said this was the future. Sizzle sells, skeptics survive.
- birracerveza 4y ago
  Crypto banks' ads*
awinder 4y ago
If it makes you feel any better, it’s extremely tiresome to a different cohort to see people make the claim that the future of finance is stuffing cash under the mattress and burying gold bars in their backyards
- birracerveza 4y ago
  IMO it's the future of finance because you own your coins. Nothing else aside from crypto allows me to do so in digital form. You are free to disagree, even if you think it's digital beanie babies or whatever. Luckily in this case you can vote with your wallet, as I did.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Real question - why do you believe that "owning" your own coins matters? Further - why do you believe that ownership is related at all to the fact that you can keep ledger entry with your wallet on it? Ownership !== ledger entries. Ownership is a shared concept enforced by social constructs. It is not a fucking technical matter solved by a ledger. EX: You sign a contract to send me 1 bitcoin in exchange for my car. I give you the car, but you never send me the bitcoin. Who owns the coin? Because the ledger is going to let you spend it, but the courts are going to give me your shit. Same in reverse - I get your coin and then drive off with the car. Do I own the coin now? Because again - the ledger says yes, but our concept of ownership includes the idea of dispute and fraud - and the ledger doesn't fucking know or care. Basically - your idea of "ownership" being limited to "my wallet, my coins" is both limited, childish, and insufficient.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - giaour 4y ago
      This is why the car of the future will only start when presented with a key NFT. /s
      - 4y ago

danuker 4y ago

Not your keys, not your coins. Also, be mindful of what the FDIC (or its equivalent in your country) insures per bank account. It might be worth it to use multiple accounts.

ncallaway 4y ago
Please be aware that the FDIC *does not insure against losses from these exchanges*. Do not put money into any crypto exchange, relying on the FDIC to protect you in the event the exchange goes bust.
- danuker 4y ago
  You are correct. What I was pointing out is that actual regulated banks are also prone to failures, especially in these trying times. Because they also hold a fractional reserve.
  - marticode 4y ago
    In developed countries, banks are rarely left to completely fail nowadays, the small ones are usually taken over by the big ones, and the big ones are bailed by governments/regulators.
    - birracerveza 4y ago
      It's not a problem, until it is. Mh, sounds familiar.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lxgr 4y ago
      Rarely isn't never: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... That list seems to include buyouts, though, i.e. cases in which the FDIC didn't actually have to directly disburse funds. In Europe, there were two bank failures that I know of in the last few years that required tapping into the regional FDIC equivalents. In at least one of them, quite a few depositors actually lost money (due to having savings in excess of the insured maximum).
      - jmalicki 4y ago
        In quite a few buyout cases, the buyer only buys what's left after the FDIC pays out any losses. The FDIC prefers to do it this way since having an intact set of customers is valuable to the acquiring bank and helps defer the cost and especially administrative overhead of disbursing insured funds. "Purchase and Assumption Transaction. This is the preferred and most common method, under which a healthy bank assumes the insured deposits of the failed bank. Insured depositors of the failed bank immediately become depositors of the assuming bank and have access to their insured funds. The assuming bank may also purchase loans and other assets of the failed bank." https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    We haven't seen any indication that a wave of bank failures is coming. We haven't seen any failed banks in a couple of years. Now, that could change and we could see a recurrence of the wave of bank failures that started in 2008 and slowly tapered off, but your argument for that can't just be a hand wave at "trying times" and "fractional reserve" because the numbers currently show the opposite: https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/ https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/ Still smart to keep total accounts per type per bank under the insurance limit (currently $250,0000), and to directly verify that your accounts are actually insured using the FDIC's tool: https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/aii/ https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/aii/
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      Did any depositors loose money in 2008 from bank failures? If not when was the last time regular depositors lost money?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        I don't think that information is public to protect privacy...but any balances over the limit in a failed bank would result in non-insured losses.
        jmalicki 4y ago
        That's actually not true [1] - the FDIC has continued the practice of covering balances over the insured limit despite not being required to. [1] https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/will-fdic-keep-protecting-failed-banks-uninsured-deposits https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/will-fdic-keep-protec...
        shkkmo 4y ago
        Interesting, glad they're doing that but ok probably best not to count on that policy if you don't have to.

1970-01-01 4y ago

Crypto ads all said this was the future. Sizzle sells, skeptics survive.

birracerveza 4y ago
Crypto banks' ads*

awinder 4y ago

If it makes you feel any better, it’s extremely tiresome to a different cohort to see people make the claim that the future of finance is stuffing cash under the mattress and burying gold bars in their backyards

birracerveza 4y ago
IMO it's the future of finance because you own your coins. Nothing else aside from crypto allows me to do so in digital form. You are free to disagree, even if you think it's digital beanie babies or whatever. Luckily in this case you can vote with your wallet, as I did.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Real question - why do you believe that "owning" your own coins matters? Further - why do you believe that ownership is related at all to the fact that you can keep ledger entry with your wallet on it? Ownership !== ledger entries. Ownership is a shared concept enforced by social constructs. It is not a fucking technical matter solved by a ledger. EX: You sign a contract to send me 1 bitcoin in exchange for my car. I give you the car, but you never send me the bitcoin. Who owns the coin? Because the ledger is going to let you spend it, but the courts are going to give me your shit. Same in reverse - I get your coin and then drive off with the car. Do I own the coin now? Because again - the ledger says yes, but our concept of ownership includes the idea of dispute and fraud - and the ledger doesn't fucking know or care. Basically - your idea of "ownership" being limited to "my wallet, my coins" is both limited, childish, and insufficient.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giaour 4y ago
    This is why the car of the future will only start when presented with a key NFT. /s
    - 4y ago