8 ms·
Big banks explore venturing into crypto world together with joint stablecoin
- wslh 1y agohttps://archive.is/Sm2ma https://archive.is/Sm2ma
- nailer 1y agoThis feels inevitable. Right now stables are dominated by Circle and Tether (depending whether you’re inside or outside the US), with a little PayPal, Sky and other orgs. USDT isn’t headquartered in the US, banks don’t want to assist paxos/coinbase (Circle) and if retail banks can now hold and stake tokens they’ll probably want their own stablecoin.
- matthewdgreen 1y agoThe question is whether the banks actually find uses for their own stablecoin, or if it just becomes another thing deployed into the crypto ecosystem.
- tonyhart7 1y ago"The question is whether the banks actually find uses for their own stablecoin" if they start buying and Pumping bitcoin, it would be so funny
- footlose_3815 1y agoYou thought banks laundered money to druglords and dictators, before? just wait until they have their own currency.
- metalman 1y agoyes,that, and something else has got there attention in the apearance of a new demographic, who remember bieng in a bank once as a child with a parent, do have online banking, that is only used to cash out random deposits from all over, live in upscale areas, debit/credit purchases limited to essentials, and can be heard laughing about how quaint money and banks are in almost any hipster coffee shop anywhere. relevance, and the future proofing of that likely that a significant number of bank employies have the bulk of there portfolio.....elsewhere
- hanniabu 1y agoHow far we've come from HN shouting blockchain has no usecase
- pixxel 1y ago[dead]
- abxyz 1y agoWhat exactly are blockchains being used for in the real world? Specific to this story: most of the world has instant payments without using blockchains or stablecoins, it’s only the U.S. where the banking system somehow hasn’t realised they can do instant payments using traditional banking technology. Anyone posting that they’re skeptical about the use cases for blockchains on HN 10 years ago will have the same skepticism now. Nothing has changed.
- ETH_start 1y agoStablecoins are widely used for international remittance, and for gaining exposure to the USD in countries with weak currencies.
- sebstefan 1y ago>Banks see an opportunity for stablecoins to speed up more routine transactions, such as cross-border payments that can take days in the traditional payments system Nothing that crypto is needed for
- specialist 1y agoBlockchain (shared tamper-evident ledgers) has many, many use cases. Cryptocurrency has just one.
- smeej 1y agoAsk the U.S. how important it is to be the world's default currency before you go ignoring the value of getting that one thing right.
- 1y ago
- highfrequency 1y agoMay be looking at this the wrong way, but I thought the point of stablecoins (as compared to normal USD) is that the banking system is slow, expensive and cumbersome to transfer USD due for regulatory reasons and perhaps legacy tech reasons. If so, what is the point of stablecoins if the banks themselves are running it? If regulations and technology are no longer an issue, can’t they just make USD transfers fast and easy? Why bother with a wrapper around USD?
- logifail 1y ago> the banking system is slow, expensive and cumbersome I think you missed "profitable" from that list.
- Ekaros 1y agoWhat I have understood that banking as in the money handling process is not that profitable. Keeping track of people account and allowing them to do transfers is not that great. Payment processing is better. But real money comes from gambling and offering gambling services... Also known as investing...
- nilamo 1y ago> But real money comes from gambling and offering gambling services... Also known as investing... There's a huge gulf between a night at the poker tables, and buying into a little of MSFT's dividend, and it's really disengenuous to pretend they're the same.
- Tryk 1y agoYes, in one scenario when you lose the money you move on. In the other, governments bail you out and you keep gambling.
- tonyhart7 1y ago"can’t they just make USD transfers fast and easy?" its cause regulation???, easy and fast to moving money its good until you got hack from state sponsored actor that you can't even do anything (ehm ehm north korea ehm) in seriousness, people can get away with billions of dollar and "vanish" is wild world if you think about it.
- thatguyagain 1y agoIsn't this what Ripple/XRP is intended for? I always wondered why the banks wouldn't just create and own their own network instead of relying on a 3rd party like that.
- csomar 1y agoThat's what SWIFT is. It doesn't settle which is in the banks interest (since they settle the transfers).
- thatguyagain 1y agoYes, for the settlement, sure. But I was referring to this: "Banks see an opportunity for stablecoins to speed up more routine transactions, such as cross-border payments that can take days in the traditional payments system."
- mousetree 1y agoThere is no settlement in Swift itself as it’s not network. Swift is messaging only. Bank settlements would happen later through networks like SEPA or Fedwire. Ripple provides both messaging and settlement with XRP
- tonyhart7 1y agobut if bank moving to certain network, its not is just make it a "new swift" system?? Gas fees would skyrocket and expensive again
- fasfaefea 1y ago[flagged]
- Mengkudulangsat 1y agoSounds like a race to the bottom. First, there's Tether > We're the only option in town. Then, there's Circle > We're more legit than Tether, we're based in the US. Now, there's the banks > We're more legit than Circle, we're banks! Eventually, the Fed itself will start issuing stablecoins and out-legitimize everyone else.
- jmclnx 1y agoThis, I it has been 17 years since the last big economic crash. I guess the Banks need to make quick $ and cause another crash.
- smeej 1y agoWhen Coinbase and Circle formed the CENTRE Consortium back in 2018, they were extremely clear, at least internally, that they were trying to build what would become FedCoin. They hoped that, because USDC is already designed such that it can be completely controlled by its issuers (they can freeze any wallet at any time), by the time the Fed realized that CBDCs were inevitable, they would just adopt the existing "legitimate" leader rather than trying to roll their own.
- wtmt 1y ago> Eventually, the Fed itself will start issuing stablecoins and out-legitimize everyone else. That would be a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), which the current administration doesn’t seem to want. One advantage of such a CBDC would be that central banks of other countries could be persuaded to use them (for cross border payments and transfers), whereas a stable coin issued and managed by a group of banks would likely not have this advantage (not saying never though).
- hocuspocus 1y agoI fail to see what a CBDC and/or Fed sanctioned stablecoins would achieve for entities outside the US that need to transact in USD. It would essentially work the same as today under a new name? The point of a CBDC is government control over an increased share of the money supply. Pretty irrelevant to USD balances held by other central banks. The point of a stablecoin for an entity with an American banking license is... nothing?
- Ekaros 1y agoThe great trick with stablecoins is that you can take people's money, but you can then refuse to give it back. Much harder to do with real money.
- tonyhart7 1y agomost "real" money are just digital now adays I think people don't know how hard to moving actual real money in terms of millions to billions
- Etheryte 1y agoLooking at Citi, it's not hard at all, they regularly fatfinger sums like that left and right [0][1]. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/investing/citigroup-bank-account-error https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/investing/citigroup-bank-... [1] https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/citigroup-accidentally-credits-client-account-with-109-trillion-instead-of-377-ft https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/citigroup-acci...
- wtmt 1y agoIt’s not much harder to do with real money. India, a country of 1.3 billion people, did it in 2016 with “demonetisation” of specific high value currency denominations. [1] Some people died because they couldn’t get their own money from the banks. One could say that these people didn’t get their money. Millions lost jobs and their livelihood because they couldn’t get their money. Other countries have done somewhat similar things over the last century. On the same topic, real currency can become or be made worthless due to hyperinflation (and even normal inflation). [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonet...
- glitchc 1y agoDemonetization is not the same thing as stablecoins. Countries are allowed to withdraw certain bank note denominations and it's been done many times in the past. In most countries where demonetization occurs, the central bank continues to accept demonetized currency for the foreseeable future, exchanging it for valid denominations at par. The government of India came down hard on corruption and tax evasion, more politically motivated than anything. But then people voted for it and the majority supported the process. If they didn't, the government would have been discarded in the next election.
- yapyap 1y ago[flagged]
- jbs789 1y agoBanks are slow in large part because of systems built to support the AML/KYC controls and fraud prevention. (Think about your wire transfer getting screened etc). New banks do this more efficiently but this is still the bottleneck. A bank doing stablecoins will still need to implement these controls. Stablecoins only really work because they are outside the system.
- lottin 1y agoExactly. A 'stablecoin' that is regulation-compliant is undistinguishable from a bank.
- drexlspivey 1y agoExcept you can send payments with an http request
- nickysielicki 1y agoIf treasuries break all of this is going to unwind in a horrible way. Stable as opposed to what?
- IAmGraydon 1y agoCan you explain what you mean? Treasuries will continue to rise until yields are in the double digits. That, to me, is a foregone conclusion. How does this affect crypto, though?
- ptero 1y agoWhy do you expect the treasuries to rise into the double digits? And over what timeframe?
- IAmGraydon 1y agoOver at least the next 4 years due to increasing inflation and erosion of faith in the US Government to honor its debts. Basically, Trump.
- ptero 1y agoAll treasuries or specific maturities will have to offer double digit rates? And what do you expect to be the distribution of the buyers at the time long rates cross above 10%? Honestly curious. I personally think that after Biden's COVID response the only way forward goes through eventual financial repression. We can kick that ball down the road for a bit more, but not forever. That said, I would love to hear counter-arguments.
- IAmGraydon 1y agoWhat is the Biden Covid response you're referring to? The trillions of dollars that were printed during Covid were mostly done under Trump's term, and the delayed inflation during Biden's term were mostly due to this. Here's the Fed balance sheet for reference: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL As for treasuries, you have to realize that the primary risk for bond holders is inflationary risk. In fact, high inflation environments make this "risk free" investment very risky indeed. Tariffs will drive inflation. There is little doubt about that as retailers have directly stated that they will raise prices. This force alone will be enough to cause bond yields to rocket. Add on top of that the fact that Trump loves to absolve himself of debt and leave the lenders holding the bag and has even spoken about doing this with some government debt, and you have a recipe for treasuries being seen as utterly toxic. The government will have a very hard time raising money across all maturities, and will have to really sweeten the deal to entice lenders in the future.
- sebstefan 1y ago>Banks see an opportunity for stablecoins to speed up more routine transactions, such as cross-border payments that can take days in the traditional payments system Nothing that crypto is needed for
- rvz 1y agoYeah, why didn't they just use FedNow? /s
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- monero-xmr 1y agoHacker news / YC mostly missed the boat on crypto. The comments here are ignorant and misinformed. Lots of M&A happening now, none of which is lining YC pockets. Pretty amazing how the “smartest” people could be 100% wrong on crypto
- supplied_demand 1y agoWhat is the goal of this comment? Who was wrong? What were they wrong about? What percentage of crypto acquisitions involve Web3? Coinbase was in the Summer 2012 batch. 13 years ago seems like a good sign that they weren’t as ignorant as you claim. There are currently 73 companies listed on YC as being crypto/Web3. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/crypto-web3 https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/crypto-web3
- rvz 1y agoExcept they didn't as YC funded Coinbase. But you are still correct that the majority of HN missed out on crypto and thus are allergic to it and now they are fans of anything "AI" despite not even knowing that "AGI" is a scam with the real intention of causing a 10% increase in global unemployment. In fact, AI is more likely to be the cause of another financial crash than crypto, once we see mass layoffs accelerating.
- SureMethod 1y agoFrom your perspective, what are the most exciting or promising developments in crypto right now that others might be missing? I'm very interested to learn more.
- kilimounjaro 1y agoBitcoin gradually replacing the USD as the global reserve currency is quite an exciting development
- monero-xmr 1y agoI would look at homomorphic encryption, zero knowledge tech (snarks / circuits) All of the NFT infrastructure will be repurposed for tokenized bonds (Real World Assets or RWAs) and the size of defi and crypto network assets under management will skyrocket, and become deeply intertwined with tradfi Privacy coins (like my username) are only going to get stronger and harder to kill It will be much easier to raise funding for tiny startups, like you could back in the pennystock days and IPOing garage businesses. Formalized and strong names / credentials / legal remedies will enable far easier capital formation for risky companies
- _heimdall 1y agoI've yet to understand the argument often made that we need a stablecoin to replace fiat for faster or safer transactions. US banks already create money out of thin air and a vast majority of that money only exists in a database. If they want it faster they could just do that.
- XorNot 1y agoBecause cryptobros desperately need a legitimate reason crypto is the future, and thus valuable, and definitely not a round of tulipmania.
- _heimdall 1y agoThe argument isn't only made by cryptobros though. Banks seem to be pointing at the same need and I just don't see why. At best it gets around regulation if a stablecoin isn't treated the same as fiat. With either, though, a bank can already create and give out whatever they want and track it in a database (all be it a more standard db and not a blockchain or public ledger).
- XorNot 1y agoBanks are run by finance people with a profit incentive. They're susceptible to trends - see subprime lending and CDOs in 2008 where even the big boys who knew it was a bad idea eventually started doing it.
- _heimdall 1y agoThat still doesn't do it for me though. Banks in the US are somewhere between a legally protected monopoly and a racket. They would only make more money if they can charge higher fees or convince the economy as a whole to make more or larger transactions. If banks could do either of those with a stablecoin they could do it with USD, which again is effectively a stablecoin that lives in the banks' private databases.
- Geee 1y agoThis is great news. Stablecoins issued by banks are much better digital cash than CBDCs (central bank digital currency). EU is currently trying very hard to implement their own CBDC, and stablecoins will directly compete with it. A CBDC is basically a stablecoin issued by a central bank. The problem is that this digital cash would compete with currency in private bank accounts, and ultimately bank accounts wouldn't be needed any more. I think every bank must start issuing their own stablecoins if they wish to stay in business. Private banks issuing their own stablecoins will make the banking system little bit closer to the free banking system [0], when banks used to issue their own banknotes i.e. paper currency. This is better, because every stablecoin could have their own risk profile which is associated with the issuing bank, which would lower the overall systemic risk. On the other hand, a CBDC would be a move in the direction of single-tier banks [1], which centralizes all money issuance to a single bank. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-tier_banking_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-tier_banking_system
- steveBK123 1y agoGood luck with that given Lutnick is in this admin and has financial ties to Tether.
- thunkle 1y agoJust pointing out https://www.worldlibertyfinancial.com/ https://www.worldlibertyfinancial.com/ 60% owned by the trump family and also Steve Witkoff (special envoy to the middle east) just got funded $2B by the UAE. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Liberty_Financial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Liberty_Financial No conflict of interest here??? Who runs the justice department? Who is not supposed to receive gifts from foreign nationals [Edit] corrected website URL.
- qoez 1y agoI'm getting a phishing warning on that site but not on the one with properly spelled financial so I'm guessing the one you have is wrong
- outside1234 1y agoThis will get worse and worse if we continue to not protest it
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWe have had some let big protests in the US, and they haven't accomplished much. The two solutions that work are voting the bastards out, and armed revolution. You better hope voting works, because unfortunately armed revolution tends to end with even worse people taking power, which the "second amendment solution" folks somehow haven't realized.
- ta12653421 1y agoThis is a SCAM site. The correct one is: https://www.worldlibertyfinancial.com/ https://www.worldlibertyfinancial.com/
- 6stringmerc 1y agoActually, they both are scam sites! /s?
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
- scyclow 1y agoI think what a lot of people are missing about stablecoins is that it's not just about clearing transactions faster than SWIFT. With stablecoins you get programable money without having to deal with the wild fluctuations of crypto. A simple (and contrived) example: Let's say I want to send you $100 on Tuesday, but only on even-numbered hours. This is a trivially easy smart contract to write. Sure, you could do this with crypto, but if you want to protect yourself against price fluctuations it makes sense to use a stablecoin.
- Yizahi 1y agoYeah, great innovation. Also allows for many amazing and useful features for us people, such as allowing these tokens to expire and disappear from your account, or programming specific tokens to be only transferable to specific accounts or for specific goods, or for example controlling all token accounts in every single country on earth from the central location. E.g. for example Trump (assuming a USA stabletoken) not only sends you to the Salvador death camp, but also blocks and confiscated all your tokens and blocks you from ever having a token account in the future, all with a single click from NY central bank. Or replace the same with any other country and central bank. Amazing utopia awaits for us, can't wait to take part in that hell economy :)
- GenshoTikamura 1y agoAnd we can clearly see that some people are defending their utopia agressively by trying to fade your comment to gray
- Yizahi 1y agoIt's mindboggling really. And the most puzzling to me is that this forum has a large proportion of independent thinkers. Some care about privacy, some care about removing copyright (I disagree, but respect their position), some care about free access to information etc. How can these same free thinkers advocate for a single most oppressive authoritarian system we have ever seen? And a very real system currently in late stages of testing, soon to be worldwide, not some abstract future evil. People who want independent currency, or maybe less dependent on the govt would get a currency absolutely under control of a small group of people in the govt. People who donate to privacy foundations or buy privacy tools would see that they simply aren't allowed to do that with their "money" (non-fungible tokens). People who want to pirate stuff or download some info would have DMCA strikes not on their neat little blog or youtube channel, they will have DMCA 2.0 strikes right on their bank account, because all that shit will be automated and centralized. Just imagine, downloading something and then getting all your accounts go to 0. Or maybe not to 0 but have a fine applied and subtracted from your token balance automatically, on the discretion of the megacorp across the ocean in a different country. It is literally dystopia, no scare quotes, no ifs no maybes, it just is.
- bearjaws 1y agoMore centralization is good for bitcoin.
- GenshoTikamura 1y agoAs well as less independence from The Banksters. In other words, it is the full reversal of the initial selling points that is good for bitcoin. So much for Satoshi's cryptoanarchy.
- zkmon 1y agoI have seen banks doing this for about 10 years now. Some are at an advanced stage. They tried multiple things - third-party consortium chains, own coins, tokens etc. Now they are starting to realize that the banks need not jump on the bandwagon of public crypto or pegging to some chain. Collectively they can build their own self-sustaining chains.
- constantcrying 1y agoWhat is the point? - Banks should have controls over money that are impossible with crypto. It is absolutely vital for any state to control their own currency and the banks need methods to accomplish that. - Why would banks need a decentralized ledger at all? It makes literally no sense to have banks maintain such a ledger. Banks do not need to solve the double spending problem and you can build a digital currency without a block chain. Not as a theoretical, but right now basically all my banking happens digitally, what is the actual technical point of introducing a block chain to that?
- hocuspocus 1y agoRegarding you second point, the funny thing about this space is that most stablecoins don't even try or pretend to be decentralized. This news reads like big banks and other major traditional finance players are building a database because FedNow doesn't cut it somehow?
- constantcrying 1y agoThe decentralization is my steel man of the idea. If you don't have to worry about the double spending problem, choosing a block chain instead of a normal database is just absurd.
- xyst 1y agoKnowing banks, this will take much longer than 4-5 years to architect. Then an additional 5 years to rollout. This plan assumes the current mercurial administration stays their course on stablecoin to replace USD as reserve currency and future administrations also going along with it. It’s a massive gamble that depends on many variables. For now, it’s a PR move.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago>This plan assumes the current mercurial administration stays their course on stablecoin to replace USD as reserve currency and future administrations also going along with it. You are operating on the assumption that there will be fair election in 4 years and that Dems will retake the White House. Both of those are unlikely. Trump has almost killed democrarcy in 3 months. I'm sure he'll get the job done in another 3.75 years.
- rthomas6 1y agoI really wish someone would make a stablecoin not pegged to some currency but to a basket of goods. A CPI-coin, if you will. How would that work? Maybe similar to the programmatic way DAI works, by collateralizing other assets in a way that make DAI some desired price. How cool would it be to have a decentralized coin that has zero percent inflation.
- hansvm 1y ago"zero-percent inflation" relative to some particular basket of goods. If efficiencies and demand change to make that basket relatively less expensive than other things you care about (like land), you'll expect positive inflation in real terms. Negative inflation is possible the other way (e.g., if other baskets of goods wind up being more amenable to automation and the demand curve isn't too inelastic).
- kilimounjaro 1y agoOn a long enough time scale, this is bitcoin, with an additional NGU (number go up) characteristic which will persist until it achieves saturating global adoption
- acdha 1y agoBitcoin is the purest form of fiat currency valued solely based on social consensus, which is why it’s so volatile. Anchoring something based on real-world commodities would be bad for speculators but much more likely to see real-world adoption.
- Ekaros 1y agoProblems with pegs are that someone has to take other side. And that side is often losing one. You peg something to current amount of goods, but you have to be able to stand behind that whatever happens to value of those goods... The value drops, you made profit, the value massively increase. Now everyone is wanting to redeem and you need to be good on promise or whole thing collapses...
- kayamon 1y agoBitcoin is pegged to the cost of electricity and is already a decentralized coin with zero percent inflation.
- 6stringmerc 1y agoGreat timing! I’m sure they’ll really enjoy being targeted to be the next hop in the cat-and-mouse game of illicit substances and money laundering enterprises /s. LEOs are getting a lot more up to speed with these systems from what I’ve seen in the past couple years. Highly regulated industries like banking should have a really, really, really strong “use case” to get in other than FOMO in my opinion.
- cariaso 1y agoIf the GENIUS Act becomes the law, we're in for a FUBAR situation when a stablecoin issuer ends up insolvent. Even more concerning, if a bank custodian for a stablecoin issuer's reserves ends up insolvent, the claims of the stablecoin investors will come ahead of the bank depositors. That's right. Crypto comes ahead of ma-and-pa. https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2025/05/the-genius-acts-insolvency-provisions-crypto-investors-come-ahead-of-bank-depositors.html https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2025/05/the-genius-a...
- scyclow 1y agoI think this is why regulation is so important. As the GENIUS Act is written, all funds backing the coin need to be held in cash or Treasuries. And if they go bankrupt, coin holders would have a higher claim on that money than creditors. If stablecoins aren't regulated then what's to stop issuers from creating stablecoin products without those protections?
- SubiculumCode 1y agoViolating the separation of banking from speculative investment never hurt anyone /s Same God damn story, over and over, but with the inevitable bailout. Heads I win, tails you lose.
- jcfrei 1y agoA lot of people here rightfully questioning what's the use case of stablecoins. US dollars on a bank account essentially just represent a claim backed by a bunch of government debt - ie. US treasuries. But what if these treasuries became undesirable? Either because inflation runs very high or the creditworthiness of the issuer is questionable? what if - as a result - we have to build a financial system not based on government issued debt - but private (ie. corporate) debt? suddenly stablecoins become a lot more interesting.
- idiotsecant 1y agoCorporate control of and ownership of the means of exchange is basically inevitable it seems, and it will be an absolute dystopia.
- redczar 1y agoIt used to be the case that individual banks could issue currency. It was found that having government control this much better overall. It’s not perfect.
- NoahZuniga 1y agoThere is no reason to move to corporate debt to back deposits. There is no US credit risk because the US can always print more dollars. Because the debt of other US companies is also denominated in US dollars, it is equally exposed to inflation as US government debt. US treasuries becoming undesirable doesn't really have an effect on stablecoins, because (at least for USDC and I believe USDT) they hold short term treasuries that expire in a few months. The operator of the stablecoin can just hold the treasuries until they expire. Also if the operator of USDC can't pay out all claims right now, they will be in a few months so an oportunist market maker can buy USDC for 98 cents on the dollar and cash out 100 cents a few months later.
- scyclow 1y agoI'd say that the risk of the US defaulting on Treasuries is definitely higher than zero... but if that happens then we'd probably have bigger fish to fry than stablecoins.
- Animats 1y agoStablecoins are money-makers now that interest rates are nonzero. With zero interest rates, there was no place safe to put the money, and many early stablecoins were scams. Now, they're profitable to run honestly. Trump has his own stablecoin, USD1.[1] But how much does it cost to get in and out? That's the question. FedNow charges US$0.045 per transaction. [1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usd1/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usd1/
- Jommi 1y agoActually, its looking like nearly every late comer to the stablecoin game outside of Tether is not able to actually make profit on their interest gains. They need to find business cases elsewhere.
- Nasrudith 1y agoStablecoins, like all promised large reserves of liquid currency are an attractive nuisance for fraud and theft. Even pensions suffered from the same thing and got robbed by the mob first. Any stablecoin offer you are safer just assuming it is yet another fraud.
- alfiedotwtf 1y agoFirst they ignore you Then they laugh at you Then they fight you Then you win
- curtisszmania 1y ago[dead]
- LatteLazy 1y agoThis reminds me of the way Scottish banks used to issue their own notes independently (they still issue them now but are required to have Bank of England notes of equivalent value in storage) They were not legally currency (or legal tender) but acted as such. It if a bank was viewed to be in trouble its notes would start trading at a discount. Effectively it was a free market for currency issuance. Which I guess this would be too?
- tre7 1y ago[dead]
- Havoc 1y agoWould that not practically lead to a global financial system in the true sense? Basically SWIFT on steroids. Or the universal "credits" seen in scifi?