> I mean, frankly, the USA consumer banking sector just doesn't need more cryptography-fueled gold-standard imitations, nor more ever-so-clever statistical mode

> I mean, frankly, the USA consumer banking sector just doesn't need more cryptography-fueled gold-standard imitations, nor more ever-so-clever statistical models for mutual funds that blow up and die when their basic assumptions are violated by that chaotic monster of chaos known as "Reality", nor more ways for a banker to write a loan he knows won't be repaid and then escape the responsibility of eating his own damn losses when the borrowers can't repay. What it needs is to finally catch up with the rest of the world and let people send money via online banking, and receive their paychecks each month via direct deposit without two weeks' delay, and to not charge so many damned ATM and debit-card fees. You said banking didn't need to be disrupted, and then you listed some very good reasons why it needs to be disrupted. You seem to believe that regulatory barriers are affecting some other party than they actually are. The bankers you refer to are the beneficiaries of the regulations. With a few notable exceptions, they want these regulations to keep the competition out. And to clarify, the companies and/or people I'm thinking of here aren't "crypto", or at least not Bitcoin-related. I agree that Bitcoin remains to risky for general consumer use. (and by the way, "mortgages" are one of Warren's four big family expenses, which is definitely a financial product)