6 ms·

Crypto solves this. Well, eventually, after initially making it worse, because all your crypto-adjacent transactions in the meantime make legacy banks extra-hai

by gojomo 2y ago

Crypto solves this. Well, eventually, after initially making it worse, because all your crypto-adjacent transactions in the meantime make legacy banks extra-hair-trigger suspicious.

xur17 2y ago
This seems somewhat contentious, but having some assets outside of the banks is a pretty reasonable derisking mechanism. Bitcoin, and some stablecoins seem like a wise choice.
- staticidentity 2y ago
  [flagged]
ProllyInfamous 2y ago
My local credit union has gone from anti crypto to fully support; I was one of a dozen or so people who were able to provide legitimate datapoints to support bitcoin usages that weren't illegal. So glad I was able to just walk in to the local HQ and have a sit-down with the person who ultimately authorized crypto exchange transactions. YMMV
smeej 2y ago
Some crypto does. Many cryptos are worse. For example, USDC accounts can be frozen by a single entity with no recourse whatsoever.
lisper 2y ago
> Crypto solves this. Not really. It just replaces this problem with a different but equally difficult problem: managing your crypto keys, which is a skill in and of itself. And if you hire someone to do it for you now you are right back where you started, trusting a third party. The right answer IMHO is to do business with a bank that is small enough that you have a contact there whom you personally know and will pick up the phone when you call.
- ravenstine 2y ago
  > managing your crypto keys, which is a skill in and of itself. Um, depending on how complicated/paranoid you want to get? Install the Phoenix wallet app and you've got your keys and Lightning node ready to go, pending added liquidity. Sure, it's not maximally secure, but a person can perform transactions outside the banking system pretty easily this way. No need to so consciously "manage" anything. Phone not secure enough? Fine – then get a hardware wallet like Ledger. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? > And if you hire someone to do it for you now you are right back where you started, trusting a third party. If, by hiring someone, you mean using a custodian like Kraken, then you're still solving a problem by not dealing with the traditional banking system. Sure, you're back to trusting a third party, but that's really not the issue at hand, but avoiding Big Bank. > The right answer IMHO is to do business with a bank that is small enough that you have a contact there whom you personally know and will pick up the phone when you call. Seems like a nice idea, yet very optimistic. Is everyone supposed to have a personal contact from within a small bank? Probably works for some people, but involves luck and wouldn't scale. The issue isn't really being solved this way. The closest compromise might be to work with credit unions instead of banks.
  - lisper 2y ago
    > Install the Phoenix wallet That's trusting a third party. > get a hardware wallet like Ledger Again, trusting a third party, and one which had a data breach less than a year ago: https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report And even if you want to discount that, you still have the risk of physically losing the wallet or having it stolen. > If, by hiring someone, you mean using a custodian like Kraken, Yes, that's what I mean. > then you're still solving a problem by not dealing with the traditional banking system. And, like I said, replacing it with a different problem, of dealing with and trusting a crypto custodian. > Is everyone supposed to have a personal contact from within a small bank? In a perfect world, yes. In this world, anyone running a business should have at least one such contact. > The closest compromise might be to work with credit unions instead of banks. Yes, that's also a good solution, much better than crypto IMHO.

by gojomo 2y ago

Crypto solves this. Well, eventually, after initially making it worse, because all your crypto-adjacent transactions in the meantime make legacy banks extra-hair-trigger suspicious.

xur17 2y ago

This seems somewhat contentious, but having some assets outside of the banks is a pretty reasonable derisking mechanism. Bitcoin, and some stablecoins seem like a wise choice.

staticidentity 2y ago
[flagged]

ProllyInfamous 2y ago

My local credit union has gone from anti crypto to fully support; I was one of a dozen or so people who were able to provide legitimate datapoints to support bitcoin usages that weren't illegal. So glad I was able to just walk in to the local HQ and have a sit-down with the person who ultimately authorized crypto exchange transactions. YMMV

smeej 2y ago

Some crypto does. Many cryptos are worse. For example, USDC accounts can be frozen by a single entity with no recourse whatsoever.

lisper 2y ago

> Crypto solves this. Not really. It just replaces this problem with a different but equally difficult problem: managing your crypto keys, which is a skill in and of itself. And if you hire someone to do it for you now you are right back where you started, trusting a third party. The right answer IMHO is to do business with a bank that is small enough that you have a contact there whom you personally know and will pick up the phone when you call.

ravenstine 2y ago
> managing your crypto keys, which is a skill in and of itself. Um, depending on how complicated/paranoid you want to get? Install the Phoenix wallet app and you've got your keys and Lightning node ready to go, pending added liquidity. Sure, it's not maximally secure, but a person can perform transactions outside the banking system pretty easily this way. No need to so consciously "manage" anything. Phone not secure enough? Fine – then get a hardware wallet like Ledger. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? > And if you hire someone to do it for you now you are right back where you started, trusting a third party. If, by hiring someone, you mean using a custodian like Kraken, then you're still solving a problem by not dealing with the traditional banking system. Sure, you're back to trusting a third party, but that's really not the issue at hand, but avoiding Big Bank. > The right answer IMHO is to do business with a bank that is small enough that you have a contact there whom you personally know and will pick up the phone when you call. Seems like a nice idea, yet very optimistic. Is everyone supposed to have a personal contact from within a small bank? Probably works for some people, but involves luck and wouldn't scale. The issue isn't really being solved this way. The closest compromise might be to work with credit unions instead of banks.
- lisper 2y ago
  > Install the Phoenix wallet That's trusting a third party. > get a hardware wallet like Ledger Again, trusting a third party, and one which had a data breach less than a year ago: https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report And even if you want to discount that, you still have the risk of physically losing the wallet or having it stolen. > If, by hiring someone, you mean using a custodian like Kraken, Yes, that's what I mean. > then you're still solving a problem by not dealing with the traditional banking system. And, like I said, replacing it with a different problem, of dealing with and trusting a crypto custodian. > Is everyone supposed to have a personal contact from within a small bank? In a perfect world, yes. In this world, anyone running a business should have at least one such contact. > The closest compromise might be to work with credit unions instead of banks. Yes, that's also a good solution, much better than crypto IMHO.