Bitcoin Forum

A news just popped in about newly appointed Digital asset global head Matthew McDermott is interested and firm to embrace blockchain and digital assets.


In addition, he also expanding their team by hiring Oli Harris as their head of strategy. Mr. Harris is known for the launching of JPMCoin last year JPMorgan's digital asset. Seems banks are coming in. I wonder if these executions will be a threat to our precious BTCitcoin.

---

^{Not sure if this is the right thread for this topic. If Im wrong please kindly inform me or report for moving to appropriate thread.}

With this development, I would hope they would seriously consider adopting some promising projects on fintech especially on tokenized securities rather than building it from scratch.

Otherwise they would have to build it from the ground up according to their needs to achieve seamless transition. Imho.

A 'fiat digital token'? We sort of have that with the current fiat currencies, adding the blockchain technology would not really make it different from the centralized currency system.
I don't think it would be a huge threat to Bitcoin, CBDCs would eventually become more popular as more countries looks to monopolize the digital market and spread their control, but it would not satisfy the current use case of bitcoin

Not the least. At the end of the day, everything boils down to features.

First and foremost, as being mentioned, it might just be another stablecoin pegged on the USD. Secondly, it is a coin by Goldman Sachs which means it is centralized because it is owned by the powerful bank. Therefore, even if it uses the blockchain technology it is most likely just another fiat token built on a centralized blockchain.

The guy has already dabbled into making a Ethereum based coin. The coindesk article says that they are looking at a possible "Stablecoin". This is not mentioned in the original CNBC report (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/goldman-names-new-head-of-digital-assets-in-bet-that-blockchain-is-the-future-of-financial-markets.html) it refers to. A stablecoin like Tether would be an interesting space for an established investment bank to start with and allow people to use it to buy BTC and other crypto.

Apart from this, the idea from the new guy seems to be about sing DLT to replace the army of bankers, lawyers involved in international settlements and trading. There is mention of using it for credit and mortgage market too. Towards the end, they talk about consensus and standardization amongst institutions. So basically after trying to discredit bitcoin for so long, they want to get together, adopt a common cryptocurrency platform and declare to their customers and the world, "Look, we have adopted this revolutionary new technology that will change the way banking is done". Basically repeat what Bitcoiners have been saying for a decade and make it sound like its their idea. Neat.

I doubt that this will be a threat to bitcoin though, even Russian's biggest bank are also eyeing their own stable coin.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/russias-biggest-bank-hypothesizes-its-crypto-token

So we shouldn't surprised by the move coming from Goldman&Sachs. And just like any other government or banks that has it's crypto, they are simply experimenting on it. If something comes out every positive about it, then for sure those tokens are going to stay. But I'm seeing it as something that will disrupt bitcoin or the whole crypto in general. They have different purposes, and so we can exist exclusively without hurting the other market.

Chances that they'll be creating new one that will fit to how they wanted to build it,
most for their benefits for sure.
I also agree that adopting good project that already exist and use it for the intention
that  they wanted to be.
There's already lots of options, blockchain system is adoptable so there's no need to
to build from scratch.

This only means that we have 1 of the coins which can be trusted as they GS are legitimate and existing for decades and will have coin so one can invest in such coins if things look good to people. Atleast we would be away from the scam when invest early in any projects and will add 1 good coin to our list.

There are some notable stablecoins already on the crypto market yet I don't see any of them to be a real threat to BTC so far.



Well, they will have to consider all available options that will be suited according to their needs. I think maybe they could also build it from scratch and at the same time adopting some working features / technology from other projects to hasten its development.

Of course eventually major banks will join into the moving trend in other for them to ensure they feature in the future. On the concern whether they are threats to bitcoin, I don't see that happening because it means that we will have several of these banks backed coins and eventually polarised the space which would make it no difference that what we have currently that each bank operating its business looking to acquire more customers as much as they can and they continue to compete with each other and bitcoin would remain standing.

I believe there token will be a stable coin too just like JPMorgan coin since they are both involve in banking industry. It means that there is no investment opportunity on buying there coin. And I believe there token will not be a direct threat to BTC because BTC considered as investment that's why its price is continue to rise over time.

There coin might help BTC too in the future because they might pair them to BTC once regulatory guidelines were available for them to trade in BTC.

The bigger the number of assets like that being created the more legitimate bitcoin will seem on the eyes of the public and while I have no doubt that if private banks begin to create their own tokens they will be popular at the beginning at the end they are going to implement the very same disadvantages that fiat already has as such those coins are not really a threat to bitcoin and if anything the more they try to hide this fact the bigger the eventual fall will be.

I doubt any banks are seriously interested in crypto as a currency, but integrating blockchain technology into their existing ecosystems to speed up settlement of fiat transactions.  To the extent they are interested in their own crypto, I reckon it's as a surrogate of the dollar (therefore a stablecoin) which they can completely control, to make transfers instantaneous from all market participants in that ecosystem.  In that regard, it is absolutely a competitor to Bitcoin as it will seek to function in one of the areas that bitcoin currently has an advantage over banks (fast, cheap remittances and cross border payments) and it will likely be able to quickly adapt to market needs since it will be centrally controlled.  We all saw what happened when Bitcoin tried to solve the block size problem.  It took months to make any headway in the debate and in the end literally tore the community apart and the BCH splinter group was the result.  Bitcoin's only advantage at this point was being first, but it is not agile and that's its greatest weakness.

this will be stablecoin again, its usually for hedge services they will be offering for their clients. Its easy money for those companies that owns stablecoins, its the next best thing to have. its not a threat to BTC but they can absolutely use it to profit and accumulate BTC in the future.

the battle of countries was once to accumulated gold but will probably turn now to accumulating BTC. its no wonder most countries and banks today are going to create stablecoins.

If you cant beat them, then join them  :) . I remember few years ago, alot of those influential people/company has been saying negative stuff about crypto and such . Yet all of them want a piece of those cake for themselves to make money from it. We could see alot more of this skeptical people ride the crypto train in the future as well


It wont be, it will be nothing more than just a normal coin with nothing special on it except being able to use it on some purchases ( Probably )

I don't think so, centralized governments are not going to battle to accumulate decentralized bitcoins that they can't control or be a third party in, the central bank digital currency (cbdc) is different from the bitcoin, the only synonymous feature is their digital nature, the banks and the government will only support stablecoins and cbdc's that would be no different from it's fiat currency

Well it could be but there are less likely for it to have an impact to bitcoin coz it seems that bitcoin is unaffected by any events unless it is related to it like halving.


That is what probably is coming, if they are going to create an asset it will be a safe one, a less volatile or a stable one at least. I think they are going with digital assets because this is what most of the people are looking for, convenient and accessible just like any cryptocurrency, just register, deposit and buy, that's all it takes for a digital asset. This isn't a huge threat for bitcoin unless it will become tradeable in the market perhaps it won't.

They can launch their own coin but will it ever be used on a large scale.

There are coins that were trying to become centralized bank payment methods.
XRP is one of such coins but who uses XRP to pay for groceries these days? Who uses it to shop online? Nobody.
Facebook Libra was supposed to be something similar. Who uses Libra today? Nobody.

To me another bank launching its crypto is not an important piece of news.

Now that's a bubble.   ;D

Yeah, they should create their own digital assets all of them.
Goldman, JP, Vanguard, fidelity, etc..
That way we will see what is the real deal.

Is it Bitcoin or their newly created coins that came from nowhere and created for the reason of profit once again.  :D

Being mentioned, the JPMcoin isn't that popular.

But let's see if this digital asset which Goldman Sachs is trying to say will click just like the other altcoins that we have. I guess we will start to see the same era as the ICO but this time, it is going to be more of the institutions and not with any project that doesn't have a back up by a real company.

Right. Like i said in my initial comment, they are looking to have some sort of inter-institutional standards of using such stablecoins. What they are saying is that they will use the 'idea of bitcoin' and use it as their own in terms of its benefits to infrastructure as well as simplifying a lot of financial transactions and financial products.

I don't think that it will be easy for the banks to come to some form of settlement too. They will simply end up being another set of "stablecoin" with a consortium of central banks. Even then, there is zero chance that everyone will settle for the same thing. The advantage with bitcoin is that everyone agrees on it. Everyone knows that the longest chain, highest network effect, highest hash-rate and best development is with bitcoin. These are all features not easy to replicate.

GS is the perfect example of don´t listen what they say, just observe what they are doing. It was clear that as soon as they found a way to make money with crypto/blockchain they would miraculously change their opinion all of a sudden and jump the bandwagon. I´m just wondering if they are eyeing on a token for trading, for settlement or put out something with a real value

It will be hard to assume what kind of digital asset they will be implementing since they haven't issued yet any official statement about that matter yet I think they might create it as part of their business processes being integrated within a blockchain in order to become digitized and automated in the hope of reaping the benefits of this emerging technology. To be honest, I don't think creating a GS stablecoin will do more good for them. Imho.

In fact what is happening right now is bad sign for fiat currencies, it is known that when governments have such a monopoly on the creation of currency that when private institutions decide to begin to do something similar it is because fiat currencies are weak, we see this all the time when there is hyperinflation in countries and people decide to stop using their fiat currencies in favour of currencies created by banks or by other centralized institutions, the difference now is that we have bitcoin and unlike those assets bitcoin really has the potential to last for a long time.

This is just another centralized coin, as we know mostly crypto enthusiast or crypto community hates Goldman, JPMorgan or anything that related with bank and goverment. Of course we are still need a fiat to buy something in real-life, the coin from Glodman just to keep their business keep alive. We know, Bitcoin has a chance to replace fiat, they want to join in "crypto" and trying to bring unbanked or people who active in crypto using their product again.IMO.

But, even they are using a coin, if they are can produce unlimited coin for themselves and their business, the real crypto community will keep away from this asset.

AFAIK, Libra is yet to be launched by the facebook and the are facing regulation issues on most of the countries so another fiat based tokens will face the same issue if it is not going to be backed by particular fiat.And its is not really an important news because crypto investments may never consider these kind of tokens as worth to invest since its just a stable coin.

I thought the project was abandoned. They faced so much negative feedback from the government that there won't be any libra.

Zuck probably took it all personal again just like when he was roasted at that congress hearing.

From not believing, now they are all getting interested and now wants to create their own digital tokens.

Well, that’s good, it shows that the banking world is ready for advancement. And as for whether this is going to be a threat to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, well I don’t think so. People won’t be adopting bank digital tokens they are doing Bitcoin, Bitcoin will still have more rate adoption than them.

I am still yet to understand how these digital tokens of banks will work; if every banks are to create their own tokens, will it be possible to send money from your bank to a different bank, using the token that was created by your bank? I can’t tell for now.

I think they are already involved a bit, I mean they backed Circle a company that has an app which you can use to send and receive bitcoin, like a wallet of sorts, I haven't used it in years but I remember yeeeears ago they gave out 5 bucks to everyone so I got some from them. Plus Circle bought out Poloniex as well, I know they haven't been that much popular in years but we are still talking about a top notch exchange here so I assume they must be doing good business to this day even if not as much as they used to.

So, to say that Goldman Sachs is getting interested in crypto right now would be naive, they have been interested in the crypto space for years now and for a very long years, they are the earliest constitutional investment as far as I can remember.

A few years ago banks restricted buying cryptocurrencies, talked about cryptocurrencies in a negative light, but the situation changed. Banks are now in a very bad situation thanks to huge debt and the corona crisis. So the last step what they try is to use the new technology to survive, but they completely do not understand how it works.  :D ::)

My guess the digital asset will be stable and centralized. Could such a coin be a threat to bitcoin, of course not. Even if he cooperates with many great influencers to create a digital asset, it's can't be threat for bitcoin. People trust bitcoin not because of the founders behind it, but it's because of the decentralized system. And the coin that Goldman Sachs wants to make is centralized, it's not comparable

Libra is a very bad example. They showed that officially and by law, cryptocurrency cannot exist. They showed that the government will do everything possible to destroy people who trying to make an official cryptocurrency

When they create a stable coin like the others, that can be a new competitor for other stable coins. But that digital asset will not threaten bitcoin because bitcoin is the king in the cryptocurrency, and the other coins should follow bitcoin.
Maybe that can be another option for people to use stable coins so that people can have saved their assets in many stable coins.
But I don't know if that project is still running or not because I don't follow their project.
I am sure that people who know bitcoin will stick with bitcoin, and will use bitcoin as their primary asset and to make money.

   What is important for me is that they aim for crypto-currency! Will it be a stable coin, or it will be a token on exchange with
additional features it's their own, they are joining crypto-community and that's all that is matter!
   I remember they were against crypto-currencies, now they are getting in. They are not the only ones who are doing that,
soon we will see all the big ones joining and making crypto-market even bigger.

It can´t be considered as creating (printing) new form of money? And it isn´t against the law in most countries? This behavior could lead into a legal action in my opinion.  ;)

That's true the coin will be very tied up to Goldman Sachs and as a banker he wants total control of it's feature to compliment his banking operations I don't consider it a threat to Bitcoin, Ripple should be the one to be concerned because there's a probability that Goldman Sachs coin will compete with XRP shares of it's market.

The only reason we all need to rely on the longest chain to verify which bitcoin ledger is legitimate is because bitcoin is decentralized and trustless. In such a system, the only way an average user can be sure of the veracity of the ledger is to use the one that has consensus. Bitcoin has forked before but every fork that doesn't have consensus has become a separate token, and "bitcoin" continues on under the fork that has consensus about it being the "true bitcoin." This would not be required in a centralized ledger because the central authority is already trusted and isn't competing with people using the the token over which chain is legitimate. So the fact that bitcoin can't be controlled and isn't instantaneous is why banks will never adopt it in my opinion. They'll develop their own system where the only purpose will be speed of transaction because the trusted central authority is a given.

Being down on bitcoin and being down on crypto is not the same thing. Goldman is anti-bitcoin as an investment and as a currency, not anti-crypto which they can find a lot of use for, specifically in instantaneous settlement. A big bank being pro-crypto is not necessarily a bullish sign for bitcoin. In fact, the more the big banks get into crypto, likely the worse it will be for bitcoin as there will be better uses of crypto under their systems than bitcoin, especially given that bitcoin is so slow to adapt.

Slowly each and every bank and financial institutions are going to enter the blockchain and crypto market whether they come up with their own coin or provide services like buying, selling, exchanging or investing coins in both the cases it will help the crypto market and we will move towards adoption and use of crypto will become a reality in everyday life for sure.