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

401–410 of 452 posts

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

#401

Post by ninalanyon »

pandaman wrote: post #153
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…

It's mostly correct except it's just the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world). And governments have the power to take your property to settle your debts with them. So for anyone, who is a subject of a government assigned debt (via taxation usually), gold has very practica…

> the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world)

Really? Can you point us, or perhaps just me, to something that explains that and which countries this applies to? I think that I'd have a hard time paying the Norwegian tax authorities with gold or silver. In fact even paying them in cash would be difficult.

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

#402

Post by buu700 »

rasmus-kirk wrote: post #225
tenthirtyam wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A friend argued to me that crypto is "A Terrible Thing" because its just used to fuel the (illegal) narcotics industry. That's a good thing, though. Jokes aside, as a person who loves crypto technologically and agrees with the more cipherpunk roots of bitcoin, I have not seen anyone serious use crypto for anything other than drugs or small transactions, just for the sake of it. People usually just seems to hoard th…

Agreed, but unironically. US tobacco consumption is at a historic low, while people are dying from an opioid epidemic and fentanyl contamination, and somehow the War on Drugs is nearly unquestioned as good policy? Prosecuting people for making poor health choices is such an extreme and frankly insane idea.

Let's go back to selling Bayer Heroin™ at pharmacies, with sensible regulations. That would better position us to minimize narcotic use over the long term, while also making it safer, and defunding the cartels while we're at it. In the meantime, if someone is going to do drugs, I'm all for them using cryptocurrency to make the process as safe as it can be given the circumstances.

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

#403

Post by danielmarkbruce »

kbolino wrote: post #397
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge difference. Incentives are one thing, being able to force or take money directly is a whole different level. Right now you need someone in the government administration + a court + a bank to do anything like this. With a digital dollar, you lose the last two.

The Federal Reserve is a bank. And we already have a relevant historical example to examine, postal savings accounts. I'm not aware of any special power that the executive branch had to bypass the judicial branch where those accounts were concerned, versus privately held accounts. Plus, the Post Office was directly answerable to the President then, while the Federal Reserve has never directly answered to the Presiden…

Not for consumers and non-bank businesses it isn't. You don't have an account at the fed. You have an account at plain old commercial bank. Someone at the plain old commercial bank can freeze your money, right now. You'll have to sue, go to court, win, just to get access to your money.

If the fed becomes the place you have an account, they can do what the commercial bank currently can do.

The difference is incentives - why do it? Commercial banks have no incentive, and in fact have the incentive to push back when asked.

As for the president - sure - generally speaking the fed is independent. But they have significant regulatory and supervisory roles all by themselves, and are part of the administration of the government even if they aren't "part of the administration" as the term is usually used in the US.

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

#404

Post by nothercastle »

segasaturn wrote: post #360
elric wrote: post #312

US banks are weird [1]. Archaic. Slow. Filthy rich. Incompetent. And yet they're nearly impossible to disrupt due to the benefit of size. Starting a new bank is expensive, unless you want to pretend at being a real bank and letting another bank handling all of the nitty-gritty details. In which case you've now become a reseller of that bank, and will likely be even worse. The only thing that can disrupt US banks is c…

Could banking customers moving their business to Credit Unions be disruptive? I know nothing about this space, by the way.

They suck, pay no interest and charge the same high fees. The best alternative is investment brokerage cash accounts. They pay interest, allow you to buy short term treasuries with savings and provide checking/debt cards

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

#405

Post by nothercastle »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #351
elric wrote: post #312

US banks are weird [1]. Archaic. Slow. Filthy rich. Incompetent. And yet they're nearly impossible to disrupt due to the benefit of size. Starting a new bank is expensive, unless you want to pretend at being a real bank and letting another bank handling all of the nitty-gritty details. In which case you've now become a reseller of that bank, and will likely be even worse. The only thing that can disrupt US banks is c…

I don’t see what more US banks could do. I have been transferring money instantly to people online for over a decade for free. They have websites/apps, I can withdraw paper money around the world, what other utility could a “bank” provide me? They are utilities that keep a database associating account number and dollar number. I earn a few thousand dollars from them every year in the form of sign up bonuses, and I ha…

Pay interest. They charge you 400bps to hold your money it’s outrageous

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

#406

Post by lotsofpulp »

nothercastle wrote: post #405
lotsofpulp wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see what more US banks could do. I have been transferring money instantly to people online for over a decade for free. They have websites/apps, I can withdraw paper money around the world, what other utility could a “bank” provide me? They are utilities that keep a database associating account number and dollar number. I earn a few thousand dollars from them every year in the form of sign up bonuses, and I ha…

Pay interest. They charge you 400bps to hold your money it’s outrageous

US banks do pay interest. If you're not earning at least US federal funds rate minus ~50bps, that's on you for not choosing to spend 5 min to open a bank account.

https://www.doctorofcredit.com/high-interest-savings-to-get/

Capital One/CIT/Citi/PNC/Apple Card/Marcus/Ally/American Express are all reputable, big banks with long histories.

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

#407

Post by pandaman »

ninalanyon wrote: post #401
pandaman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly correct except it's just the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world). And governments have the power to take your property to settle your debts with them. So for anyone, who is a subject of a government assigned debt (via taxation usually), gold has very practica…

> the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world) Really? Can you point us, or perhaps just me, to something that explains that and which countries this applies to? I think that I'd have a hard time paying the Norwegian tax authorities with gold or silver. In fact even paying th…

>Can you point us, or perhaps just me, to something that explains that and which countries this applies to?

Gladly https://www.efginternational.com/us/insights/2021/gold-and-b...

>I think that I'd have a hard time paying the Norwegian tax authorities with gold or silver.

This might be even true since Norway is not in EU but I would be surprised if Norwegian banking had been that different from Basel system.

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

#408

Post by jncfhnb »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #392
jncfhnb wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It _could_ be like that. But we’re very deep down slippery slope hypotheticals by this point.

A digital dollar is not down some rabbit hole of hypotheticals. The fed (amongst others) debate/study it. Published this a couple years ago: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/money-and-...

We’re not talking about a digital dollar so much as a government mandated spending program for all citizens or perhaps retail account owning individuals.

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

#409

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #90
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #9

I don’t think disrupting banks is even possible. The time, money, and energy required is simply not realistic. There’s so many disrupt-able industries out there and I’m not even sure banking is the most beneficial one to tackle. It’s a realistic Star Wars story where the Empire always wins because… well it’s the fucking empire. They didn’t get there by losing.

all empires eventually fall

And when they do, the banks and “innovation” are the least of anyone’s concerns.

As long as the USA stands, banks won’t change, and if the USA doesn’t stand, I’m not sure banking will even matter anymore.

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

#410

Post by gosub100 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #378
delusional wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "the government" do that? I hate it when people talk about "the government" doing something. The real mechanics you'd see in your example is that the business elite would begin astroturfing support from the American public, with some nonsense about helping the poor better control their finances. Nobody would believe it, and progressives would be against it. In reality it will be driven by the commercial des…

The government already does this. SNAP, colloquially foodstamps, can only be used on certain forms of food. Frozen goods are fine, but cannot be prepared hot, even if there is not a charge or it is the exact same food product. So my local corner grocery is allowed to sell anyone frozen food, whether they pay with SNAP or cash. But they also have a microwave that anyone can use to heat up purchased food, except for SN…

It's meant to prevent side hustles like buying Big Macs and selling them for cash.
Post reply on HN