Bitcoin Forum

There must be more banks in the world than number of cryptocurrencies

More banks = More Money
More banks can also help to keep the dollar and other currencies stable, as it is because a competition exists between banks which helps to keep the dollar or any other fiat currency stable. It will also help to keep the Bitcoin and number of other cryptocurrencies stable as in near future banks will also accept bitcoin so they would want to keep the bitcoin stable to prevent from losses. Which means that if a whale who holds thousands of bitcoins sells it to dump the market for his own benefit, may fail to disturb the market. It will also provide the security to cryptocurrency. Banks are also good for economy growth and it helps the governments to pay and collect taxes. If there will be more banks, governments would want to reduce or even remove taxes from cryptocurrencies as they can earn sufficient amount through banks to run its economy.

This is about the role of banks and which is the major purpose they were established, financial purpose. Banks are  like building or structure created by government to take and execute order from them.


How does it do that? If not to serve as store room for fiat keeping and maybe transfer to exchanges like accounts linked to exchanges and that is even provided by P2P. Is that the security you mean here, you could explain.

Banks are creating a lot of branches to give access to many people and of course to attract many so they can earn more interest of course. Those banks are being in favored by the government because they are paying taxes while cryptomarket, not all are paying taxes.

Banks on the other hand doesn’t provide security to cryptocurrency because it is not regulated, and banks hate bitcoin. If time applies, Cryptocurrency will grow more compare to banks we need this market and government will slowly realize this.

Based on estimates, there are around 32 thousand banks around the world, I don't know if it is accurate. Also, more banks doesn't necessarily means that the prices are stable for fiat currency since banks role is to circulate the money back to the economy.

You need to define the word more banks there are central banks, financing banks, the World Bank, commercial banks and other banking services.
Not all banks print money and make more money some of them work to implement state policies in controlling cash and redistributing money to investors and others.

The idea of banks is based on trust in a third party, and it has proven its failure in the event that governments weaken their supervision of these banks and put some regulatory restrictions in place.

we don't need All cryptocurrency and 99% of Altcoins will have 0 value or will act as stocks.

we only need bitcoin.

If I quote from the main objective of the Bank, it has no impact at all in this case, crypto.
Precisely if it is examined more deeply the main objective of the Bank.


Precisely here it will form a profit for the Bank itself, in the transaction.

---

I think this has no effect on a few cryptocurrencies or a lot of banks in this world.
As we know that for now crypto currencies are traded with dollars and fiat in their respective countries.

Few banks or many crypto currencies, or vice versa, the process is the same, still measured by the supply of dollar / fiat in circulation that has been determined by the government.

For me more crypto currency is better, more rounds per transaction per day, in general the bank is more profitable, less bank is better.

This is actually one of the best topics I’d participated in today. I really like your idea about banks accepting bitcoins. But something doesn’t match here. Something’s wrong.

So here, let me point this. There is a lot of chance that banks will accept Bitcoin. According to studies, there is a 30% chance that banks will consider bitcoin in the next 10 years. And this percentage is enough.

However, if that happens things will change as we want them to be.

Bitcoin might be stable, stable enough for it to be forced to be centralized and regulated. During that time, all of the transactions must follow the anti-money laundering act and that’s a pain in the ass, I swear. So we would better stick with what we have now and take advantage of it until it lasts.

right, the number of banks is very large in this world, so far there are more than 30000+ banks in circulation throughout the world.

https://i.imgur.com/osAb8sR.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_banks

Banks in each country have a role in the circulation of money in their own country and do not act globally except for the World Bank.  create more Banks won't make the economy better, it will only add to the rampant “loan sharks”.

Banks always serve as the backing system of a country's economy. More the banks, easier will be the accessibility. Even now there are more than 15% of the world population doesn't own a bank account. Transition is part of development/growth. As a result people think to have control over their own funds. This is the reason why there is more discussion of having bitcoin based banks than fiat based banks. The future isn't fiat based or cryptocurrency based, there is coexistence of service.

If you minus the many branches each bank has I don't think the actual bank are as much as the number of different projects we have in the market, and until banks start accepting crypto I don't see how creating of more banks can help crypto, at least not now, between it is market that determine price not banks, even if they were to be part of crypto I doubt they can keep it stable, I don't think the market behaves that way, there must be correction for a healthy market.

and so far we are looking forward to how the bank accepts bitcoins gracefully? I still don't understand, maybe I'm not too sensitive about the position of the bank. what is clear is that I like cryptocurrency and make it a top priority.

Why would you desire that there should be more banks in the world than the number of cryptocurrencies. Banks are not in favor of cryptocurrencies and won't provide any form of security to cryptocurrencies. This is actually because bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies where created to take power of the banks and the government and give that power to the masses.
The essence of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a whole is to live without the banks because a bitcoin user would be his own bank. He wouldn't need the banks to make transactions, his transactions fees would be determined by him and not the bank. I hope you get the idea now.

You are really right, because, first of all, the banking system offers certain services, and it does not matter in what currency certain transactions take place. Therefore, banks will really be able to use not only Fiat, but also bitcoins, of course, if the state creates certain regulatory rules, because no bank will act differently.

it is true, but not all banks reject crypto, you also have to know and should not forget where like USAA bank, Banco Masventas in Argentina (May 22, 2018), German digital bank (Fidor Bank) etc., they just provide access to cryptocurrency. even with the limited number of transactions, it still proves that gradually the bank will comply and follow the bitcoin flow.

The reason there are quite a lot of users on the Bitcoin network is cause of the "be your own bank" anxiom, I think that factor already makes it somewhat improbable for banks to adopt Bitcoin, banks are centralized bodies and the only connection they have with Bitcoin is through centralized exchanges, where one can buy BTC with their debit card and receive fiat in their bank account after selling, but all that is possible cause the exchange is a centralized one and is still somewhat controlled by the country of it's location. But in the 'true' definition of Bitcoin, the presence of banks is an impossibility cause third parties have already been eliminated, with freedom and control in the hands of it's users.
This is not true, building more banks imo doesn't automatically mean there'll be more flow of money in the country or better economic growth, remember that people need to first make money before they can use banks, thus it's things like creating more job opportunities, building infrastructures, supporting microeconomics, etc that causes more cash flow within a country, better economy and even the use/needs of more banks.

More banks is not equal to more money !
It would not help anyway in stability!
It would be more chaotic!
There will be many centres of money distribution which would mean it would be extremely hard to control and therefore it also would not be able to provide a stable economic situation causing the whole system to collapse.
•
Let me ask you something- " Why do you need banks ?"
Aren't the ones available already sufficient?
Isn't this all already a good sport ?
Get a bank account which supports the transactions to and fro with respect to cryptocurrencies and guess what! You won't have to actually worry much since how a days your crypto wallet is more than capable of handling just buying and selling of cryptos.
•
A stable amount of banks are needed but never in excess! Maybe the existing situation of the banks can be improved for real but adding more and not focusing on the situation would have a drastic impact.

"There must be more banks in the world than number of cryptocurrencies"

That sentence is utter garbage and shows a clear lack of understanding of how the business world works. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency, anyone can create a million cryptocurrencies if they wanted. Nobody would necessarily buy them but you could create that many if you could create enough garbage names for them. Except for central banks, the majority of banks are companies and over decades the amount of actual banks has greatly shrunk - there used to be many more. However they run on a low margin and highly competitive business model which is normally restricted to lending out deposits that customers make. If they are properly regulated and governed with sensible leverage rates this becomes a stable business that might wobble a bit in recessions.

This is like comparing apples to perhaps fishes, not even related.

Source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies)

Suppose you want to make a monetary policy case, you should use central banks since commercial banks cannot make more money (or controlled by central banks). My bet is it will still be much lower (search result said about 200) than the number of cryptocurrencies. It explains why most cryptocurrencies were worthless.

I disagree, banks aren't just financial institutions that holds of secures someone's money, they also do some fish stuffs, like printing money, holding reserves (thus giving them so much control over people's money) and it aids the government to control people's wealth by using people's savings in evil goals by the government. Banks generally are an enemy to humanity!

I don't think this is necessarily true because not every bank can print money. It is usually the role of the central bank to print money. So a traditional bank has only more money at hand if more customers are saving money at the bank. In my opinion, having more banks is only a good thing if they offer different services. Like having a special bank for crypto currencies, one for real estate, one for traditional savings, one for investment banking, etc. If all the banks would just offer the same type of services and products that it seems a bit redundant to me. There would be a lot of chances to save costs in mergers.

Where did the idea that more banks would equal to more stable currency? Everything in that message is wrong, every single detail is wrong, I have never seen someone be this wrong this much back to back. Sure banks could start accepting bitcoin (which already happened in Germany) but that doesn't mean it will neither help bitcoin to be more accessible nor does it mean it will equal to economical growth and help us neither.

This is a bad idea, more banks means more places that will need more profits which would mean they will charge more people and that would result with a lot worse things for poor people. Banks have regulations as well, they can't just suddenly give loans with zero interest rate or give savings accounts with 50% interest to you, competition doesn't make it "that" much better because of regulations. So long story short this doesn't work at all.

Even there's no need to compare them, but what really makes the bank looks many is only their branches, the bigger they are the more branches they have as well some branches operates only in rural areas, unlike in crypto that we can buy any coins we can't have many banks account it's better to compare in stocks than in banks which may not all accept crypto even in near future.

The stability of bitcoin does not have any connection to the banks at all. I doubt that the bank eases the fluctuation on things they have no control. Even the government, one of the most powerful state, are struggling in finding ways to seize bitcoin. Unfortunately, bitcoin is created for freedom, liberty, and decentralization where buyers, sellers, and investors decide its price.

In relation to security, bitcoin is designed for a person to become his own bank. But in a world where people have already forgotten how to control their property, providing storage services is a good idea. If banks open that kind of service, many people will register without hesitation. They will leave their responsibility to the banks and let them have all the private information.

Tax is obligatory. Your country needs your money to develop and build infrastructure/facilities for further innovation. Thus, if you have made quite good money with cryptocurrency, try to think about contributions. The financial world is not only about bitcoin. Many aspects are in need of investment

I also do not quite agree with the author's ideas, but in theory, a larger number of players in the banking market, due to market competition, can contribute to greater stability in the value of the money issued on credit and, ultimately, greater stability of the currency. All this, of course, does not always work, and the market mechanisms do not always work properly, and this is exactly what the regulatory authorities are for. In general, theory does not always coincide with practice, but it is not necessary to say on the basis of this that the theory does not work at all.

May be possible or may not be possible! But why does it matter anyway?


What a joke! What made you think that more banks will make more money for the government. Commercial banks do not control the money supply. Please note that! The money supply is controlled by the central banks if each country and no one else does that! So more banks don't mean more money and has no relation with government taxes!

More banks doesn't necessarily mean more money. It doesn't work just like that. Banks are not built for the sole reason of printing money. It is inteded to acquire money to lend it for corporations, to get high interest rate. Then later on, the depositors will receive their part, however, it has lower rates. Well, that's how business works though.

In addition, it isn't so shocking that the cryptocurrencies are higher in numbers than  banks. Because anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, however it isn't guaranteed that everyone would patronize the said coin.

Banks aren't also that friendly to cryptocurrencies which makes me rethink your enthusiasm about it. There are very few banks accepting cryptoccurencies because of the latter's nature - unregulated. Which is the exact opposite of banks which is centralized. I just hope that sometime in the future, banks would be more open in accepting crypto without altering or ruining its nature or how it originally works.

For the first part, how exactly is it a business? If let's say I put one million dollars in bank and promises me to pay $100k after a year (10% fixed interest) and they then lend this money to a corporation and charges them 20% ($200k) and from this $200k, the bank gives the person 10% ($100k) but keeps for itself $100k without doing any work! In addition, the corporations/companies which pay back the bank with their loan, they will automatically rise the prices of their commodities or services so that they remain profit even after paying such high interest to bank, so automatically the prices of goods and services increases and the person who is happy on getting the $100k as interest is a fool because his earned interest will be eaten because the prices of the goods and services have already increased ;D isn't it right? Or am I missing something?!

I think that this statement + banks = + money, is not such a correct statement, seeing it from the economic point of view it is different, because it would make a greater printing of money, which causes more inflation, the competition between banks is good, but the Competing services is not equal to the circulation of money.

  In crypto it is different, if you have more Bitcoin if it applies that it will represent + money, but banks are very difficult for them to increase the economy, besides that nobody likes a third party to tell them when to move their money and under conditions, such as banks currently. In banks the only way that you have more money is that they earn interest and offer plans to investors or holders of fiat money, but currently it is very difficult, people prefer to have their money in Real Estate, gold and some in Crypto.

Numbers are just a number especially if those banks are not competitive enough to meet the needs of the clients. Number of banks can’t guarantee the quality of their services, cryptocurrency might be few in numbers but we can tell that Crypto are doing their best to offer the best system at a very cheap cost, unlike with the banks if you don’t have the requirements you can’t access their platform. More banks is not more money to the ordinary people, it can be a burden of dealing with a poor system.

Quality over quantity. The existence of nunerous banks and financial institutions proved futile to the rate at which bitcoin and cryptocurrencies become more valuable. So it doesn't always guarantee that if we were to get more banks, circulation will commence thus saving the dollar. What needs to be done is to limit the printing, and commence circulation in other ways, that is the only thing that can save USD from utter destruction.

The new banks generation already exists: crypto banks.
They don't use this title, but it's actually what they are by looking the services they offer. They replace traditional banks with excellency and the best part is that they deal with crypto currencies. You can borrow money in different currencies, you can lend money and earn interest, you can order your debit/credit card with cashback feature (so far banks around me never offered this feature).

These sites are just starting, but they are the future of banking system for sure.

Of course, there must be more banks in the world than cryptocurrencies. Banks have been here for quite a while. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, have just started to rise in number recently. Many of which have already been abandoned for lack of success or support. Banks are a business so they are expected to multiply. Cryptocurrency is not.

More banks does not mean more money. Well, more money for those who are running the banks, of course, but not money for the people. Banks are money-making tools for the elite. But it does not help much the ordinary people which comprise the majority of the population.

Banks is part of the different country that support their currency and of course, the cryptocurrency is not too much widely develop mostly on the different countries. Mostly now there are country accepting the use of cryptocurrency with the use of the ATM and the payment too.

Banks is part of their business this requires on their country because the country itself gets a benefit but the cryptocurrency does not apply to this.

1.The quantity of the banks doesn't matter.
2.Banks have nothing to do with the stability of fiat money.Fiat money are stable,because they are a legal tender and their supply is still limited(despite the massive money printing).
3.Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are created as an alternative to the banking system.
4.Banks are crucial for every economy,because every business needs loans,in order to survive and grow.
Why are you making a comparison between the amount of banks and the number of cryptocurrencies?
Such comparison is totally pointless.

The number of banks are low, because there are a lot of regulatory requirements if someone want to open a new bank. On the other hand, if someone want to create a new cryptocurrency, all he needs is a decent internet connection, a plagiarized white paper and a website. There is no regulation and the promoter can create as many coins or tokens as he want. And this is one of the reasons why we have so many cryptocurrencies in existence (10,000 to 15,000).

That's not how banks work, you know that right? Even though there may be many "commercial" banks, there are few central banks. The commercial banks cannot make money. So more banks doesn't mean more money. Even more central banks, doesn't mean more more. Those reserve banks work together to make monetary policies and if they print money, they do it in such a way that it won't cause much damage to the economy. Having a lot of commercial banks also doesn't mean that it might be able to stabilize the currency or cause economic growth. In fact too much competition is unhealthy, and since all banks are regulated by the central banks, this means that the commercial banks won't be able to compete with each other and will have to set almost same policies  (like interest) causing many new banks to have little to no customers at all,

You are saying a perfect thing here mate, I will really feel for those that fall in this shit trap, the ignorant that had refuse to understand Bitcoin and her purpose towards been to be anti-governmental, imagine debiting random amount of Bitcoin as bills monthly, isn't it outrageous and looks like choosing to leave a poor lifestyles?.

We aren't stealing the usage of cryptocurrency, the bitcoin we have today wasn't stolen, if the bank start adopting bitcoin today then your non-custodial wallet remain yours, and so the government can't destroy it or regulate your coins(money) and but then you represent your own bank. This can only affect those that follows the government storage of Bitcoin while having a serious monthly debits as tax in bitcoin, that's insane.

I don't agree with many banks, meaning that there is more money in circulation, because not all banks can print money. However, it is the government
that determines the amount of money in circulation. Many banks only create competition between one bank and another. They will compete to provide
the best service to society, only banks that are widely used by people will survive. So many banks do have a good effect on society. It is a pity that
the number of banks that accept cryptocurrency is still very few, if all banks in the world can accept cryptocurrency so much better in my opinion.

Depends on what you define as Bank. A Crypto Bank that is based on the principles/ideals of True Cryptocurrency could be created and licensed to operate if it meet the basic standards that are Just and good for society/people.
Would be great if such banks operate more like certain crypto wallets operate, in ways that allow their customers to control their private keys/funds and just services the customers transactions. Governments will still be able to collect their taxes in this manner.  The users just run their nodes and use the crypto banks for certain transactions, when necessary.

In regards to Bitcoin/crypto stability, I think it needs to be resistant to inflation and devaluation of customers funds






* By the way, I believe advanced smart-contract could enable such bank (crypto bank) access users funds anytime(maybe for investment purposes) , based on list of fair conditions users can accept or/and reject whenever they want. Users should still be able to use the crypto bank services whether they accept or reject the conditions.

If there should even be more banks I don’t see much that they are going to be doing for the cryptocurrency market. Yes banks do manage finance, but look at cryptocurrency, it is not like the normal finance (fiat), this one is something else and it is decentralized. More banks wouldn’t do more than what exchanges are doing now, they are just going to be like another exchange, because what they will be doing is to help in exchanging fiat and cryptocurrency and taking their fees from it, and I don’t see any much.

As for the security of your cryptocurrency assets, it’s still going to rely on you and not on the bank, it’s not like your bank account that is managed by the bank, no it is not managed by anyone and that’s it, so you will still be in charge of your security, although if you’re going to be making use of an online wallet that is run and controlled by the bank, then your safety is on them, but even at that, banks are regularly being hacked and in the case of cryptocurrency it’s going to be totally different what we see in fiat that can easily be traced banks.

Why do you think that banks will accept Bitcoin in the nearest future? As far as I know, the banks are being careful for now, it is risky to accept something that volatile if the turnover isn't high enough. They declare that it's a possibility in the future when the demand is high enough. For instance, recently Daniel Pinto, the co-president of JPMorgan stated And other banks aren't in a rush towards Bitcoin adoption either. Though, maybe Goldman Sachs will be the first one to take a step forward.