371–380 of 496 posts
CEO and co-founder of Routefusion here, a cross-border bank to bank payment API. We use the SWIFT network regularly. I can 100% confirm that all money in the world is just literally numbers, and it is balanced by the different federal reserve systems around the world to ensure no one can "create" money without notifying everyone. I guess if I was super cool I would do an AMA because this is the only thread that is re…
CEO and co-founder of Routefusion here, a cross-border bank to bank payment API. We use the SWIFT network regularly. I can 100% confirm that all money in the world is just literally numbers, and it is balanced by the different federal reserve systems around the world to ensure no one can "create" money without notifying everyone. I guess if I was super cool I would do an AMA because this is the only thread that is re…
What would keep some entity that has its SWIFT access revoked from switching to China's CIPS or even crypto? Would it be merely an inconvenience, requiring the change of a few processes, or would it create hard problems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Russia's new SWIFT alternative that they stood up after the west threatened SWIFT censorship after they annexed Crimea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPFS
If what the link says is true, that alternative includes only 23 foreign banks, as opposed to over 11,000 for SWIFT.
link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/western-powers...
Comes as a shock, it seems that Ukraine has been sold out. Key passage: "As Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, the head of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said, Europe has allowed itself to become more integrated with Russia, while Russia has separated itself from Europe. He said EU countries owned a combined €300bn of Russian assets that would be vulnerable to confiscation if a full-blooded financial war broke out. The UK owns billions more via firms such as BP, which has a near-20% stake in the Russian oil company Rosneft.
“Sanctions are one of the few options that European countries have in a conflict situation like this. If you disconnect North Korea or Iran from the international financial system, you do not expose yourself to that much damage.”
Speaking on BBC News, he added: “But while I don’t say it is impossible to envisage Russia being barred from the Swift system, it is a nuclear option that means you exterminate yourself along with your enemy.”"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trotting out an expert is far better than just random comments from uninformed people. I'd just rather say "I have this expert I agree with" vs "I'm a SWE that has no background in this and my opinions are somehow weighted the same" or "this expert is wrong despite the fact that I have no understanding of this subject"
Might be worth considering that some of the people in this conversation are well versed in foreign policy debates and don't need to cite to names to invoke reasonable ideas.
Even experts cite each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very likely. It would be an effortless switch to Bitcoin for Russia and give them access to a currency/network completely invulnerable to nation state controls. Blocking SWIFT for Russia would be a very, very, very stupid idea because it would precipitate the collapse of the U.S. Dollar. Which, I'd bet, is intentional because the central banks want to push out CBDCs they control and populations are primed to sup…
and Russia can switch it's entire economy to be largely reliant on Bitcoin at the drop of a hat?
One of my favorite hacks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery Almost stole a billion dollars, if it wasn't for a very obvious typo.
If we "cut" off SWIFT it would hurt Europe and the States just as much as it would Russia because this is how all money moves. Think paying for natural gas, oil, commodities, etc etc.
Isn't that kind of how all sanctions work? Eliminating trade hurts both parties equally, though the effects will be felt less to the bigger party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With unlimited resources, sure. But most scientists trust the peer review process and base their work on their own ideas and the ideas/results they read in journals. In short, scientists trust other scientists.
Sure, trust is a shortcut we use to not do hard work, and free our time to do more useful things that constantly check on each other. That's fine. But it is critically important that we can periodically check in and verify that our trust is still well placed, and not have systems that can allow someone to massively profit from violating people's trust. The stronger those foundations and verifications of trust are, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With unlimited resources, sure. But most scientists trust the peer review process and base their work on their own ideas and the ideas/results they read in journals. In short, scientists trust other scientists.
>But most scientists trust the peer review process We really don't. There's so much stupid stuff that gets published on the daily. And then, you publish a paper refuting a lot of the nonsense, and people start citing your paper as evidence of the opposite of what you wrote, just because you had a keyword in your abstract and they didn't read it, just needed a citation. It's mind boggling that we aren't going backward…