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

251–260 of 452 posts

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

#251

Post by mu53 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #214
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…

I can tell you right now what I want from a "bank" as a consumer: Putting the consumer first, not seventeenth or whatever I typically experience with retail banks. As a random example, I had $3,600 stolen from one of my accounts by transactions labelled "Microsoft Online Services" or something like that. The bank reversed most , but not all of the transactions, and then had the nerve to lecture me -- an IT profession…

If these things bother you, consider a service that offers virtual credit cards. Privacy.com or Revolut.

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

#252

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #3

No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth. Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat…

> and no upstart fintech company has this power

Most of the cryptocurrency companies prove that this statement isn't entirely true though, unless I don't get it. That is, they generate cryptocurrencies out of thin air (credit) and say it has a certain value, then people pay them fiat money for those. They just generated value out of thin air and some compute cycles.

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

#253

Post by andrepd »

AdamN wrote: post #237
netdevphoenix wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, why do you need a video chat? Can't you just have a phone call? I don't get the need to see someone's face

I don't get the need for synchronous comms at all. I can book airplane tickets, food delivery, e-commerce generally, and most other things through a web interface. Not sure why I need to talk to somebody to get a mortgage aside from Know Your Customer but even then a short signing ceremony at the end would be best.

I think getting a mortgage might be a tad more of an impactful decision than ordering takeout... I'm not a boomer but I still would like to speak to someone in person before I sign an O(million$) loan.

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

#254

Post by alt227 »

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…

Halifax is owned by Lloyds banking group, and their current app is just the exact same Lloyds app with a different logo. I know because I bank with both and the apps are identical.

Previous to the merging of online services, you are correct that Halifax had its own app and it was terrible. But at that time Lloyds had a great app, they just hadnt unified the back end tech of all the different bank brands they own.

It wasnt disruption from startups that caused the improvement, it was the parent company taking its time to merge the decent tech it had developed for itself.

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

#255

Post by IsTom »

PeterStuer wrote: post #224
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And fiat currency isn't purely about perception of value? Just as not all crypto is equal, the Zimbabwean dollar isn't remotely like the Swiss frank, just as bitcoin isn't remotely like hawktua.

If nothing else, when the time to pay tax comes, you'll find yourself in need of some fiat if you want to stay out of the trouble.

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

#256

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tenthirtyam wrote: post #23
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I don't really give this argument much credence any more. If the value of, say, gold or diamonds were to drop their practical-use-floor-value, they'd be valued at probably less than 1% (maybe much less) of current value. I mean, how much gold is actually consumed by industry? And we even have industrial diamon…

> I mean, how much gold is actually consumed by industry?

[0] indicates there's a demand of about 5000 tonnes of gold per year, with about 560 tonnes going into technology and electronics (the vast majority still going to jewellery). The total amount of gold in the world is about 212.500 tonnes according to [1], which is a cube of only 22x22 meters. [2] says about 3600 tonnes are mined per year and about 1200 tonnes is recycled/reused.

[0] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gol...

[1] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/how-much-gold

[2] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gol...

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

#257

Post by Cthulhu_ »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #35
doomroot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are pros and cons of cryptocurrencies as money, just like gold, which cause people to speculate on the price.

What are the pros of the trump coin or the melania coin?

A brainwashed group of drones that are willling to pay money for it.

But I'm convinced most people that buy memecoins like that are thinking that there's other suckers that will buy it and make the price go up.

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

#258

Post by Cthulhu_ »

snitty wrote: post #122
Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #3

No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth. Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat…

>The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat to the banking cabal which runs the American Empire. Price instability, confiscatory and variable transaction fees, several high profile frauds -- including in a so-called "stable coin". Crypto is its own worst enemy. Not the government.

Yeah, that "banking cabal" includes a heap of checks and balances that at least on paper stop financial crimes like scams, money laundering, market manipulation, insider trading, and they add guarantees like the relative stability of value, interest rates, and compensation if your bank does end up going bankrupt.

You get none of those protections with cryptocurrency, which is exactly what scammers, criminal organizations, and financial libertarians want.

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

#259

Post by PontifexMinimus »

netdevphoenix wrote: post #227
WeylandYutani wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could also be cultural. In my country people are perfectly happy to have a video chat with a bank employee about mortgages but in other country's you still need to go into a branch office for that kind of thing.

Just curious, why do you need a video chat? Can't you just have a phone call? I don't get the need to see someone's face

I (for one) prefer video chats to phone calls.

There is a reason why "face to face communication" is a phrase.

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

#260

Post by malfist »

rendaw wrote: post #162
malfist wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I are free to not buy it, but that doesn't mean Russia or b Saudi's or China or Zuckerberg isn't going to buy a bunch to influence our president

Rather than regulate crypto, it might have been better to not elect him in the first place.

Trust me, I'd be a lot happier if that had happened.
Post reply on HN