Bitcoin Forum

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

There will always be people who would be interested in a cryptocurrency which is backed by banks since they might feel it would be more secure in nature and because of the big names involved.

So, it might take off if enough investors are interested in such a currency.

They can use the stable coin and send these stable coin to anyone where transaction fees are the bank-backed cryptocurrency, you as a trader will like such service but then the KYC still is going to be huge problem with banks. When it comes to blockchain, the bank secrecy law doesn't apply to it.

I have not seen an official announcement of any bank developing they own cryptocurrency, and to say they stands against crypto have always been a negative side I will not expect any new development of bank creating their own cryptocurrency because the nature of cryptocurrency is decentralized and at that the bank will not be able to control the affairs of such coin even if they own it as long as it operate on the blockchain.

Perhaps banks think that people are still looking for security in their assets and only bank-backed projects would ever give them that. For most financial services, the banks have always been there to 'help' the average Joe into solving his financial needs, and so with this thinking, the banks are somewhat superior, and with the hype created by cryptocurrencies they can easily ride their way to new profits. I don't see any practical use for bank-backed cryptocurrency as they are still cryptocurrencies all the same, albeit being centralized and controlled for that matter. Also, compatibility with other banking services is what's the only thing I see for these type of cryptocurrencies, nothing more.

There was a serious discussion over at Indian central bank (RBI) about cryptocurrency, there was widespread rumor that the govt was interested in a centralized coin which can for some extent replace paper currency. Having said this, I don't think there is anything for our community to be excited about such a coin because it defeats the purpose and vision satoshi had when he first made BTC.

Then as a practical use for crypto in banks, they can use a stablecoin to do International money transfers which I think is more easier than traditional wire transfer.

The Marshall Islands is developing a sovereign cryptocurrency:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-12-14/what-happened-when-the-marshall-islands-bet-on-crypto

Other than that country, I am only aware of Venezuela creating the Petro. But I think the world will follow the Marshall Islands if its experiment turns fruitful. This is somewhat of a beta test.

All news about bank backed cryptocurrencies are telling that they are gona be some stablecoins like USDT or TUSD but that ones would be used to cut some expences and fees for the bank that issued them without any serious relation to the other crypto world. Which means it would have no impact on the Bitcoin price. Banks are just finaly using blockchain to cut their costs.

There will be more advantages than possible disadvantages in my opinion. The real use case is more important than judging the centralized or decentralized ecosystem. Not every bank will create its own personal cryptocurrency but they will try to implement new features with this system.

our modern world currently needs lending for people to purchase houses and cars.  I do think we would be able to function without loans, prices would just drop to levels that people could afford.  Banks participate in predatory lending without crazy high interest rates.

Ripple(XRP) is a virtual currency that is backed by banks. In fact, the creator of XRP are banks. There is a thread last year that says that "should ripple be trusted?" That question was raised since XRP was made by the banks and banks are only care for themselves and not people. That's why many people on that thread starts selling ripple. For me, there's no case of ripple to be determined as a non-trusted coin. Since, the growth of it is amazing.

Due to cryptocurrency volatility, people might be looking for price stability. They might be looking for security too with a cryptocurrency that is backed by bank. I really think that in the future, banks will slowly adapt block chain technology and who knows, they might be creating their own crypto to be able to cope-up with technology advancement.

There is :
https://www.jpmorgan.com/global/news/digital-coin-payments

Its even planned for this year if am not wrong

Banks are also authorities one can hold (or try to hold) responsible when something goes wrong, whereas if you lost your bitcoins, you can only blame yourself. Another thing is that the banks themselves can be interested in such cryptocurrencies for various reasons. For instance, to stay in control and benefit from cheap and fast transactions. Or to try to win over people who are potentially interested in cryptocurrencies, so that the real cryptos become less of a threat to banks.
All in all, I don't like the idea of it and would not prefer such a crypto over a normal one.

We see that now many individuals and legal entities issue their coins and tokens. This is usually a decentralized cryptocurrency. However, individual states and their central banks express an intention to issue or issue their centralized coins. This process will occur regardless of how we feel about the appearance of their centralized coins. Personally, I am quite positive about this. Anything that will attract people's attention to cryptocurrency in general, and even more so to its use, should positively influence the development of a common cryptocurrency. In the future, all types of cryptocurrency, as well as cash and various types of non-cash money will go together in society and complement each other.

I don't think so, but look at these:

https://www.shacknews.com/article/109940/jpm-coin-is-the-first-us-bank-backed-cryptocurrency (https://www.shacknews.com/article/109940/jpm-coin-is-the-first-us-bank-backed-cryptocurrency)

Anyway they are doing it.

The existence of banks has been given full authority by the government that shelves them especially in exploring government financial sectors (Monetary Sector, Real Sector and External Sector) and government revenue budgets, for example: Government Main Income, Government Expenditures, Government Financing, also including the Position of Government Securities.

As far as I know, not only JPM because before, Ripple had also done the same thing. As we know ripple not only (once) took over the position of ethereum, as a coin (ranked second) which was the most traded. IMO this proves that there is a high level of trust and public interest in Ripple as a smart investment supported by the bank.

Of course it's useful, because the system they manage is not different from when they manage their finances, such as the existence of income from transaction costs and other deductions issued by customers.

Bank coins have no use. They are trying to piggyback on the popularity of cryptocurrencies and make people think that they're better because they have most features of decentralized cryptos and are also backed by the bank.
The banks think this will make some people choose their centralized shitcoins over real cryptocurrencies and they are right because many people don't understand the advantages of decentralizations or don't care.

Yep, I think that's possibly their niche - creating a kind of "TetherUSD" backed by an entity thought by many people to be "trustable" (above all those that aren't in the "crypto scene"). Such a "coin" may be even give them profit for a very low cost if they realize it via a private blockchain where you haven't to care about attacks.

However, private blockchains are, in reality, simply private company-owned databases with a special "securing algorithm". There may be simpler and more efficient ways to secure a financial database than to run a whole blockchain. So I guess for banks, if they really want to sell a product that makes sense, could go for the "consortium blockchain" model (similar to Ripple): centralized but publicly viewable/checkable. The other interesting technology for banks could be to use a coloured coin on a strong blockchain (like Tether), which would be even cheaper, although they would have to pay transaction fees. I think only Bitcoin provides currently the security needed for that purpose (if someone created "Bank coins" out of thin air double-spending them, the entity owning the coin would get a lot of trouble).

I think it's the other way around: they may choose a cryptocurrency because they want to be compatible with other cryptocurrencies and their services. For example, imagine a "BankUSD" (in the spirit of Tether) which can be traded to Bitcoin via Atomic Swaps. That would be a serious rival for traditional Bitcoin exchanges.

Its not useful but people don't understand the benefits of decentralization, and the risks of centralization. But everyone is giving a try at their own crypto, Governments as well. Not that i would recommend them... In the past it used to be fashionable for companies to issue their own credit cards, so i expect them to start issuing their own cryptos as well, just because they can.

But in the end most altcoins won't survive.

no one says that ripple is a non trusted coin some but some says that ripple was a bad coin , some says ripple was not a real crypto  . anyway what the op only ask is what are the real use of crypto that is backed by banks  . ripple for example , i dont really know if what if its real purpose on why it is built but i see that ripple is still on the top 3 list  ,  so i guess ripple is only good for investment purposes and for a currency use as well due to its low fees and faster transacting time  .

Think of fiat, why do we use those? Coz they are backed by something strong enough to enforce its value, aka the government. Bankcoins are likely gonna be government-recognized and maybe even insured.

I don't think anyone can just stop banks from trying this. Once it becomes commonplace I can see the government joining in and digitizing their fiats.

That was created for a purpose, and therefore I believe it has a used.

The crypto world is so big but it will be dominated by a decentralized currency as it was the idea why bitcoin is created.
However, we cannot avoid those bankers who also like to use the blockchain system, they build their own token and that makes this market grow.
Centralized and decentralized, we are in one market now, and we will be bigger that we serve people with different interest.

If banks a looking to make there own crypto currncy and want to bitcoin to fall down it would be bad idea for them. Since they'll surly make a stable coin which can be controlled by government. But it won't defeat the bitcoin since its a decentralized which can increase where the bank currency can stable for a years

In my opinion, even though decentralized currencies are supported by banks, they cannot guarantee their security because they adopt the concept of decentralization.
A currency that is supported by the bank, maybe there will be a lot of interest because of the price stability

But if they can integrate or works together with bitcoin, then I think it will give them the power to solve the financial problem in their country. But so far, I don't see a reason for the bank backed cryptocurrency to stay with us because we already have our own banks in our wallet. We can manage our coins without having the banks because we are the banks for our own coins. Maybe in the future, when all future technology has invented, we can manage our finances without saving in the banks anymore.

yes, like jp morgan, one of them is launching its own crypto even though the observer says it is not related to the crypto character itself.
but anything will be developed with a variety of innovative ideas, because I think this is part of evolution and revolution

I do not think that banks developing its iwn Cryptocurrency is a bad thing.
I see it as a gift development that could accelerate mainstream adoption.
I see it as a plus to cryptosphere.
The only constant thing is change.

no there is none.

it is simply because of the fact that when people use banks and any other centralized service like Paypal,... they don't care about what type of technology they use. all they care about is for their money to be safe in the hands of that centralized party and them being liable in case something happened like them getting robbed,...
they don't care about cryptocurrency that is created by the bank.

when we talk about cryptocurrency and it becomes meaningful is when we add decentralization to it.

if it is for investment, as in people investing in a token that a bank creates then I don't think it is that likely to happen. maybe big guys like Warren Buffet may invest in such things but regular investors would never go for it.
but if it is for usage, then yeah why not! people are already using banks so why not use other crap that is created by them. it is like opening up another account or even as simple as upgrading your account to enable you to use that useless token of theirs!
I don't see any future for something like that when decentralized bitcoin exists though.

This could be interesting. Tether is basically the Fiat onboarding method for most Bitcoin exchanges from Bitfinex to Bittrex. If banks were to provide such a backed crypto, it'd be equivalent to providing a fiat onboarding service to Bitcoin. It can be their way to bring customers into the crypto fold by saying things like "Our safe and secure ramp to the world of cryptocurrencies gives you complete peace of mind".

This means the banks holding crypto in the name of their customers and may give a spur to custodial services being touted by Coinbase etc. The problem with such a scenario is that banks wouldn't ever want to endorse to cryptocurrencies in this way. They may play the Divide and Rule card by allowing the more centralized currencies into their fold while keeping away from BTC.

I don't think there is a reason for them to make their own.

I mean, if they will be making one, what will be its purpose right? Instead of making their own coin or cryptocurrency, I guess they will just develop the technology they have. Some say that they might make a technology that is based on the technology of Bitcoin right now which is the Blockchain. Also, if they will be having a coin, I don't think it will be decentralized.

I think you do not have to find more functions for cryptocurrencies because, even at its current state, there are so many uses that people in the market can do with it from investing, trading and storage to name a few, which all have the capacity to yield good returns. So , as for the function aspect, I donp not think we need a new use. However, I think the critical difference lies on the trust factor that people might give to a bank-backed coin. Since banks are usually trusted by the community, any product it carries can have that chance of having that same trust spread through them.

If the bank is reliable, big and legit, uses would be:

1. The bank-backed cryptocurrency would be considered legal.
2. Like shares, the cryptocurrency would either have a stable value or be volatile.
3. It would be similar to reward points that banks offer which may/may not be redeemable on other websites except for the banks own website.
4. If approved by Reserve Banks, it would be popular like PayPal.

The concept that was invented by the inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, that Bitcoin offers complete ownership without the need for ties with third parties both from the private sector and the government, is the main attraction for its users. The potential benefits that banks can use in connection with digital money may not be directly related to cryptocurrency (Bitcoin, Litecoion, Dash, etc.) itself. The advantage that may be utilized by banks is the system that runs the crypto currency itself, namely Blockchain.

Banks can put their operations on blockchain but that would be a private blockchain! They will never run a public ledger because if they did, no one will like to open accounts there. I mean why would you want everyone to know what your bank balance is?

The bank follows in the footsteps of several small players who have introduced similar digital coins tied to the dollar. A consortium of European banks has completed a similar product, Utility Settlement Coin, which allows faster bank transfers. Some crypto currency exchanges already have what is called stablecoin. :)

Ripple (XRP) is one of the Altcoin that is supported by the central bank, and I don't remember which country it belongs to, but you can find more information about it on the Internet. Also with some projects like Traxion also received support from banks from the Philippines.

Ofcourse there is a real use for bank-backed cryptocurrency,it would be easier to promote because most of the user will more likely to invest because it is back by a banked specially if its a big bank name

You can send money in every place around the world with smaller fee compare fiat.
Imagine if you have business and you can compare between fiat and crypto's fee

Also people want to put away for bank because they love decentralized paradigm

You are right what make crytp the first choice is the ability to send and receive money from any where and at any time with small fees compared to the traditional financial method where there is restrictions and high fees been charge for each transactions. But to say the bank will back any cryptocurrency that I can not say exactly what will happen in the future.

If a crypto-currency backed by bank, then will it not called centralized? I think so, I know people's will more interested is such as currency created. And one more think, if bank think to create crypto-currency then most likely they will create stable coin like fiat because of volatility. If volatility remain same then what is the benefits of backed by bank? Crypto-currency wasn't created for centralized.

in my opinion, until today, no bank covers crypto or creates crypto. however, some banks have made plans to stabilize their existence in the future when digital currencies receive huge recognition from the world.

I think banks in my country are interested in crypto, but they are still thinking about the public who are not ready to accept this technological innovation.

I have read a few number of articles about some bank accept cryptocurrency to deposit in their account. i dont know its true or not. for around me there is no use of cryptocurrency freely backup by bank. I think it takes a long time to reach that condition

Soon we will see various options for using cryptocurrencies, including banks. Therefore, it is not surprising if banks issue their centralized national cryptocurrency. About the release of their cryptocurrency talked in Sberbank of Russia. This just coincides with the recent law in Russia allowing ordinary citizens to use only the local cryptocurrency.
To such a cryptocurrency, I think, should be treated calmly. It is unlikely that it can harm the decentralized cryptocurrency, but it can draw the attention and interest of people to it.

There will always be some people that will be like us; liking crypto and believing in cryptocurrency. Bank backed will not be easy but for sure there are many people that are thinking about it. They can't just do it because the value of bitcoin and also the legalization. Somethings in bitcoin industry will not happen because of govenrment.

People like in investing of not centralized investment like i  crypto as simple as they can have a good or big incone in investing on it unlike in the legal or centralized investment like bank investment who will give you a very small amount of investment income even your investment is already invested in other big venture investment. So people will always choose where they are get a good income.

They're likely not targeting the people who actually care about decentralization anyways.

What bank-backed cryptocurrencies are in essence are just an easier way to account for the liabilities of a bank. Moving these accounts off a centralized database and onto the blockchain could result in benefits like security and reduced costs for the bank, not to mention that they can take advantage of the buzz around crypto.

Also, it's very likely that in the future banks will increasingly be utilizing blockchain technology in a centralized manner, especially in the case of backed tokens that only have their value derived from a bank's assets. These should co-exist alongside bitcoin, and have differing usage cases that don't necessarily have to conflict.

Yes, I also agree with you. The cryptocurrency created by banks is likely to be more like a stable cryptocurrency if such a centralized cryptocurrency is supported by the state and has national status. Only the centralized cryptocurrency of individual state bodies and commercial structures will create their own centralized cryptocurrency, which can bring profit to their owners. It is difficult to predict the popularity of such coins and the demand for them.

The technology that is behind bitcoin is highly efficient when compared to the traditional system that we use in the banking industry. We cannot say that there isn't any use of bank backed cryptocurrency, because already there were few banks that have adopted the technology and now it's been under use for transactions within the country. Likewise the small level of adoption when increases big can experience a big change with the bank backed cryptocurrency.

If banks issue their centralized cryptocurrency, then most likely it will be a stable coin, which will be equal to their usual national currency. Although there may be exceptions, depending on what goal the bank has set for itself.
Banks can also provide fiat cryptocurrency exchange services. From this, the cryptocurrency will not become more centralized.

some rumors say that the BANK does not want cryptocurrencies to remain because it will disrupt their business, and some more rumors say that some BANKS are developing their own cryptocurrencies. but I so sure that in the future BANK will use cryptocurrency and adopt Blockchain Technology, maybe my belief will be strengthened by the number of ICO appearances that use the BANK concept and the more stable coins appear.

I agree with mate popularity us powerful.get people.encourage, but we need to accept at this moment banks tie up.with crypto is very impoetant and uaeful because they it to convert digital currency into fiat.

an asset backed crypto currency cannot take advantage of expanding the money supply like bitcoin or other alt coins can.

As said, both exist. There are banks that are opposing bitcoin fearing that it'll slow down their business. With this a calculation is made and from that a clear data is taken stating the loss of banks in terms of transactions and the fee for the same. Moreover on the other side there are lot of financial firms work creating their own cryptocurrency. I've come across boscoin which is one such initiative and this is used for transactions within the country and for cross border transactions bitcoin is used.

Bank-backed cryptocurrency will be a stable coin which in return a centralized cryptocurrency in complete control in hands

There can be multiple uses for a bank-backed crypto-currency. For example, it will make the conversion of crypto to fiat much easier (first we need to convert the decentralized crypto to the bank crypto, and then the latter to fiat currency). Also, in case the banks support their own versions of crypto-currency, it will become difficult for them to justify the continued hostility towards the decentralized cryptos. Eventually, they may be forced to accept the existence of such currencies.

I think that banks are interested in cryptocurrency technology. It is necessary to solve only a few problems and then this technology can be applied on a planetary scale. I think that in 5-10 years blockchain and cryptocurrencies will be used everywhere!