Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

barrons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 362 posts

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#341

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #337
alphanullmeric wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A page pulled right out of the anti encryption talking points book. Im glad we agree that you oppose my financial privacy. Redistribution of consequences is fantastic. Surely you support the patriot act too right? Or is that too much consistency to expect out of you?

I support consistency in regulation. You don't? Of course not, because consistent regulation would demonstrate that your beloved distributed ledger is simply a colossal waste of energy.

Well at least you’re consistent in violating other people’s privacy.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#342

Post by int_19h »

aaronwalker wrote: post #182
int_19h wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, if someone needs a store of value that's not controlled by the bank, gold is already there - and, for most people, it being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify). Then again, most people who hold crypto today, do so in third-party wallets on platforms like Coinbase. At which point the "gold equivalent" would be to buy gold certificates from your ba…

> * being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify). * Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government -- both of which make it a worse store of value. It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) t…

> Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government

For most people, the more immediate threat is not the government seizing it, but robbers and/or scammers. Defending against robbers isn't that hard, especially if you have so much money to park somewhere; but more importantly, it's well-understood. OTOH the average level of technical literacy makes malware and scammers much more dangerous, and Bitcoin is far more exposed to both.

The usual retort is, "just learn how to secure it properly, it's as easy as this 20-point list". When it comes to mass adoption, this is kinda like pitching Vim + LaTeX to Word users. It doesn't matter that you can secure Bitcoin better than gold, if you know what you're doing, because most people do not and will not.

> It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin.

You can't realistically assume "absent changes in demand" IRL, making this point completely moot.

On top of that, scarcity is not the determinant of value in and of itself. It's easy to make tokens of which there's a limited supply, but it's much harder to convince everyone else that they're worth using. But, for gold, that part is already done, and this consensus has been stable for literally millennia. Bitcoin is still in a consensus-building stage, and it's not even clear whether it'll ever be achieved at all, much less how long it'll take.

> If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

So, BTC should be mass-adopted because it is the best store of value, but it can only be the best store of value if it's mass-adopted?

BTW, I should be clear that I'm not anti-Bitcoin or anti-crypto in general - I just think that speculating on it is neither productive nor safe. Unfortunately, that's also 99% of all the economic activity in the ecosystem right now. Hopefully that bubble will burst eventually, and it'll go back to its crypto-anarchist roots.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#343

Post by int_19h »

kavalg wrote: post #267
zirgs wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tiny amount of gold costs a shitload of money. 1kg of gold costs around 60k eur. More than most people have in savings. No problems to transport something like that if you don't brag that you own it. But the same applies to BTC. Telling others that you own a large amount of it is not a good idea. It can be stolen in various ways too. Like by an exchange that's owned by a trustworthy and altruistic billionaire. It's…

I don't think it is so simple. There is already a EUR 10k limit on the amount of cash that you can carry across EU border without declaring it. In case of violations the money may be confiscated. I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).

That is exactly the practical case for BTC, yes. But note that this is about moving money from point A to point B, not storing it.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#344

Post by int_19h »

Symbiote wrote: post #276
kavalg wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is so simple. There is already a EUR 10k limit on the amount of cash that you can carry across EU border without declaring it. In case of violations the money may be confiscated. I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).

So the use case is evading tax, money laundering etc. Glad we got to the point eventually.

Yes, absolutely. Also evading sanctions, buying prohibited goods etc.

To remind, most people in the world live in countries with oppressive governments.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#345

Post by lottin »

mrguyorama wrote: post #317
lottin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I can't imagine anybody wanting to buy a car and being deterred because they didn't have a means of exchange.

When someone bought my car we used cash. How is bitcoin superior to being able to take physical property in my hand that I know will be respected 1:1 by every legitimate institution, business, or person I know?

I don't think bitcoin is superior, in fact I think it's inferior, that's the point.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#346

Post by aaronwalker »

lordfrito wrote: post #309
aaronwalker wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the masses aren't interested in this Having a store of value is in fact appealing to the masses, especially those with weak national currencies. We know this because the rates of crypto adoption are highest in developing nations, where national currencies are not as strong. Yes, the possibility of making a lucrative investment is also appealing, and is what's driving most of its current growth, but as BTC settles i…

> Having a store of value is in fact appealing to the masses, especially those with weak national currencies. I think you're being overly generous in your estimation of the thought processes of the masses. All the normies I know that are into bitcoin (or talk about it) aren't into it because of "weak national currencies". The normies are into crypto because of hype and FOMO. "Hey did you hear, you can make a ton of m…

> The normies are into crypto because of hype and FOMO.

Hype and FOMO are indeed drivers of growth, but those alone would not explain why rates of crypto adoption are highest in countries with large unbanked populations.

Take a look at this website, which ranks countries by rates of crypto adoption: https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2022-global-crypto-adop...

Then compare it to this chart from Statistica, which ranks countries with highest unbanked populations: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246963/unbanked-populat...

Notice that there is a lot of overlap.

While Bitcoin adoption in countries with strong national currencies like the US or EU is likely driven by FOMO and hype, its main appeal is as an investment/store-of-value for those who lack access to them otherwise, and that is why Bitcoin adoption is highest in unbanked populations.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#347

Post by tnel77 »

strangattractor wrote: post #327
tnel77 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they were on the other side of the bull run where it went $3.5k -> $65k? Why only focus on the maximum loss scenario?

They likely saw the $65K and listened to all the people that said it was going to $100K and never sold - watching it plummet. The "what if" scenario is pretty useless considering the entire point of any currency is to maintain value - which allows the predictable purchase of things creating an efficient market. One of the original arguments for BitCoin was that it would maintain it's value during inflationary periods…

Would you trust any asset to hold its value if it goes 20x in a short period? I feel like Bitcoin will be less volatile down the road when adoption has picked up.

Aka it’s less of a crazy speculative investment and more of an actual currency.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#348

Post by timmytokyo »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #185
lern_too_spel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Why should cryptocurrencies allow fraudulent money transfers to North Korea and not banks that can do them more cheaply? Hint: there is no good reason. Regulation will catch up.

A page pulled right out of the anti encryption talking points book. Im glad we agree that you oppose my financial privacy. Redistribution of consequences is fantastic. Surely you support the patriot act too right? Or is that too much consistency to expect out of you?

Do you use bitcoin? What makes you think you have any privacy? Bitcoin is not anonymous; it's pseudonymous. If you're using it, your every transaction can be traced by anyone. That's the opposite of privacy.

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#349

Post by Slava_Propanei »

pif wrote: post #304
joyfylbanana wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though for many normal people it was also about buying drugs online which could be seen as "get free from the government" kind of thing

If you buy drugs for which you need to hide from your democratic government, then you are not normal people: you are a criminal. Good riddance!

[dead]

Re: The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

#350

Post by roncesvalles »

renewiltord wrote: post #189
windex wrote: post #110

So many HODLers in this thread. For the normal person on the street, Bitcoin or Crypto never mattered. The endlessly breathless PR was irritating. Whatever happens, this wont be missed.

I disagree. Crypto was the sort of thing you might hear about from a cabbie or at the barber shop. It was definitely something for the normal person on the street. In fact, that was used as a common sell signal with people quoting the "When your shoeshine boy gives you stock tips" stuff.

>Crypto was the sort of thing you might hear about from a cabbie or at the barber shop.

Usually what you'd hear was "I don't get it."

Post reply on HN