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

No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

popularfintech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 452 posts

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#131

Post by Joel_Mckay »

nine_k wrote: post #124
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people have zero notion of what money is... let alone what banks offer as a business. Indeed, the entrenched investment industry has become less fair (or an outright liability) to customers, but casinos are at least honest with their customers. Gambling with other peoples money was not a real financial service until relatively recently. There is a market for a fiscally sustainable savings/investment industry, bu…

> fiscally sustainable savings Buy gold bullion, rent a bank safe deposit box, store it there. I suspect this is what comes closest to that, as of now. (Sigh.)

Precious metal prices rarely track with inflation, but 1.7% of a portfolio should contain such leaky holdings.

While it is currently legal for US citizens to own gold bars since 1974, if the tax man gets hungry... the old rules may come back into popularity.

Best of luck, =3

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#132

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Waterluvian wrote: post #6
scarface_74 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull. https://fortune.com/2025/01/22/donald-trump-net-worth-memeco...

That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value. At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance. Which leads me to believe that the only thing that could be honestly said is that a crypto is purely about winners and suckers and timing.

> At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance.

Suppose the price of gold is 80% perception of value and 20% utility for making electronics etc. Then if you buy it, 80% of what you buy is perception of value. You could get the same result by buying 80% Bitcoin and 20% commodity rock salt. Is someone who buys the latter any more of a sucker? What about somebody who then decides to divest the rock salt because it has a below-market rate of return when they have no direct use for it?

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#133

Post by manquer »

buyucu wrote: post #97
scarface_74 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull. https://fortune.com/2025/01/22/donald-trump-net-worth-memeco...

[flagged]

Are we really free not to be part of it ?

This administration is also creating a sovereign wealth fund, which trump will exercise significant control over, I would be shocked if crypto and his coins specifically are not included.

We are paying for it all one way or another, either with taxes or more likely higher inflation.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#134

Post by kylecazar »

1a527dd5 wrote: post #114

They might not be disrupting them, but they are definitely causing competition in the market place again. My main bank account is with Halifax, everyday spend is with Starling. Then Monzo for anything risky. Before Starling/Monzo the Halifax app was _crap_. Barely got any updates and was very basic. Now? The Halifax app is on par with the newer banks, and sometimes even release new features before (e.g. scan cheque i…

Interesting... We've had scanned check deposits at Chase (US) for at least 15 years, I think.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#135

Post by abdullahkhalids »

ranger207 wrote: post #88

The products being pointed out in this article as an attempt to disrupt banks seem to be basically the same product for a different price. Like, a high-yield savings account is just a savings account with a better price, right? How do you disrupt an industry by selling the same products? The advantage of startups is that they're more nimble, can pivot to fit the market better, and can adapt to customer requests faste…

One datapoint: On /r/PersonalFinanceCanada a very common advice is to save money in WealthSimple or Questrade type of online financial institutions. And people seem to be very happy with doing this.

Any financial institution that makes the act of investing money simple and legible will win some market share. I have some savings accounts in RBC Canada, and the UX seems to be designed by monkeys throwing around crayons.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#136

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wordpad25 wrote: post #78
halfcat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s purely about perception of value All money has always been about perception, whether we used paper, shiny rocks, or sea shells as money, it’s always been about perception. Is it real or counterfeit, do you trust the person you’re transacting with, are enough people you know using it, and will people with weapons show up to protect your money if someone else tries to steal it? The “people with weapons” part tur…

No. Fiat is backed by tax base. US has more assets than debt. Additionally US is the largest economy in the world, how much would the right to tax it be worth? A lot. It's not at all just perception and influence as you claim.

> Fiat is backed by tax base.

The general form of this is, it's backed by something that will accept it as payment. But then the same is true of non-fiat currencies.

The value of a currency is simply, what can you get when you spend it?

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#137

Post by ianburrell »

wahern wrote: post #109
ianburrell wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait for FedNow to get rolled out. That is the Federal Reserve's instant payment system. It does need to be implemented by banks cause it is just an API. One nice feature is that it has push model, pulling money means making request that can be approved which should increase the security.

The problem with pushing payments is that the cost of fraud falls on the payer. In the pull model, if the payer says it was unauthorized, the rules favor the payer--restoring the payer account happens as a matter of course, and disputes are handled subsequently. This sucks for the payee, but they're usually businesses who are more sophisticated and better placed to handle these issues. But in the push model, the pres…

Pulling fraud with ACH is pretty rare. All the scammers trick people into sending them money, or take over account and send it, this is more common with phones and Zelle. The latter would be handled with current system. The former isn't handled with current system, and would be helped if there was way to reject transfers to help with return money scams.

There is danger that people will send money on bogus requests, but invoice fraud is already covered. Other countries have the same model of sharing account number widely and it works.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#138

Post by phendrenad2 »

Banks are the most immune to disruption, because they function so closely with government, and they are nothing without the blessing of government. And the hurdles to create your own bank are very high. Check out this great Netflix documentary "Bank of Dave": A moderately successful businessman decided to start his own bank, just to see if it could be done (and to lower fees for his local community). The results are... pretty much what you'd expect. "You can't start a bank... nobody starts a BANK!" (They just kinda... have always existed!)

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#139

Post by TuringNYC »

I think Evolve/Synapse and the fog surrounding the responsible parties, along with complete radio silence on persons responsible (almost as if newsmedia has been given a gag order) has completely kneecapped bank competition for a half-decade at least.

If it takes experts to explain how Evolve/Synapse happened, why it couldnt happen to another "Fintech bank", and how to tell if you are at risk...then there is no point even venturing past Chase/BoA/Citi/your local bank.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/fed-penalizes-evolv...

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#140

Post by henry_bone »

losteric wrote: post #101
henry_bone wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of everything we use as money, including precious metals. You can't eat them, live in them, use them as weapons, walk down the street in them. They have value bacause we all agree that they do and we all agree to use them as a means to exchange that value. Also, and this is important and I should have said it first, they have value because their supply is restricted. The same is true for crypto. It's fung…

What are you talking about? We can wear gold, make weapons out of iron, cups out of copper… coins have both a fiat face value and real tangible value (the “floor”). Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It’s entirely belief. That’s not a bad thing. MLMs can be very profitable, some turn into multi-generational institutions of faith. I own bitcoin because it’s like buying a share of the Mormon church early on. Absolutely, d…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN