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

71–80 of 452 posts

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

#71

Post by danielmarkbruce »

Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #65
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a banking license in the US at least is totally doable and lots of banks are created de novo every year. As another commenter noted, anyone can create "money out of thin air". Come to my corner store and buy an apple on credit. Poof! Credit was the original money, made out of thin air, and can be by anyone.

Can your corner store credit be used to pay taxes? How long will your corner store survive if the IRS found out you were processing transactions in your own currency?

No to paying taxes, mostly because the asset you'd have is an apple... The corner store at least has a receivable, but the IRS still won't accept that from them.

But, at least in the US, before the national bank acts in the 1800's, various taxing entities specified which bank notes (or other assets) they'd accept and not accept. It was basically whichever bank notes circulated the most with no/little discount, some gold/silver coins, some government bonds. Ie acceptance by a taxing entity isn't really a clear line on "is/is not" money.

Trading receivables has been going on forever, happens today, is totally legal. The corner store could sell the receivable, and many businesses to sell their receivables.

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

#72

Post by XorNot »

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, this is all true which is why we have fiat currencies.

The UK government has consistently honoured debt for longer then the US has existed, for example.

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

#73

Post by gabruoy »

d_burfoot wrote: post #15

It's crazy to me that we're still using the same approach to banking, given that the banking system regularly blows up and drags the rest of the economy into a recession.

It’s crazy to me that we’re still living on Earth, given the climate risks and the natural disasters destroying people’s lives.

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

#74

Post by ctippett »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #57
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…

I remember reading about Monzo bank in the UK a lot some 5 years ago. I’m curious how they are doing these days. Seems like they’re still operating?

They're doing quite well it seems. Everyone I know seems to have an account with them.

They've had a full, unrestricted bank licence since 2017 and have over 9.3m customers[1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monzo

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

#75

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

absolutelastone wrote: post #18
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.

They've "lost" a few times by now. Government has propped them up. The other side of the innovator's dilemma is the fact that the market leaders who don't stick to their current winning formula, instead risking big on a new technology, will sooner or later get it wrong and fail on their own. That's why it's a dilemma.

I guess that’s my argument as to why it’s not losing.

If the government bailed you out, you didn’t lose. They have yet to really lose. Thus no incentive to disrupt such a “steady” industry.

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

#76

Post by latency-guy2 »

dylan604 wrote: post #66
scarface_74 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, these are the only banks that support Zelle https://www.zellepay.com/get-started

i hope you get paid for all of your shilling

Substantiate this "shill" comment. Who is this user employed by.

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

#77

Post by miohtama »

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.

There is brand value in Trump.

Trump is the largest meme on this planet.

What should be the fair value of his fan coin?

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

#78

Post by wordpad25 »

halfcat wrote: post #56
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.

> 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.

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

#79

Post by hinkley »

imtringued wrote: post #37
Neonlicht wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is very conservative in handing out banking licenses. There was a famous scandal with an Icelandic bank that was disrupting the market with higher interest rates.

It is basically impossible to license a new bank in Germany and the financial regulations have become stricter over time, with a full banking license being mandatory for more and more things. It's kind of disturbing. If you are a big bank, you already have all the licenses and can do everything so what difference does that regulation make in practice?

There comes a point where a reverse merger makes more sense. You want to be a bank? Buy one. You want to be a “different” bank? Buy one that’s at a tipping point and make your agent of change pitch.

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

#80

Post by luckylion »

okanat wrote: post #51
imtringued wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is basically impossible to license a new bank in Germany and the financial regulations have become stricter over time, with a full banking license being mandatory for more and more things. It's kind of disturbing. If you are a big bank, you already have all the licenses and can do everything so what difference does that regulation make in practice?

N26 did it but creating a new bank attracts money launderers and scammers. The legal department costs are infeasible and half a century-old systems are not easy to adapt to new banking concepts. The government and regulation side of the system needs serious improvements in Germany to bring them to 21st century first. However, there is little economic incentive to do so. With an aging population and deeply conservativ…

But you don't necessarily need a banking license, right? My understanding is that there's a handful of bank-as-a-service banks that have a license and will let you do your thing.

I'm sure the aging population doesn't help, but to me the primary inertia comes from how difficult it is to switch. You can take your phone number with you while changing providers, you can't do that with your bank account. They have "services" that are supposed to handle that, but having dealt with their investment arms and moving a broker account from one bank to another, I wouldn't trust them to not mess it up, and suddenly my rent isn't getting paid. So I'd have to do it myself, which will make me deal with lots of stupid systems and processes and cost a hours upon hours. I'd need to save 100% of my banking fees (which are way too high) for a decade or two to make that worthwhile.

Make switching banks as easy as switching phone providers and you'll get some competition going.

Post reply on HN