4 ms·

I'm not sure I got the gist of it right, but not willing to go a second time. This was specifically about banks and their regulation, and I think it misses the

I'm not sure I got the gist of it right, but not willing to go a second time. This was specifically about banks and their regulation, and I think it misses the more vague and less accurate sense that financial institutions can remove players and customers from the market basically at will, which would be the reason given by people going to crypto IMHO. To his point it doesn't fit "debanking", but if tomorrow VISA and Mastercard decide your online business is stinky, holding a bank account won't help you in any useful way. That's basically what happened with Porn, where even if you had a very tightly managed and stricly lawful business (let's say you produce clay stop motion porn movies), you'd still be kicked off payment platforms. Sure there can also be interesting discussions about actual bank account closures, but I think it's a lot more of a minority, there's better recourses, and most decent countries will be willing to guarantee citizens can get some form of banking whatever their situation.

dalemhurley 2y ago
You missed the point, banks have costs, banks are companies, banks must be profitable otherwise they collapse, crypto is very expensive to bank, banks have difficulty making profits on funds sourced from crypto, a responsible business you must prioritise (queens English) profitable customers.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  My understanding is that crypto is expensive to banks because crypto is expensive to any legal entity in general. And crypto kings not being able to hold their coins in their bank account doesn't sound like "debanking" to me, because it never was banked in the first place (some banks sure did handle it, but not the ones they're crying about). I also can't get my bank to hold my beany babies either, and nobody calls that being debanked.
  - lmz 2y ago
    It's not about storing crypto - it's about storing fiat currency for crypto companies.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't getting it and it's a bit clearer.
      - sroussey 2y ago
        Same problem for marijuana companies.
        wmf 2y ago
        The difference is that marijuana is illegal at the federal level while crypto is (nominally) legal.
        dalemhurley 2y ago
        It is not about legality. It is about the costs exceed the ability to make a profit, it all has to do with liquidity and capital requirements to mitigate the risks. If you want to blame anyone, blame all the scam artists and criminals that targeted crypto. The banks cannot profitable mitigate the risks. If a bank cannot make profits they will collapse.
    - dalemhurley 2y ago
      Yes it is, crypto is wanting to use banks for the storage of funds, but the banks cannot afford the cost of doing so, because it costs money to manage the massive risk.
zajio1am 2y ago
That pretty much depend on country. Here in Europe, it is common to pay online by bank transfers, not by payment cards.
- alibarber 2y ago
  There's quite a lot of variance across the country of Europe. Bank transfers are indeed common but implying that payment cards are not is a bit of a misnomer - and the (buyer) protection offered by the card networks is much higher. I guess my point is, that even in Europe, accepting only Bank transfers is going to limit your client base fairly significantly and to a sizeable number of people will be considered a signal of how much they can trust the vendor.
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    Yeah that stuck out for me too. Europe consists of a huge number of different countries. And what the GP was saying is not at all my experience in my country, which is also in Europe. Broad statements about Europe as a whole are often going to be very inaccurate for many of the countries in Europe.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  You don't deserve to be down voted for your comment, because what you wrote is true. Depending on what kind of product you're selling online, you can expect about half of Europeans to pay by card and half by bank wire, if given both options. Removing the ability to pay by card, I'd estimate the business would lose a substantial share of clients, maybe in the range of 25%.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  > Here in Europe, it is common to pay online by bank transfers, not by payment cards. UK here. I pay my window cleaner and my tree surgeon by a bank transfer (from my bank's phone app app). If I buy a thing or service online or in a shop I pay using a credit card. It's almost unheard for medium to large companies to offer their bank details for a transfer.
tredre3 2y ago
> Sure there can also be interesting discussions about actual bank account closures, but I think it's a lot more of a minority, there's better recourses, and most decent countries will be willing to guarantee citizens can get some form of banking whatever their situation. I think you're just speaking form your personal point of view as an entrepreneur. Losing access to the payment system would be the end of your career, yes. But losing the ability to hold a basic checking account would be a death sentence for most normal citizens, including you. Think of everything that is primarily paid in checks or bank transfers. Think of all your income that you receive primarily in checks or bank transfers form. Now think of using cash for those use cases. You'll quickly find that it's untenable and sometimes plain impossible. Cashing a personal check your grandma sent you? Forget about it. Cashing a pay check? Go to one of those cash-for-check places that keep 20% of it!
- pjdesno 2y ago
  "death sentence": about 5 million households in the US do not have checking accounts. Although it's a great inconvenience, and in many cases may be an injustice, it doesn't seem incompatible with life. Note that a "normal" checking account customer poses basically zero risk to a bank - money goes in via direct deposit, comes out via debit, ACH, and withdrawals, and the bank is never left holding the bag. From the article: Employees of crypto companies are not "normal" bank customers. Recent history shows that there is a significant risk that they may deposit commingled funds from their employer, which (a) puts the bank at risk for huge money-laundering fines, and (b) puts it at additional risk (I think?) if the crypto company fails. If you have a credit score of 300 and complain about not being able to get a mortgage, I won't have a lot of sympathy. If your employment history is spotty and you're not a full-time employee, I might have more sympathy but I'll still understand why it would be hard to get a loan. It turns out that if you work for a crypto company, you're a bigger risk to the bank than someone with bad credit is to a mortgage lender, as the possible losses are far higher than the amount of money they'd ever make off of you, and the fraction of crypto companies that have gone down that route is uncomfortably high. Oh well. BTW, Walmart charges $4 to cash checks less than $1000, and $8 for $1000-$5000. If Grandma's check is $200 or less, it will cost $6. Your local post office will sell you a money order (up to $1000) for about $3, and you can get prepaid credit cards to pay online bills at your local 7-11, again for prices in the single digits.

dalemhurley 2y ago

You missed the point, banks have costs, banks are companies, banks must be profitable otherwise they collapse, crypto is very expensive to bank, banks have difficulty making profits on funds sourced from crypto, a responsible business you must prioritise (queens English) profitable customers.

makeitdouble 2y ago
My understanding is that crypto is expensive to banks because crypto is expensive to any legal entity in general. And crypto kings not being able to hold their coins in their bank account doesn't sound like "debanking" to me, because it never was banked in the first place (some banks sure did handle it, but not the ones they're crying about). I also can't get my bank to hold my beany babies either, and nobody calls that being debanked.
- lmz 2y ago
  It's not about storing crypto - it's about storing fiat currency for crypto companies.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't getting it and it's a bit clearer.
    - sroussey 2y ago
      Same problem for marijuana companies.
      - wmf 2y ago
        The difference is that marijuana is illegal at the federal level while crypto is (nominally) legal.
        dalemhurley 2y ago
        It is not about legality. It is about the costs exceed the ability to make a profit, it all has to do with liquidity and capital requirements to mitigate the risks. If you want to blame anyone, blame all the scam artists and criminals that targeted crypto. The banks cannot profitable mitigate the risks. If a bank cannot make profits they will collapse.
  - dalemhurley 2y ago
    Yes it is, crypto is wanting to use banks for the storage of funds, but the banks cannot afford the cost of doing so, because it costs money to manage the massive risk.

zajio1am 2y ago

That pretty much depend on country. Here in Europe, it is common to pay online by bank transfers, not by payment cards.

alibarber 2y ago
There's quite a lot of variance across the country of Europe. Bank transfers are indeed common but implying that payment cards are not is a bit of a misnomer - and the (buyer) protection offered by the card networks is much higher. I guess my point is, that even in Europe, accepting only Bank transfers is going to limit your client base fairly significantly and to a sizeable number of people will be considered a signal of how much they can trust the vendor.
- codetrotter 2y ago
  Yeah that stuck out for me too. Europe consists of a huge number of different countries. And what the GP was saying is not at all my experience in my country, which is also in Europe. Broad statements about Europe as a whole are often going to be very inaccurate for many of the countries in Europe.
carlosjobim 2y ago
You don't deserve to be down voted for your comment, because what you wrote is true. Depending on what kind of product you're selling online, you can expect about half of Europeans to pay by card and half by bank wire, if given both options. Removing the ability to pay by card, I'd estimate the business would lose a substantial share of clients, maybe in the range of 25%.
KineticLensman 2y ago
> Here in Europe, it is common to pay online by bank transfers, not by payment cards. UK here. I pay my window cleaner and my tree surgeon by a bank transfer (from my bank's phone app app). If I buy a thing or service online or in a shop I pay using a credit card. It's almost unheard for medium to large companies to offer their bank details for a transfer.

tredre3 2y ago

> Sure there can also be interesting discussions about actual bank account closures, but I think it's a lot more of a minority, there's better recourses, and most decent countries will be willing to guarantee citizens can get some form of banking whatever their situation. I think you're just speaking form your personal point of view as an entrepreneur. Losing access to the payment system would be the end of your career, yes. But losing the ability to hold a basic checking account would be a death sentence for most normal citizens, including you. Think of everything that is primarily paid in checks or bank transfers. Think of all your income that you receive primarily in checks or bank transfers form. Now think of using cash for those use cases. You'll quickly find that it's untenable and sometimes plain impossible. Cashing a personal check your grandma sent you? Forget about it. Cashing a pay check? Go to one of those cash-for-check places that keep 20% of it!

pjdesno 2y ago
"death sentence": about 5 million households in the US do not have checking accounts. Although it's a great inconvenience, and in many cases may be an injustice, it doesn't seem incompatible with life. Note that a "normal" checking account customer poses basically zero risk to a bank - money goes in via direct deposit, comes out via debit, ACH, and withdrawals, and the bank is never left holding the bag. From the article: Employees of crypto companies are not "normal" bank customers. Recent history shows that there is a significant risk that they may deposit commingled funds from their employer, which (a) puts the bank at risk for huge money-laundering fines, and (b) puts it at additional risk (I think?) if the crypto company fails. If you have a credit score of 300 and complain about not being able to get a mortgage, I won't have a lot of sympathy. If your employment history is spotty and you're not a full-time employee, I might have more sympathy but I'll still understand why it would be hard to get a loan. It turns out that if you work for a crypto company, you're a bigger risk to the bank than someone with bad credit is to a mortgage lender, as the possible losses are far higher than the amount of money they'd ever make off of you, and the fraction of crypto companies that have gone down that route is uncomfortably high. Oh well. BTW, Walmart charges $4 to cash checks less than $1000, and $8 for $1000-$5000. If Grandma's check is $200 or less, it will cost $6. Your local post office will sell you a money order (up to $1000) for about $3, and you can get prepaid credit cards to pay online bills at your local 7-11, again for prices in the single digits.