3 ms·

Brian Armstrong's response to the debanking of tech founders

2 points by typeofhuman 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
I assume that many of these bank tech founders were involved in cryptocurrency. My thinking is that they got debanked because they were promoting crypto products that had no solid foundation. It's important to remember that two years ago, cryptocurrency became toxic. It was significantly overhyped and then it collapsed. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this situation. On one hand, it prevented cryptocurrency from getting out of complete control, which was something that seemed to be happening. We all remember all the scams that were reported on a constant basis even now you still hear about a bunch of scams. On the other hand, I believe this process should have been more transparent and conducted openly. Also, remember that crypto is in the fringe of the financial system. Even now the banking system has no real mechanism to deal with crypto. These situations always have two sides. Yet, the ones who complain are only highlighting their side. What about all those people that were getting scammed? How many of them got saved from losing all their money even their life savings?
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  What do you think about Marc Andreessen's comments on the topic? https://twitter.com/benaverbook/status/1861511166436004210 https://twitter.com/benaverbook/status/1861511166436004210
  - WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
    I viewed the full interview. He doesn't fully mention the type of founders who have been "debanked," but he vaguely talks about it. They seem to have been involved in the pot and crypto businesses. These industries operate on the fringes; pot businesses aren't legal at the federal level, and crypto is still new and fraught with fraud. He's presenting a hazy view, playing the victim without providing all the facts. Also, his fight should be with Congress, which has the power to legalize pot and crypto at the federal level. He's only giving a very vague one side of the story.

2 points by typeofhuman 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

I assume that many of these bank tech founders were involved in cryptocurrency. My thinking is that they got debanked because they were promoting crypto products that had no solid foundation. It's important to remember that two years ago, cryptocurrency became toxic. It was significantly overhyped and then it collapsed. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this situation. On one hand, it prevented cryptocurrency from getting out of complete control, which was something that seemed to be happening. We all remember all the scams that were reported on a constant basis even now you still hear about a bunch of scams. On the other hand, I believe this process should have been more transparent and conducted openly. Also, remember that crypto is in the fringe of the financial system. Even now the banking system has no real mechanism to deal with crypto. These situations always have two sides. Yet, the ones who complain are only highlighting their side. What about all those people that were getting scammed? How many of them got saved from losing all their money even their life savings?

typeofhuman 2y ago
What do you think about Marc Andreessen's comments on the topic? https://twitter.com/benaverbook/status/1861511166436004210 https://twitter.com/benaverbook/status/1861511166436004210
- WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
  I viewed the full interview. He doesn't fully mention the type of founders who have been "debanked," but he vaguely talks about it. They seem to have been involved in the pot and crypto businesses. These industries operate on the fringes; pot businesses aren't legal at the federal level, and crypto is still new and fraught with fraud. He's presenting a hazy view, playing the victim without providing all the facts. Also, his fight should be with Congress, which has the power to legalize pot and crypto at the federal level. He's only giving a very vague one side of the story.