4 ms·

Federal Reserve announces July launch for the FedNow Service https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230315a.htm https://www.federalrese

Federal Reserve announces July launch for the FedNow Service https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230315a.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/othe...

lxgr 4y ago
Are you saying that the Fed should rather not modernize its payment services in order to offer a viable alternative to one of crypto's biggest purported advantages (being able to transact 24/7 with high finality/durability)?
- chatmasta 4y ago
  I don't want to live in a cashless society, and I will resist CBDCs because of all the civil rights violations they enable and make easier. I have absolutely zero desire to transact with other individuals through some dystopian, government-facilitated digital payments system.
  - lxgr 4y ago
    I‘d also prefer if cash stayed around (and ideally be augmented with privacy-preserving digital equivalents that strike a balance with valid state interests such as avoiding tax evasion). But keeping wire transfers and ACH expensive and/or painful seems like a terrible way of achieving that.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Is the implication the Fed facilitated a banking panic to ease the roll-out of a system it set a timeline for in 2019?
- chatmasta 4y ago
  Yes. Not a banking crisis, but a crypto crackdown. And the timeline of enforcement actions could have easily been planned since 2019 too.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > a crypto crackdown And in your mind it’s reasonable that someone tanked Silvergate and Signature to send this message? And their investors and lenders are just cool with that?
    - chatmasta 4y ago
      What does the tanking of Signature have to do with the headline of the article, which is the FDIC arbitrarily telling "crypto clients" to close their accounts? This is the FDIC selectively targeting a specific group of depositors for no clear reason, other than - perhaps - that they pose a threat to the future hegemony of a government-backed digital currency, which just so happens to be launching (in its early form of a central government payments facility) four months from now.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > which is the FDIC arbitrarily telling "crypto clients" to close their accounts The FDIC isn't a bank. Signature was largely bought, but "Flagstar's bid did not include about $4 billion in deposits related to Signature's digital-asset business." The FDIC is telling depositors they couldn't find a buyer for to find a new bank. > they pose a threat to the future hegemony of a government-backed digital currency FedNow is not a CBDC. It's a modern set of payment rails for interbank transfers.
        chatmasta 4y ago
        But why are "crypto clients" even classed differently than anyone else? They deposit cash in the bank just like every other client. What makes them fundamentally any different? It's like if the FDIC told all marijuana dispensaries to close their accounts - i.e. totally arbitrary. I would maybe believe the argument that the buyer of the bank didn't want to take on the depositors, if it weren't so convenient for the Fed. As it is, I have trouble believing the FDIC didn't pressure the buyer to make that distinction between depositors as part of the sale process. > FedNow is not a CBDC. No, but it's the clear first step towards one.

Federal Reserve announces July launch for the FedNow Service https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230315a.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/othe...

lxgr 4y ago

Are you saying that the Fed should rather not modernize its payment services in order to offer a viable alternative to one of crypto's biggest purported advantages (being able to transact 24/7 with high finality/durability)?

chatmasta 4y ago
I don't want to live in a cashless society, and I will resist CBDCs because of all the civil rights violations they enable and make easier. I have absolutely zero desire to transact with other individuals through some dystopian, government-facilitated digital payments system.
- lxgr 4y ago
  I‘d also prefer if cash stayed around (and ideally be augmented with privacy-preserving digital equivalents that strike a balance with valid state interests such as avoiding tax evasion). But keeping wire transfers and ACH expensive and/or painful seems like a terrible way of achieving that.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Is the implication the Fed facilitated a banking panic to ease the roll-out of a system it set a timeline for in 2019?

chatmasta 4y ago
Yes. Not a banking crisis, but a crypto crackdown. And the timeline of enforcement actions could have easily been planned since 2019 too.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > a crypto crackdown And in your mind it’s reasonable that someone tanked Silvergate and Signature to send this message? And their investors and lenders are just cool with that?
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    What does the tanking of Signature have to do with the headline of the article, which is the FDIC arbitrarily telling "crypto clients" to close their accounts? This is the FDIC selectively targeting a specific group of depositors for no clear reason, other than - perhaps - that they pose a threat to the future hegemony of a government-backed digital currency, which just so happens to be launching (in its early form of a central government payments facility) four months from now.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > which is the FDIC arbitrarily telling "crypto clients" to close their accounts The FDIC isn't a bank. Signature was largely bought, but "Flagstar's bid did not include about $4 billion in deposits related to Signature's digital-asset business." The FDIC is telling depositors they couldn't find a buyer for to find a new bank. > they pose a threat to the future hegemony of a government-backed digital currency FedNow is not a CBDC. It's a modern set of payment rails for interbank transfers.
      - chatmasta 4y ago
        But why are "crypto clients" even classed differently than anyone else? They deposit cash in the bank just like every other client. What makes them fundamentally any different? It's like if the FDIC told all marijuana dispensaries to close their accounts - i.e. totally arbitrary. I would maybe believe the argument that the buyer of the bank didn't want to take on the depositors, if it weren't so convenient for the Fed. As it is, I have trouble believing the FDIC didn't pressure the buyer to make that distinction between depositors as part of the sale process. > FedNow is not a CBDC. No, but it's the clear first step towards one.