6 ms·
Crypto: Going from banking the unbanked to unbanking the banked!
by VHRanger 4y ago
Crypto: Going from banking the unbanked to unbanking the banked!
- GalenErso 4y agoThe crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. But the safeguards and regulations that governments put in place for money are mostly absent for crypto. It should remain this way. I want to see how far crypto can go without government regulations and protections.
- mschuster91 4y ago> I want to see how far crypto can go without government regulations and protections. We have seen enough of that: one rug-pull and scam after the other. Governments are stepping in with crypto precisely because of all the scams.
- reedjosh 4y agoBoy that BTC rug pull really hurt. I'm still totally reeling from the XMR rug pull. Oh, wait... Just because many are scams, doesn't mean there are no principled crypto currencies. God forbid one should have to perform due diligence and actually think a bit about their currency.
- nradov 4y agoPrinciples are irrelevant in this space. The only thing that matters is actual laws enforced by people with guns.
- reedjosh 4y agoBTC and Monero were built to resist laws made by people with guns. There were other attempts at digital currency before BTC, but they were all taken down by people with guns. That's kinda the whole point. That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns.
- this_user 4y ago> That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns. That logic makes about as much sense as using crypto currencies in general.
- reedjosh 4y agoYou're not making any real argument here, so I can't exactly refute it. Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. Proof of Work is energy intensive, but the currency exists in a government resistant manner without the use of guns because of Proof of Work.
- kergonath 4y ago> Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. No. It does not prevent majority attacks. It has also been very effective as a mean to enforce an oligarchy of those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. It makes sense from a perverse right-wing libertarian point of view, but it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government.
- reedjosh 4y agoNobody has the majority. That's also the point. > those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. I don't know what you could even mean. Having hardware just means you can mine BTC. Miners still deal with price fluctuations, and in no way have they been able to control or print BTC. > ...it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government. If the government couldn't take limitless loans from the Fed which creates debt from nothing -- a fancy way of saying print money -- if the government couldn't print money it would have to tax for it's expenditure and would be naturally constrained in it's power. I honestly can't understand any of your positions and can only believe you're incredibly uniformed about the reality of money, power, and the genisis of and technology behind many crypto currencies.
- psychlops 4y agoA Hobbesian theory that people in power are happy that you believe.
- nradov 4y agoIs there an alternative "theory" that actually works in the real world outside of idealist manifestos?
- psychlops 4y agoEffectively every transaction done today is done without guns or laws. I've certainly haven't had to threaten anyone with litigation to purchase a cup of coffee. To believe that there is chaos without both is a sad myth.
- capableweb 4y ago> The crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. Does that mean it'll eventually eclipse and live in front of the current timeline of banking, so we'll see banking and finance following the crypto industry at one point, repeating the same mistake that happens in cryptocurrencies?
- smolder 4y agoI think not. Once crypto scammers have retried everything from the history of fiat currency they'll just be in the same boat. But it would be funny if banks started encrypting my files and demanding ransom.
- capableweb 4y agoAh, it seems you're one of many who confuses "crypto" with cryptography and cryptocurrency. Cryptography is used for encrypting your files, not cryptocurrency. But it's a easy mistake to make so don't feel bad over it.
- solumunus 4y agoThey're referencing the fact that crypto is famously used as a payment mechanism by entities that hold people/companies to ransom by encrypting their data against their will.
- dmoy 4y agogp is not confusing crypto/cryptography/cryptocurrency They're making a jab at a large usage of cryptocurrency: payment for ransomware exploits
- ben_w 4y agoAttackers who encrypt files and demand payment famously demanded cryptocurrency, in part because of the "transactions cannot be reversed" property and the (pseudo-)anonymity. As banking transactions can be reversed and are as opposite of anonymous as is practically possible, it would be (darkly) amusing if a traditional bank did that, precisely because the damage would be undone and the guilty parties trivially identified.
- distant_hat 4y agoAs Taleb said on Balaji Srinivasan's comment on Fed not communicating about the rate increases earlier. If crypto people feel that the losses are because of Fed's actions, then they should also agree that the profits are because of Fed'a actions.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoLoL - profits are because they're geniuses - losses are because other people are dumb. That's speculation 101.
- baq 4y agoThis isn't even speculation, it's hope-driven gambling.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoThese lessons will be quickly forgotten at the next bull run, whenever that will be.
- wil421 4y agoI’ve tried to explain it the same way to my friend who is dabbling in Cyrpto. I think he even changed a 401k allocation to something Crypto-ish. He likes gambling too and I try to tell him it’s the same.
- 4y ago
- RjQoLCOSwiIKfpm 4y agoBinance is not a cryptocurrency. Binance is a centralized service which allows people to buy cryptocurrencies, but which is not strictly necessary to use in order to use cryptocurrencies. People can use decentralized exchanges like Bisq if they want to avoid these issues. EDIT: Remember how Hackernews was supposed to be a community which has a focus on software development, and thus finding technical solutions to problems of users? Now it seems we're more about bashing people for using the wrong technology? Advocating for a technical solution to their problems is disapproved of?
- Xelynega 4y agoBut do they? It seems to me that most of the volume(and people) are on these centralized sites.
- originalcopying 4y agoand github is not git and linux is gnu/linux .... now get off my lawn? dunno
- f6v 4y agoGrocery stores aren’t necessary - you can grow your own food, dentists aren’t necessary - you can pull your own teeth, etc. It just seems like many people use exchanges and that’s what (at least partially) crypto is now.
- RjQoLCOSwiIKfpm 4y agoCryptocurrencies were meant as a "grow your own food" thing in the first place, they are supposed to be decentralized. Hence it does not seem logical to go to a "grow your own food" subthread and wonder why it makes a point about store-bought food not being grown at home. As with all things in life, a golden rule applies: If you don't like it then don't use it, that's ok!
- coffeebeqn 4y agoIt seems more like a case of someone inventing tomatoes and getting mad that industrial farms starts planting them. That’s not tomatoes! It’s supposed to be decentralized! Often the thing that’s envisioned by the creators is not the final say on market fit
- poof131 4y agoMost definitely. SVB had $3B+ of Circle’s deposits for USDC. Just covered dollar for dollar by the US Taxpayers. Can sell all those underwater bonds at face value while the taxpayers issue new bonds at 5%. Crypto just unbanked the banked with the help of the US Gov.
- nickstinemates 4y agoFrom [1] > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer... Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law. 1: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337
- JamesonNetworks 4y agoIt is inescapable that tax payers will bear the cost of the insurance, if not directly through taxes than indirectly through increased banking fees and reduced rates.
- zopa 4y agoDoes the counter-factual world you’re comparing to have any copy-cat bank runs in it? Seems like those might drive fees up and rates down.
- poof131 4y agoSo "consumers" are always said to "pay" as companies "pass through" increased costs due to goods, regulations, etc., but that doesn't apply here to all the taxpayers who use banking and are subject to increased FDIC insurance costs? And taking underwater, low-interest debt on the books at face value costs taxpayers overtime through inflation even if we get "paid back with interest". Why don't private buyers want this debt? Because they'd rather have dollars to buy better paying debt which the taxpayers currently provide. The BTFP will rapidly grow over $25B and be used to recapitalize the banks at taxpayers expense.[1]. Someones got to pay for the unrealized losses if depositors won't take a haircut. [2] So personally, I fundamentally disagree with the statement "no losses borne by the taxpayer," believe this is used to obfuscate the issue, and am sad to see our treasury play this game. But it is standard fare these days, especially when people think they are protecting us from a banking run and the next great depression. But my concern is these measures lead to more economic inequality, populism, and eventual political turmoil. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone... [2] https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/silicon-valley-bank-failure-amv.pdf https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/ins...
- woah 4y agoThis isn't an issue with crypto. This is a centralized exchange that has halted deposits and withdrawals through bank transfers.
- echelon 4y agoWhen all the exchanges are gone, the only people using crypto will be those doing "pure" crypto. That'll be a market contraction of 1000x. The uses of crypto will then be extremely limited. I think it's safe to say that exchanges are crypto for most people.
- crtified 4y agoCertainly, in the same way that banks are money. Crypto exchanges seem likely to persist in some form for the foreseeable future. After all, it only takes 1, as "mtgox" was showing many years ago, and Binance shows today, in the sense that it dominates. And if we look sideways to other 'nefarious online activities' - even after literally decades of concerted efforts, jailings, etc etc, thepir^tebay dotorg is still perfectly present, exactly as pir^tebay-ish as it ever was, along with it's endless host of similars. The only way commercial business ameliorated their effect was, ultimately, to adopt the tech and approach, and be better at it - in the process, displacing the nefarious.
- ashwagary 4y ago>Crypto: Going from banking the unbanked to unbanking the banked! To be more accurate... Crypto: Going from banking the unbanked to centralized entities attempting to unbank the newly unbankable!