5 ms·

Id be curious to know how much physical currency has been withdrawn and if there are pressures on that. Inter-bank deposits are covered for people fleeing bad b

Id be curious to know how much physical currency has been withdrawn and if there are pressures on that. Inter-bank deposits are covered for people fleeing bad banks, but anecdotally I know a few people who are withdrawing all their hard cash. I wonder if central banks will have issues with that soon.

monero-xmr 4y ago
[flagged]
- _2d30 4y ago
  > It's all about crypto > Fiat is trash Okie dokie.
- overthrow 4y ago
  > Fiat is trash I'll gladly take that trash off your hands if you hate it so much
  - spaceman_2020 4y ago
    Statistically, the majority of the world’s fiat IS trash. Most of the world’s currencies are not worth holding at all. You just happen to be born in a country that doesn’t have trash fiat - yet. But if you were born in Pakistan, Lebanon, Argentina, or even Turkey, you’d probably say that your fiat was trash.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Most of the world’s currencies are not worth holding at all. No currencies are worth holding (lending at interest isn’t holding.) Holding isn’t what currency is for.
      - spaceman_2020 4y ago
        Most currencies are also not worth lending at prevailing local interest rates. Currently, that also applies to apparently non-trash currencies like Euro and to some degree, USD.
- tootie 4y ago
  BTC dropped 30% in the last twelve months. If anyone was actually relying on it we'd be in a hyperinflation spiral right now.
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  ETH has extreme problems to the point where it's worse than fiat, there's no good reason to be grouping it in with BTC. Even something like Dogecoin, which need I remind you was invented as a joke, has a stronger case for replacing fiat than ETH.
  - ahoya 4y ago
    More btc is printed per year than eth.
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      BTC cannot be printed, it's a fixed supply.
      - ahoya 4y ago
        Okay more BTC is mined per year than eth. It has higher inflation than eth.
giantg2 4y ago
I have no idea, but that would be a real shit show if they didn't have physical currency due to a jump in demand.
- chii 4y ago
  i'd imagine physical currency is not a problem - it's easy to roll the printers. And there's often a hard limit on how much physical currency can be withdrawn on short notice, and to do more you'd have to make a call to prep the bank first. This means they will have a chance to ship newly minted paper in to cover it, as long as the bank's liquidity allows for it.
cvoss 4y ago
> anecdotally I know a few people who are withdrawing all their hard cash Why (anecdotally)? Even if the bank holding your checking/savings account fails, the US federal government insures you up to $250k. And that promise is an important one for the government to make precisely because it tips fear/security scales so that people don't do exactly what your friends are doing, which is contributing to the risk of a bank run. Do your friends actually believe the Federal Reserve itself is at risk of failure? What's the scenario they're betting against?
- regpertom 4y ago
  Anecdotally, here’s one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Building_Society https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Building_Society Loose summary: Final payout 2005, collapse 1990. Depositors returned 51% of the dollar. As it was happening: govt says nothing to worry about. Months later: no govt guarantee lol. To someone who didn’t get involved in the run: what are going to do for food, all our savings are locked away and it’s a fortnight until next payday. Those effected unlikely to forget easily. It’s not apples to apples, aus vs USA, conditions have changed since etc. but I think the rough jist of if you can manage to, don’t rely on the govt in a crisis still applies. Anecdotally.
  - cvoss 4y ago
    From reading that account, it sounds like the deposits were not actually insured at the time. > The Victorian government of the time had chosen not to participate in that scheme [an Australia-wide National Deposit Insurance Corporation], believing the government could regulate and supervise societies. Although, it sounds like the protections in place for Australians today are stronger now and aligned with protections for Americans. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/dec/5.html https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/dec/5.html The cultural memory in America is that in the 1929 crash there were little to no government protections and economic disaster ensued. Reforms, including the FDIC, were created precisely so that people could lean on the government in time of crisis. The beauty of the FDIC safety net is that it's mere existence reduces the risk of its needing to be used. And the more recent living memory is our 2008 financial crisis in which the government issued enormous loans (since repaid with interest) to a few large banks to protect the whole banking system, and the belief that, in retrospect, it worked and was a good move. So I guess my question still is: why distrust the safety nets that are in place, when they are shown to be working? What's the story about a time when the US government enacted an economic security promise and then broke it?

monero-xmr 4y ago

[flagged]

_2d30 4y ago
> It's all about crypto > Fiat is trash Okie dokie.
overthrow 4y ago
> Fiat is trash I'll gladly take that trash off your hands if you hate it so much
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Statistically, the majority of the world’s fiat IS trash. Most of the world’s currencies are not worth holding at all. You just happen to be born in a country that doesn’t have trash fiat - yet. But if you were born in Pakistan, Lebanon, Argentina, or even Turkey, you’d probably say that your fiat was trash.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Most of the world’s currencies are not worth holding at all. No currencies are worth holding (lending at interest isn’t holding.) Holding isn’t what currency is for.
    - spaceman_2020 4y ago
      Most currencies are also not worth lending at prevailing local interest rates. Currently, that also applies to apparently non-trash currencies like Euro and to some degree, USD.
tootie 4y ago
BTC dropped 30% in the last twelve months. If anyone was actually relying on it we'd be in a hyperinflation spiral right now.
antibasilisk 4y ago
ETH has extreme problems to the point where it's worse than fiat, there's no good reason to be grouping it in with BTC. Even something like Dogecoin, which need I remind you was invented as a joke, has a stronger case for replacing fiat than ETH.
- ahoya 4y ago
  More btc is printed per year than eth.
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    BTC cannot be printed, it's a fixed supply.
    - ahoya 4y ago
      Okay more BTC is mined per year than eth. It has higher inflation than eth.

giantg2 4y ago

I have no idea, but that would be a real shit show if they didn't have physical currency due to a jump in demand.

chii 4y ago
i'd imagine physical currency is not a problem - it's easy to roll the printers. And there's often a hard limit on how much physical currency can be withdrawn on short notice, and to do more you'd have to make a call to prep the bank first. This means they will have a chance to ship newly minted paper in to cover it, as long as the bank's liquidity allows for it.

cvoss 4y ago

> anecdotally I know a few people who are withdrawing all their hard cash Why (anecdotally)? Even if the bank holding your checking/savings account fails, the US federal government insures you up to $250k. And that promise is an important one for the government to make precisely because it tips fear/security scales so that people don't do exactly what your friends are doing, which is contributing to the risk of a bank run. Do your friends actually believe the Federal Reserve itself is at risk of failure? What's the scenario they're betting against?

regpertom 4y ago
Anecdotally, here’s one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Building_Society https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Building_Society Loose summary: Final payout 2005, collapse 1990. Depositors returned 51% of the dollar. As it was happening: govt says nothing to worry about. Months later: no govt guarantee lol. To someone who didn’t get involved in the run: what are going to do for food, all our savings are locked away and it’s a fortnight until next payday. Those effected unlikely to forget easily. It’s not apples to apples, aus vs USA, conditions have changed since etc. but I think the rough jist of if you can manage to, don’t rely on the govt in a crisis still applies. Anecdotally.
- cvoss 4y ago
  From reading that account, it sounds like the deposits were not actually insured at the time. > The Victorian government of the time had chosen not to participate in that scheme [an Australia-wide National Deposit Insurance Corporation], believing the government could regulate and supervise societies. Although, it sounds like the protections in place for Australians today are stronger now and aligned with protections for Americans. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/dec/5.html https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/dec/5.html The cultural memory in America is that in the 1929 crash there were little to no government protections and economic disaster ensued. Reforms, including the FDIC, were created precisely so that people could lean on the government in time of crisis. The beauty of the FDIC safety net is that it's mere existence reduces the risk of its needing to be used. And the more recent living memory is our 2008 financial crisis in which the government issued enormous loans (since repaid with interest) to a few large banks to protect the whole banking system, and the belief that, in retrospect, it worked and was a good move. So I guess my question still is: why distrust the safety nets that are in place, when they are shown to be working? What's the story about a time when the US government enacted an economic security promise and then broke it?