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

81–90 of 452 posts

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

#81

Post by hinkley »

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.

The American dollar is also about perception of value, but via a maze of interlocking attributes that make it slow to move.

A new fiat currency without a state sponsor is fragile by comparison. Always will be.

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

#84

Post by jongjong »

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…

Exactly. Bankers are modern-day royalty. Banks are granted special, exclusive powers by the state to issue/counterfeit the nation's currency as loans. Banking executives are anointed by decree.

The idea of 'disrupting banks' is gaslighting because it pretends that they operate within a 'free market'.

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

#85

Post by macinjosh »

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.

So hyperinflation only happens when the tax base disappears? Perception and influence is clearly part of the picture.

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

#86

Post by liendolucas »

poisonborz wrote: post #63

What do we understand under "banks"? If keeping with the simply notion of "stores funds and provides debit cards", the most common usage in EU, especially east, banks were deeply disrupted. Revolut and Wise took a large segment of the youth, who now also got hooked on more services like savings accounts and stocks. They have startup-like culture while being registered as standard banks. Obviously their services, qual…

I'm a happy Revolut customer. Their app is great and it has features that banks here in Italy don't (or if they do they always charge it, that's why I'm trying to slowly break away from them). Banking in Italy is the worst of the worst. They are extremely well trained to make you waste time. Avoid at all costs Banco Posta. People are not just inefficent, they have absolutely no idea about anything you ask them and they love to make you wait eternally. I have recently asked for more information about a loan at another bank and surprisingly they refuse to send me a formal document to read all the terms and conditions. They literally sent me a plain text email with some numbers, when I required them formal details (the famous "small letter") about it they simply didn't reply.

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

#87

Post by ninetyninenine »

perrygeo wrote: post #27
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…

> mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air Amazing that more people don't know this. Most people will insist until their face is red that bank credit is a "loan" with equal debits and credits on both sides of the balance sheet. Wrong. The borrower's bank account goes up. And the bank's balance sheet goes up (the loan is an asset). Viola, new money.

i thought the central bank does this?

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

#88

Post by ranger207 »

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 faster. None of that applies to "selling the same product at a lower price", especially for savings accounts where stability ("the company not suddenly disappearing") is an important part of the pitch anyway

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

#89

Post by okanat »

luckylion wrote: post #80
okanat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "servic…

To be honest, in Germany even the brick and mortar banks provide transfer services. They will detect and move your automatic payments. You usually fill a form, login to each bank and they send automatic requests to move stuff. Similarly my broker also supports moving accounts for me.

Moreover, especially after the Wirecard scandal, I wouldn't trust any company that doesn't have a banking license. Without a banking license they can nuke my entire account and I will be the only responsible idiot for that.

Btw, the US system is exploitative and decades behind what the worst European countries have. NFC payments became a thing after Apple brought them to the US. Europeans, heck, Middle Eastern countries were already using NFC EMV payments for 5 years by then. The technologically best and most trustworthy banks are usually from Northwestern Europe so look for Nordics and the Netherlands, if you would like to see a modern but not totally exploitative banking looks like.

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

#90

Post by ninetyninenine »

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
Post reply on HN