Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a perfect problem with crypto: people understand just enough tech or economics to be dangerous, and not enough to truly understand the system. This is of course absolutely not how things work. The risk isn’t with the dollar holders in the banking scenario because a dollar isn’t backed - it doesn’t need to be backed. This is the essence of fiat currency. The risk is with depositors (creditors), and as you say…
>But in the bank scenario, the dollars that it loaned out aren’t worth any less. Just a small point of clarification - I think - that helps to make your point a little clearer. If the bank collapses - it's likely precisely because those loaned dollars ARE worth less. Commonly in bank collapses - those that borrowed from the bank can't repay for whatever reason. Creditors to the bank then get spooked and demand 'redem…
> If the bank collapses - it's likely precisely because those loaned dollars ARE worth less.
I get what you mean, but it's not quite the same. The loan, as in the receivable, is worthless and thus might prompt/contribute to a bank run/collapse. But the only reason defaults are an issue (like in this scenario) is precisely because the loaned dollars do have value, and the bank (and its depositors/creditors) want them back.
It's all just assets and liabilities.