Bitcoin Forum

The stock of Silicon Valley Bank, one of the biggest banks in the US collapsed to 65% before trading was halted. This is the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.
The bank's parent failed to get a buyer making the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation close Silicon Valley Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Customers were scared and began to pull out their funds to avoid unforeseen circumstances.

Economists are warning that the fall of SIVB might spread and have a bad effect on the entire banking sector. The shares of many banks in the US and Europe dropped because of this incident.  According to Reuter U.S. banks have lost over $100 billion stock market value in two days, with European banks losing around another $50 billion in value.

I have always seen bad news about the cryptocurrency industry making headlines in national and international newspapers. The government and bankers criticize the industry and portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world. SVB recorded six straight quarterly losses, why didn't these financial gurus fix the bank? Yet they claim to be the only solution.




https://www.investors.com/news/silicon-valley-bank-liquidity-crisis-sends-shockwaves-through-financial-industry/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-bank-stocks-add-losses-regulators-shutter-svb-financial-2023-03-10/

Because it really isn't the job of the economists or 'gurus' to prevent a certain bank from going insolvent — it's the CEO, the team in general, and the board of directors' jobs.

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

I'm going to argue that they do have the knowledge and experience — until they get too greedy and try to maximize revenues of the company. Greed is that one thing that can royally fuck someone up regardless of knowledge/experience, and no one is 100% safe from it. Hence, bitcoin > banks.

That's some sad news for crypto market. As market is in red mode now maybe this is one of the reason but single bank's failure should not effect the whole banking and finance system either its fintech. no oubt fuds spread out to manipulate alt to make quick money. but i think this incident might have open the eye of mentioned gurus. and they might come to a point accepting btc and blockchain. But until then no doubt both sectors have there own pros and cons with limitations that we are being solved over time and will improvise. but If experts of both sectors come to an agreement that could benefit both than the time of improvising might decrease and payment system might streamline more efficiently. Well i am amazed with the mentality of people who portray banks as only remedy while bank is the one that losses "$100 billion stock market value in two days" haaha. well i think they just ignored that. and will try to find ways to make crypto dirty but literate people know the difference and understand who is responsible for these crisis.

i must say, gurus and expert of finance are only hire by banks to make there decisions more stable and accurate but it does not mean that they will be hundred percent accurate. so i must say they are humans too and can make mistakes by misjudging the potential of cryptocurrency and there own banking system.

source (https://www.investors.com/news/silicon-valley-bank-liquidity-crisis-sends-shockwaves-through-financial-industry/#:~:text=CNBC%20reported%20the%20company%20sought%20a%20buyer%20after%20being%20unable%20to%20raise%20capital%20in%20a%20Thursday%20offering.%20However%2C%20deposit%20outflows%20are%20outpacing%20the%20sales%20process%20as%20customers%20race%20to%20withdraw%20funds%2C%20making%20it%20difficult%20for%20buyers%20to%20value%20the%20bank%20and%20making%20any%20potential%20deal%20less%20attractive.)

The real question is what causes these investors or peoples to withdraw there money. like if we take example of ftt then there were fuds all over the internet and we can easily find that out things are crystal clear to understand. but here what caused this hyper shrinking deposit. well that might be the good question. Well if people in crypto trust the infrastructure that much and even in any condition they stand along it by not withdrawing assets/btc from exchanges to fiat. Well the transactional data also helps crypto analysist to mark down the outflow of assets from crypto exchanges to fiat which also act as indicator to make future decision of either holding or holding with patience. But in banking system there is not transactional outflow data provided unless authorities with permissions make it public.

People might not yet realize it, but this is the start of the contagion. Prepare for the dominoes to begin falling around the globe. Prepare for bank closures, prepare for large amounts of money being injected into the money system to bail-out the larger "too big to fail" banks, prepare for rocket-high inflation and prepare for a harder way of life. This is a monumental event and marks the start of the next global financial crisis. If you aren't prepared, get prepared. If you don't hold Bitcoin, it's not too late to start holding some as a safeguard. These things don't happen in an instant but they sure do happen quickly. I give it 3-12 months before things start to go severely belly up...I wonder how they are going to deal with it this time. My presumption? Expedite CBDC's, ban cash, and eventually mint the sh*t out of it until confidence in the US dollar runs out and becomes worthless.

What's funny is that, on their twitter account, just 4 days ago, SVB twitted that they are


And now what?

- https://twitter.com/SVB_Financial/status/1632818336391213059?t=E3JtoDRGK_HgGo613tHVAA&s=19

It's terrible to see another collapse, they're all connected. There goes the Silvergate bank, this SVB and as in almost all markets have come to this despite that we've been experiencing collapse since last year. But on this particular thing with SVB, I am feeling bad for those start ups that have been reliant to them because they're the major source of those seed and crowd funding of many start ups and that's why the collapse has connection to many retail, start up and tech companies.

Wow, that's got to affect the tech companies a lot. I suppose many probably had insurance and will get their money, and those that weren't will allegedly get some compensation as well, but this really shows, once again, that bankruptcy is a real risk, and keeping your money in a bank means giving it away and hoping it will be kept safely for you without any guarantees that this will be the case. I hope the bank had plenty of assets and the clients will be adequately compensated.
But yes, such cases should motivate people to see the benefit of Bitcoin and being able to use a non-custodial wallet.

When it comes to investment the human factor will always come to play which involves FEAR, when ever you see people panicking over their investment their must have been a negative news that triggered the Fear making people to either their funds or sell off shares. This is the same case with cryptocurrency, when their is a particular FUD, you see the market going down immediately.
My major interest is why most economic crash comes from the USA, yes I know they are among the world powers but why does it look like they control the world Economically, they drag everyone down when an action emenates from them.

It's nothing new that banks try to antagonize crypto due to their opposite aspects and service they provide. They make themselves look good coz, how else could their users trust them if they don't even themselves and their service?

The fall of SVB is unprecendented since they're one of the pioneers in crypto industry correlated to their infamous connection to web related developments. For sure there're so many experts here when it comes to financial analysis and economy, so I'll just read what interesting opinions you could offer to the table.

Right now the market is not even stabilized and there still a big chance that it'll fall down or maybe up, but one thing is for sure and there would be people taking advantage on this ruckus.

The bankers will advertise their companies. The government will advertise the central bank (or treasury) and their own currency. What you expect, really?

[1] Is fiat that good? Then why is there inflation?
[2] Are central banks that good? A company having only one product (fiat) and (by point 1) seeing that their only product is not so great, I will say no.
[3] Are commercial banks that good? Well, the fact some go bankrupt tells they're far from that.
[4] Is crypto perfect? Nope, but it's a pretty good alternative. It would be much better if those with businesses built around fiat would give crypto a fair chance, but reality is usually not so fair.

SVB wasn't even mismanaged. I doubt when this gets reviewed there would be any legal finding of misconduct unlike with FTX.

SVB had banked on U.S. treasury bonds for a sizeable chunk of their portfolio and were ripped when the federal reserve starting raising interest rates. They started trying to raise capital desperately and it caused a panic and everyone ran to withdraw their balances simultaneously. The fact is that this type of situation can happen to literally any bank if every customer decides to withdraw their cash. If the banking institution isn't to secure emergency funding, within a day the entire institution collapses.


Interestingly enough, the Chief Administrative Officer of SVB was also an exec member for Lehman Brothers before it collapsed. He now has two blunders under his resume.

First of all silicon valley bank was not one of the biggest banks in the world, definitely not biggest in the nation neither, there are ones with trillions of dollars in it. Secondly, this is basically because they were forced to pay more and that did not existed in forms of profit so they were losing money left and right.

If you tell a bank with 1 trillion dollars in it, to give 5% to the customers, that means 50 billion dollars, if they can't make that profit and make only 30 billion in revenue, then they just effectively lost 20 billion dollars, consider the operational cost of running that bank must be at least another 10-20 billion and you have yourself a bankrupted one.

It may well be that the purpose of the grand banking scam we are witnessing is to reduce the total number of banks around the world. The fewer conventional - private - banks, the greater the role of state banks. Perhaps the state has decided to take back the leading role?

Basic and fundamental principles can adequately describe reasons behind most banks failing.

1.  Many financial institutions rely upon a forecast of steady growth to maintain viability of their business model. This is similar to the US real estate industry prior to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. Many real estate firms created higher risk business models based on consistent growth. In the expectation that the market would never decline. This led to big crashes in real estate when an unexpected downturn occurred.

2.  Risk and reward are fundamentally correlated in finance. This leads to financial institutions in sectors which are historically deemed "safe" accruing larger amounts of risk in an effort to generate higher potential rewards. Banking is considered a "safe" industry. Which often leads to many banks taking on greater amounts of risk, in an effort to generate greater profits. This approach over time, if left unchecked, can lead to instability and unsustainability.

3.  Recession, inflation and economic downturn often produce spectacular crashes. Many businesses and financial enterprise would forecast only a 0.02% chance of economic contraction occurring. Which would leave many unprepared in the event that it occurs.

I see banks like the stoke market and the regular market that anything cam happen to. We need to understand that banks are not just there because they have the power. They are holding our funds so if we decide to remove all our funds then the bank is going to collapse just like the silicon valley that had lasted for more than 40 years in existence.

They let the volatility hit the customers and not the CEO's, the difference in bitcoin is that it goes down the same for everyone and goes up the same for everyone. You may not be the richest person in the world, or you could be Elon Musk, in the end if bitcoin goes down %10 then it goes down the same for everyone. I guarantee you that these bankers who lost the money of so many, and even caused trouble for nearly a billion people total, will not get the right punishment, it is going to be chalked to just "bad management" and moved on. That is why it will be repeated time and time after again since the punishment is non existent.

These bank failures seem to be very nicely timed for the rollout of CBDCs. I suspect if this is the case most countries that are doing CBDCs will not want to have too many of other countries' CBDCs because that country will be able to easily manipulate them thus creating a redemption risk.  I can see this forcing them to resort to falling back on BitCoin instead.  FYSA it will be legal for banks to start holding crypto on their balance sheets starting in Jan 2025.  

yes I guess because they always think they are right, and what they have planted for so long has slowly started to fade since the advent of crypto. it only took a few years for crypto to have developed so far, maybe it's still vague, but more clearly, maybe in the future crypto will develop even more rapidly.
bank always againts crypto because they cant control it, so that will be different if they have control to it.

Yes, it was a huge blow to the EU banks, most banks lost 10-15% in hours. It's incredible how fast information spreads nowadays. And it's shocking how fast people are withdrawing their funds from the bank account in case of such emergency. Let's just hope domino effect doesn't start... ;D

There will be some economist and financial advisors are talking about this somewhere but it didn't get enough buzz when something hit the cryptocurrencies which itself shows how boring the traditional stock market investment for the new generation investors. Mamy banks failed after covid but this isn't just another bank so it should be debated by the people who said banks are safe choice over their own custody.

https://i.imgur.com/A4vD0sN.jpg

I guess the problems for the European banks turned out much more serious than initially thought. Credit Suisse, second biggest Swiss bank (after UBS) is tanking after the news  that there will be no help from their investor Saudi National Bank.

Despite the fact that the leaders of Silicon Valley Bank are reputable people in the banking industry, they made a number of serious mistakes in managing banking risks. 

As far as I know, the risk manager left this bank a few months ago.  This woman, probably, perfectly understood what kind of crisis the bank was in. 

However, the bank's management completely ignored the fact of dismissal and did not even begin to take a new risk manager in her place.  This vacancy remains unfilled. 

That is, the bank's management decided not to pay attention to the fact that the financial situation of the credit institution is deteriorating. 

That is, the bankruptcy of this bank is a combination of several factors - the negligence and dishonesty of the bank's management, as well as imperfect procedures for assessing the assets of credit institutions (in particular, very strange rules for the revaluation of securities, the application of which led the bank to disaster).

One other reason is that there are banks who are not focusing on just making a profit but growing instead. By that I mean that they could end up with a loss, and that would be terrible as a business of course because why lose money when the whole aim of a company is to profit, but they aim at a bigger profit later on in their future so they make a loss today to make a bigger profit later.

And this doesn't always work and they make bad decisions and not only they lose money now, but they don't earn anything in the future as well. This was one of the reasons for Silvergate and SVB as well, because they made terrible business decisions with their investments.

First, it is nice that issues like Silicon Valley Bank happened so that people will know that the only to be safe is through decentralization and being their own bank which is exactly the path led by Satoshi but what I hate about the issue is some US government official that blames the SVB collapse on cryptocurrency whereas the person to blame is the  CEO, and all the team involving.
I read that the SEC is looking into the issue and I believe it will be the exact thing that causes the FTX collapse.

There are certain banks that are failing, not because they are necessarily insolvent, but more to do with the fact that they were heavily weighted in certain assets. Both in the companies that they supported (risky cryptocurrency or start-ups) but also in the way they stored money. What would normally have been seen as highly safe and responsible, owning US treasury bonds, actually turned out to be a rather bad idea in this case. As they locked up money in assets that were paying 1.35%, however if they had that same cash available now they could get treasuries paying 4%+ and nobody wants to buy those older long-maturity bonds from them when rates are so good directly purchasing shorter debt issues from the government.

They got greedy and yea, they were unlucky too. They shouldn't have invested such large amount of customers funds in a long term investment without thinking about the repercussions if things went south, and I believe they thought about it but they went ahead with it anyway. When the federal reserve started raising interest rates they panicked and got desperate as you said so that led to the panicking of the public. SVB would have been okay eventually if people did not panic but you can't blame the public for panicking because what normal human wouldn't panic when the bank is panicking?

There's the latest news about Credit Suisse, aren't they now the biggest falloff this season?

Although we don't wish for this to happen to the innocent investors and people that are trusting them. But it's giving shed light on what you've said about these people that this can be the reason why there have been projects that are going against centralization in the world of finance.
And this will open the idea to them that the cryptocurrency that they've been accusing of fraud and giving bad impression to many is the one that can be the best option right now which is bitcoin.

One reason was that according to the tinfoil hat men, the government is forcing people to use CBDC and wants crypto to fail.

If they fail, they won't let bank runs going to be publicly announced by the media and then those banks such as SVB and Silvergate were bought by bigger banks that have close connections to the government such as JPM.

After 14 years of the existence of Bitcoin, we can't actually say they didn't know or be aware of the benefit introduced by Bitcoin but the general public has a very poor understanding of Bitcoin and how it is the most essential factor. Everything they believe in is the negative statement said about Bitcoin by the world leader who totally doesn't like the idea of power shifting to decentralization.
Until the general public understands the best alternative to deal with the collateral damage caused by the government economy and management practice is decentralization people will still be the victim of issues like this and I like the Bitcoiner the put the bus with the words "Be your own bank" at the doorstep SVB.

They never had any solution and if the world noticed they would have known that the institutions are subject to corruption due to their centralized ways of operation.
Nevertheless, the Simpsons appear to have already known that the SIVB collapse will happen because they already had a movie for it before the SIVB happened just like they once predicted Bitcoin

After all, no matter how talented they are, they are human and will make mistakes from time to time. Why don't you hypothesize that the collapse of these banks will benefit other banks, their competitors? When a big man falls, there will always be another big man to take his place, and that is competition.
Another thing is, why do we care what they say about crypto? They are working for centralized companies, they are lashing out, smearing cryptocurrency, decentralized, also part of their job, they are defending their interests. Like us, crypto investors, and to protect it, we also spread bad news about banks. They and we are the same.

There are many interesting comments when we start scrolling down. This is hilarious what they are doing and how this is passing from year to year.


The Emperor's New Clothes - Official Trailer I HD I IFC Films (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd2RSpFIwp0)

I guess that the board of directors always gets big bonuses at the end of the year, it doesn't matter if they did a good job or if they made some royal mess with big losses.

It must be admitted that the presence of cryptocurrencies is a serious threat to banks, banks can survive because of full guarantees from the government, if there is no regulation to protect it, it is certain that banks will not be able to compete with cryptocurrencies, moreover, sometimes banks are too easy to block accounts so the presence of crypto is a perfect solution. great for storing assets.

It is clear that fiat currency and banks will soon face their doom day,and this will have great effect on the world economy. Fiat is becoming worthless gradually and banks are shutting down because they couldn't understand that old things are passing away because they can't resist the present challenge that the world is facing,which in high rate of inflation. Bitcoin was designed to face the present world economy challenges and to overcome it. So many criticism by banks on bitcoin and crptocurrency at large but right now bitcoin is excelling and banks are packing up their bags.

People have no trust on banks anymore for the safety of their funds. I guess they might have started seeing bitcoin as an alternative.

Financial gurus don't understand how to tackle the present economy challenges but claim that they know everything. Moreover mismanagement of public funds can also lead to the crash of SVB,who knows.

Currently the Bank has faced challenges and failures in recent years including increased competition from fintech startups, low interest rates, and regulatory pressures. These factors have depressed the bank's profitability, leading to several failures and mergers. Despite this, it is acknowledged or not that banks still play an important role in the global financial system, providing essential services such as lending, payments, and risk management. While cryptocurrencies offer new possibilities for innovation and decentralization of finance, they also come with their own set of risks and challenges.

I think Not all banks fail why is that nowadays banks have adapted and thrived in the changing financial landscape in order to provide valuable services to their customers. For example, some banks have invested in fintech startups and developed their own digital solutions to compete with technology new.

Not only because the government can survive in every country, but also because many users or customers open bank accounts and save their money there (the bank). Because if the customer doesn't have any bank, it won't develop rapidly in the country even though they are protected by the state government.

Cryptocurrency is a bank competitor that is very clear now that banks also need to develop their system in a better direction so that customers want to survive and continue to grow by showing more conveniences that are available to them at this time. Because there are still very many cryptocurrency users who use banks when they need cash withdrawals.

I think, simply because it is just a tool of the government to run the monetary policy of the country. As a tool it will not be perfect and vulnerable under the influence conditions, only if this set of effects cannot be filled by continued money printing to control. Bank failure as a fact will have to happen when that time comes.

There are many cases of bank failures, of course, because banks do not develop techniques, they are only busy looking for profit and do not care about security issues, in my country there are frequent cases of theft of customer money and thieves can find out and do things that are not fair, so this makes many users worry .

To be fair to these banks and whoever running them, I don't think they "portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world." Are they saying that?

Even if they say so, don't think that they actually know everything. They may appear as if they know it all, but no, they cannot foresee everything. They even failed to assure and pacify their depositors and prevent a bank run. They even failed to keep themselves solvent.

As a matter of fact, the collapse of centralized crypto companies like FTX is almost similar to the collapse of these traditional banking institutions. They may heavily criticize crypto companies and yet they also failed due to irresponsibility resulting to insolvency, lack of foresight, wrong predictions, false assumptions, greed, overconfidence, and others.

Plus, the long term treasury bonds that they were holding which gave very little return whereas because of the FED rate spike they were forced to give so much back to people who had accounts there. Think about it this way, when you are the second biggest bank in the nation, that means tens of billions of dollars, which means that 2% to 5% difference would be as much as billions as well, which bank could survive something like that?

They weren't capable of predicting how the nation will go, and because of the interest rate increases and them not being ready for something like that, they ended up earning less and spending more for peoples money to be in their accounts.

I don't even think they got greedy. U.S. treasury bonds aren't supposed to be high risk investments. People seem to be overlooking the fact that the current predicament by the federal reserved being forced to raise interest rates were entirely manufactured by them. They decided to inject trillions of dollars into the economy and it's banks like SVB that were sitting on a pile of cash without a place to put it. 2020-2022 were uncertain years for investors, U.S. treasury bonds were not a bad idea. At some point, they should have been aware that the interest rates hikes were going to impact those investments and not have had mass sell offs in panic in order to raise liquidity.

I don't blame people for panicking and ultimately the banks are responsible for their investments. Doesn't seem prudent to blame the bank for operating within a system that's inherently corrupted with state sponsored fiscal ineptitude by the federal reserve.

Why should we be listening to the banks? They are obviously not telling the truth. If a bank manager tells us that they are the only solution to financial management that this comes out of fear of losing their job. The bank managers are not working for the common good, they are not interested in a better works for everybody. The interests of the banks are egoistic and focused on their own bonus payments. The banks we see failing right now are not in trouble because of a bad business model, but rather because of greed. They gave out too many bad loans because they wanted higher returns, risk management was failing and now they are looking for the tax payers to pick up the bill.

I think the challenges of banks will be more complicated and more problematic, the transaction system that users expect must be faster and cheaper, but almost every day we hear about criminal cases from banks, those who work in banks can easily steal customer money without being noticed, the latest of course in malaysia when there is a transaction of more than $1 million made with mobile banking and the owner doesn't feel transacted, so be aware.

According to reports from experts, the spreaders of FUDs who are organized and can pay for advertisements in many media are bankers or bank companies, they unite to fight cryptocurrencies that are a threat to banks, it cannot be denied that the bank system is indeed fragile and will not be strong.

First of all, it should be noted that the economies of almost all countries are now experiencing a big drop. Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the enormous costs of fighting it, unemployment has risen sharply and the purchasing power of people has fallen. They are forced to withdraw deposits from banks, and this is one of the reasons why banks lose their profits. First of all, those banks burst, where the organization of work was weak or there were abuses in working with financial resources. But this does not mean that the banking system as a whole will collapse. In any case, the system will stand and will develop further.

Banking system is broken from the beginning. It's no surprise that they are falling now. Only reason is that people are now aware of the secret knowledge of banking system. And one thing that creates this crisis is when people choose to withdraw their money in mass amount. Because banks doesn't have their own money, and they lend out money to their customers which is not theirs. It belongs to other customers.
One solution is banks having their own money. But that is impossible and there are any solution to this.

There are many reasons why banks can fail, even if they seem to have solutions to their problems. One reason is that banks operate in a complex and ever changing environment, and it can be difficult to anticipate all the risks and challenges they may face. Banks may face unexpected shocks or crisis, such as a global financial crises or a pandemic, that can disrupt their operations and cause them to fail. Moreover, banks may struggle to adapt to new technologies or changing customer preferences, which can erode their competitive advantage and lead to declining profits. Banks may also be subject to regulatory and legal challenges that can impact their financial performance and reputation. While banks may have solutions to some of their problems, they still face many uncertainties and risks that can lead to failure.

Because everything has a risk and you can't expect all things will work like your calculations and predictions.

Banks can survive because of people trust, if majority of people don't trust banks anymore, you can expect many banks will stop failing. Banks isn't transparent and want to control everything, I think people tend to move their wealth to assets especially Bitcoin, not holdings huge fiat anymore.

Here the economists only act as advisors, the decision remains with the top-level managers of each bank, whether they will take advice from these economists or not, it's all their own decision. So when their bank goes bankrupt it is not the fault of these economists, because they are only experts, they are not top-level managers who make decisions. Many think that these economists are useless, even though they are quite helpful to the banking system, because some of their views are proven to be able to help banks get out of their problems or provide criticism to the government to be able to review their decisions.

I don't even know between banks and the crypto exchanges which one is worst than the other, all of them were just being epileptic in terms of quality service delivery, reliability and trust, we cannot count enough the numbers of banks that have failed already and far gone into bankruptcy because they lack what makes them to independently stand alone.


The problem is that even banks also lend money from other banks and international financial institutions including government, so they impose some regulations that will hypnotized them to subjects under the MoU signed through the process of getting the loan, yet some people will also depends on banks loan for their survival, the reason while they will never be free from debt, you can't try such with bitcoin in cryptocurrency.

Can you attach the report here? Because I also want to see the report from those experts now. Especially if this can be a very interesting discussion to discuss because it cannot be denied by anyone that cryptocurrency is really popular at this time so those who don't like cryptocurrency will definitely make FUD for the sake of destroying cryptocurrency. But I would absolutely not care about the FUD they create because I have more faith in cryptocurrency life which will stay strong because there are more people who like it.

If a top manager is competent in matters, and he must be competent in all matters dealt with by subordinates in his department, then he must control the adoption of all important decisions, approve or reject. Ultimately, the responsibility will always lie with the head of the department, and even the head will have to answer to the bank's management.

The situation with banks became critical, due to the low rate, banks could not survive in these conditions and were obliged to engage in other activities, such as investing, in order to survive, but if this is not the target direction of the bank, then this can lead to poor implementation, which in the end it happened.

Moreover, banks are also companies, they all have competition with each other, so the bankruptcy of some banks will make us bewildered, but it is something that their other competitors are very happy about. As we have also seen, bankrupt banks have been acquired by other giants at very cheap prices relative to their real value. Don't get too excited when you see a few banks fail and assume the whole banking system will collapse. What's going on is just the rule of elimination, the weak will die, and the strong will take over and grow stronger.

Bank security systems are a serious issue in my country because there are many cases of theft or account fraud, thieves can easily move money without having to know their traces, this is what makes us always have to be vigilant if we want to save large amounts of money in a bank.

When it comes to whether to choose the banks or crypto exchanges, it becomes hard to decide. Both of them are centralized shit. As long as your crypto is decentralized and stored by you, it's good. The moment you hand over the authority to someone else, and they have control over your assets, it's all bullshit. As I have already said in previous post, banking system is broken. I don't think I need to explain it anymore.
And the thing about the power what banks holds is connected to the whole system. Not only the banks, the whole system in the world that runs it is broken. Peoples are manipulated by the system in order to use it in a way that will make you keep coming back to it. It's a shame to be honest. 

Exactly. The people who are managing the bank are the only responsible for the bank to become insolvent. If they are just working for their own money satisfaction and don’t even care on the bank’s prosperity, surely the bank will go into bankrupt. Everything that happens to a certain bank, whether it’s a success or failure, the people that are managing the bank are always liable to it.

Welp, so much for "banks are better than bitcoin cause hurr durr" now isn't it. The nasty part about this is that when things go south for the banking sector, it is not only them that's affected unlike any other industry failing. It's the whole economy, the whole planet, the whole world that's gonna get royally-fucked by their poor management. It's only going downhill from here, and although this is already old news we're still feeling the effects of it, now we're at the cusp of another looming problem as the US is still taking their sweet-sweet time before doing something about their debt. If people argue that "it's only the US that's getting affected by it" well then I have some news for you buddy, we are all going to be affected.

If they don't do shit about this debt problem before June they'd practically be defaulting on their loans, which will then lead to recession, and a whole ensemble of problems that everyone on this planet will feel, especially ones that are allied with the US. this may even tip the scales of power to China for good, as even though they are also experiencing one of the biggest housing industry scandals in today's day and age they still are practically doing fine for themselves.

So are you using a bank? Do your family, parents, wife, and children use the bank? Many people keep saying banks and CEX are trash, but they still use them every day and are almost inseparable from them. It's a shame that we still use it but always speak ill of it. If all the banks in America collapsed, that would not be enough to prove that the banking system is dead. Why not use banking and crypto together for maximum effect? Why speak ill of a bank when you're going to use it to death?

Banks and exchanges will continue to fall because they are under the control of a centralized governing authorities that makes implementation of policies that the whole financial economy only works for their favour or interests, as long as there's no confinement in what we have with centralized institutions, they are insecure for us to use, they may not cease to exist but their value and priority would have been shifted to bitcoin in cryptocurrency when the whole world would have realized that what they need still remains a decentralized network.

Most people around my environment are still very happy using banks and even some of them may not even know about the collapse of banks in America so they still feel happy and safe when using bank services through their smartphone devices. This means that there is no need to say bad things to the bank as long as we are willing and happy to use the services of the bank, because not all banks will experience the same thing (collapse).

Some banks are still able to stand strong to serve their customers until this moment so that the convenience provided by the bank can still be felt by many people around my environment even though some of them also don't use crypto because they only rely on real business and use the bank to bridge transactions in large quantities when there are certain orders in larger quantities.

Greed is what destroys everyone, not only banks, I think, in crypto, we can also experience bankruptcy if we are too greedy.
one more valuable experience is failure, but if the bank has failed it is difficult to return and the person concerned with the failure of the bank will find it difficult to improve his reputation

I'd like to say that they failed to rally every people's support to have continue using their service. Aside from that, their job is to manage belongings from other people and they don't have the control for their people whatever choice they will make regarding money and economy, which is why they will be doing whatever it takes to badmouth other money making strategies if it happens that they cannot get their hands on that particular strategy. That's what usually happen in crypto since it is decentralized ecosystem.

They are controlled by the system itself, that is the reason why many banks go bankrupt. I don't think it's because experts can't fix this problem, but whose interest and power must be asked? Sometimes interests only operate at the level of satisfaction and they will do nothing to change the previous system for the better because when that happens, their power and influence will be lost and no longer needed.

Every country has laws governing the fiat currency system, besides being binding and there is no room for violations because speaking of state revenues, politics plays a much bigger role in this area and it's hard to say why they can't solve that problem. It is their simple logic that makes the regulations, they also regulate the system and they are the ones who can solve the problem. The question why is it so difficult for them to resolve if the power is in their hands? The answer is because they never want to finish.

Bad news about crypto that continues to be developed and made as news that is placed on the main page will continue to be made by those who don't like it.
Maybe I don't care if what's being rumored isn't Bitcoin but some other cryptocurrency that serves no purpose like Bitcoin.

As far as I know, they have no other solution than to exaggerate every incident that has happened in the crypto industry. Those of us who have a healthy way of thinking will not be easily influenced by the news made by them.
Apart from us who are already involved in the crypto space, other people out there also do not easily accept every news they read without considering the truth of any newspaper and any media.

The simplest reason is that with the flow of technological developments that spread so quickly, they already understand that there are pros and cons in every news that circulates.

failure is a natural thing, I think they fail for a number of reasons that maybe we ourselves don't understand, or accidents that occur when carrying out tasks, or there are some things that are not good so that it really makes it fail. but I think crypto makes up for the bank's shortcomings, whether it's from inflation to us getting financial freedom for us to achieve that the bank won't be able to provide.

Politicians like to pretend they have the solution to every single problem that plagues our society but if that was true then we will not have the massive problems we have right now, besides it is easy to see why banks keep failing and that is because governments keep rescuing them, if banks knew that if they went bankrupt then they will have to accept massive losses then they will be way more conservative, but when they can do whatever they want and not lose money, is it that surprising they are making all kind of risky investments as they know they will be rescued if they lose?

Politicians "have to" act as if they know the solution to everything. Otherwise why would anyone vote for you? I understand that it might have a special sympathy towards a presidential nominee that may say "I don't know what to do about this, but I can ask about it to people who know more than me and we will do what they say", then people would say they could just vote for that guy instead. In the end every politician who wants votes will want to make sure that they are doing the right thing by getting the most votes, that's the goal for every politician and in order to do something like that we need to just focus on what we could do, not what we can't and that's why they act as if they know it all. Its obvious that they don't, its all a lie.

It’s not the banks that are actually bad, but it’s the people that are behind it’s management. They claim to be gurus and experts, when in fact they only focus on their own financial desires because of their greed. That makes majority of the banks become insolvent because on how their management affect the bank and the people that come to trust the banks. At least, in crypto there is transparency, which is very hard to see in banks.

That is why I say politics plays a far greater role in this region and they only seem to pretend to want to solve problems, but the reality is nothing more than unbelievable talk. If they want to solve every problem, it is impossible for them to be unable to do it because strength and regulation are their property and also if needed they can revise certain laws that do not benefit the government as a whole. For example, like the banking case that is increasingly problematic and more complex at this time, but the question is why they don't solve this problem completely?

They will continue to maintain the banking system in the same way and my response to previous posts about banks that experience problems and why financial experts do not fix them, which are in the spotlight for me not they do not want to improve the existing system, but talk about interests and pretend to have Solution but also not run. While Crypto and Bitcoin continue to be fastened about negative things as the reference conveyed by the OP in this post.

I don't think banks are always successful. even though they are financial experts, some banks that fail to manage customer money and their business will definitely go bankrupt. I saw a number of banks that had disappeared and described closing up several banks that had started to disappear. the most plausible reason is that they lost their customers, so they had to close the bank.

People’s trust alone cannot guarantee the survival of banks. It’s always on the power of the management. If they are good enough to stay at risk and are still competitive, then they can safely run the bank without creating  major issues. However, know that things will never work as always on their plan. That’s the reason why the management should be more flexible in dealing all the uncertainties as to remain the bank it’s stability.

You’re right on point. Banks end up being bankrupt or insolvent not because economists have not consider fixing it, but everything relies on how the management team carry out their rules and perform them. If they fail to perform the rules correctly, then banks are expected to fail and become insolvent. Know that every problem has its solution, it’s just that some financial experts become overconfident that they eventually make their own rules with the aim to take advantage over the bank.

i agree, I also have no reason to badmouth the bank because I am still using it.  moreover, we always criticize the banks that always spread negative news about bitcoin, we call them liars, damn it… but we are no different when we are trying to slander them. It's like we're cursing ourselves.  Why don't we use both to get the most convenience for life, no need to speak ill of anyone because everything has its pros and cons. taking advantage of one to offset the cons of the other, using both is what I'm doing.

Recently, some well-known banks in the US have declared bankruptcy, and others have closed because they were connected to cryptocurrency or Bitcoin, even others really couldn't handle the competition, so that's what happened.

        Even here in the crypto space, many coins are also falling due to the intensity of the battle, FUD and others that are causing the collapse of their businesses. Maybe because of government regulation, Economix downturn, and lack of capital.

as bad as a bank is, we still need it, especially in my country where every non-cash transaction is always related to a bank, doesn't that help our work, especially those who work in online product sales businesses, of course, will use bank services for transactions. especially now that cryptocurrency is not widely used by most people, so it is even more difficult to transact, even though it has its own advantages. therefore combining the two and taking advantage of each I think it would be wiser

The irony of this👆 is that Bitcoin was created due to the crisis in their centralized and opaque system. Many years later they want Bitcoin which stands on its own and has never been bailed out by any government to become like them.
Part of the solutions to the banking sector is to become like Bitcoin/cryptocurrency by building within or ontop of it, and according to its principles. That could even help them realize how little or insignificant they are compared to the Bitcoin Network/System. It's more than mere industry, it's a Nation on its own, independent of other Nations, self governed by fair rules without much issues.

No, it's not hard because each of them are not the same. Crypto exchanges are where you can trade your crypto or sell them for fiat but banks were mainly for storing money. We can still be able to choose both of them if we are not totally into decentralization. Not all crypto exchanges are centralized.

You should know that if you are not new in cryptos. It's not wrong to use a CEX but as long as you don't keep your funds on them right after you trade. Banks can try to manipulate the public but they aren't 100% successful with it. This is why Bitcoin grow this huge and became successful because there are people who are in the vision of Satoshi about decentralization. Banks can provide solutions on some issues but they are not perfect. They still can fall too.

But the core fundamentals are quite the same, if you think. And yes, there are decentralized exchanges available, but their success rate is quite low when it comes to comparison with centralized exchanges. Decentralized exchanges lack to provide the security which centralized exchanges does. Maybe they are the same, but people find it hard to have trust on them.
And it's not about storing assets on the centralized exchanges, it's about the data they collect. There's no guarantee that your data is safe. It could get breach any time. That's the main concern when it comes to online platforms.

In every field there is an expert in the area, just that it could not be available to all banking sector, sometimes when the issues of liquidity and solvency happen there is a lot of situation that will warrant that. In my country, you will learn of a bank acquiring another bank for that same bank to be sold later.

If we are honest about it we will notice the majority of those joining the bitcoin market are not really interested on the vision of Satoshi, and they may not even have any idea of who he is, they are interested on the profits this market can produce, and while this is not wrong, their lack of understanding about what this market is about is what produces their mistaken behaviors, like leaving their coins at centralized exchanges for long periods of time and use them as a bank substitute.

And once the bank fails, it’s hard for their clients to trust them again that’s why some banks prefer to merge with other banks instead to survive, than to let them become completely insolvent. However, with crypto it’s different. The market will keep on giving opportunities to enter again and make you successful and profitable. But if you stick with greed, expect that you will always face losses instead.

It's just a few banks that collapsed, not the entire banking industry, so we have nothing to look at. Banks are also business companies and they still compete with each other, the failure of some banks will be an opportunity for many others. So I think the government probably won't care much about this, and they won't intervene until things get worse. What is happening is just a total purge because in the past, many banks collapsed during the 2008 crisis, and things will continue to grow when the crisis is over.

The 2008 rescue back then was possible as countries were relatively debt free, but now they have too many debts, taxes are too high and the economic growth is slow, if another event happened which shocked the fundamentals of the economy as much as we saw back then I doubt governments could afford to rescue banks even if they wanted, as if they did so the amount of money they will have to print will be astronomical and hyperinflation will be inevitable at that point.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?

The banking industry plays an important role and is said to be the backbone of our economy. If it did fall, that would put us in a situation no different from living in World War 3. But many people don't understand that, and they think the collapse of the banking industry will be a positive thing for cryptocurrencies. They forget that the crypto market also works and depends on the bank, without a bank, how can we convert fiat money to crypto and vice versa? I even believe that when the world economy collapses, many industries and many sectors will disappear, and the possibility of cryptocurrency disappearing is not impossible.

I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.

Do you think the collapse of some banks was planned already?  :o
I don't know how many banks are needed, not sure if we should have fewer banks only. However, more banks mean competition, that's leads to better service/quality for the banks because they want to be the best. If we have fewer banks, there will be higher domination or a monopoly of a  few banks for the customers in certain areas. I don't think it will be a good sign for the future of banks.

If you believe that there is competition between banks, it means that there will be unfair competition because they are rivals. So the failure of a few banks is an advantage for the rest. Just like when you have a business or your competitor goes bankrupt, you will be glad you no longer have anyone to fight for customers. The collapse of a few banks does not indicate that the world banking system is in trouble or will collapse en masse.

That's true but the banks collapings aren't just unknown banks, they're popular ones that should be used as an example to other banks. The entire banking sector might not have collapse but the recent events proves banks aren't to be trusted. Many banks are doing unethical things with customers money like using them for forex trading and other investment that mightn't be profitable to the banks so they get into debts.

I believe the debits the banks are in are the major reason behind their closure because if they had no debit they won't have the challenges they had that made them to collapse. We'll always have banks so new ones will be launched soon and the cycle continues.

Similar to some of the signals people use to judge the current situation as well as views about future direction, recent events represent a recessionary economic situation even before the organizations As the leading banks are still in such a risky situation, perhaps within a few months after the collapse of the silicon valley bank, people will also see the negative consequences that come with it.
Personally, I think that any industry has potential risks, imbalances always exist and fragile things will not be able to maintain their existence, the story of the solution to overcome this problem here I think the stakeholders also see the problem, but have led to the failure, they also have no way to maintain it.

The American banking system has long been like a task with many variables, where there are already too many of these variables. At the same time, we will add here factors of human psychology that are unpredictable (as the financial market is unpredictable) and add here that dollars can be issued at the click of your fingers and at the same time not be provided with gold. Plus, we will add local conflicts: warriors and climatic troubles. So it turns out that the banking system is fragile and poorly controlled in the USA. There are too many things in it that complicate relations: futures, the purchase of bonds, stocks, etc.
It should be simpler and more controlled by the government.

A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing,  sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients.
If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.

I disagree, a bank run is just the last straw which forces a bank to go bankrupt, as an example lets suppose there was an earthquake and a house collapsed while the one next to it survived and was completely fine, in this case we cannot say the house which collapsed did so because of the ground or any other excuse, the truth is that it was structurally weak and the earthquake just reveled that weakness for everyone to see, and this is true for banks as well.

Fractional reserve banking means banks hold only a fraction of customer deposits as reserves and use the rest for lending and other activities. Normally, this system works well, but it can become problematic if a large number of depositors withdraw their funds simultaneously. A financial institution's leadership and management are ultimately responsible for its health and stability. Risk assessment and mitigation, regulatory compliance, and governance structures are part of their responsibilities. Failures, however, can occur for a variety of reasons, not always at the hands of the CEO.

A bank's management must take preventive measures and manage risk effectively in order to prevent client panic from contributing to failure. However, due to the complexity and dynamic nature of the banking sector, it's impossible to eliminate all risks completely.

Many people continue to use and trust banks for their financial needs, and not all banks experience the same problems or failures. Banks play an important role in facilitating financial transactions by providing services such as deposits, loans, and payment systems widely used by individuals and businesses. While some banks may face challenges, that does not mean that all banks will experience the same problems or fail. But even so, it will really continue because they are all hand-in-hand with the government that exists. It can last much longer, but the limitation is still a fatal drawback. So bitcoin was created to replace it.

I think it's very natural that in business there are accidents and then they fail, even though the bank. even we ourselves must have witnessed many failed businesses, and not the least of which were banks that went bankrupt or they disappeared with customer money. even if it's the greatest bank in the world, I'm sure they can fail, because of that we can't stick to one solution in solving problems.

Exactly. No one is excuse from having greed but we can chose not to be greedy or control our one’s greed as that will lead us into destroying our funds, not only in fiat but even in crypto as well. And worst is that those who claim to be more knowledgeable and more influential in the banks are said to be more greedy to gain selfish financial desires. That’s the reason why banks fail and experience bankruptcy, not because they are not knowledgeable and skillful, but because of too much greed and selfish desires that lost their focus on their job description.

Having worked in finance for nearly two decades now, one thing that I've come to learn is that you can't trust banks.  Not the big huge banks anyhow, there is a difference between them and major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America etc.

Banks are corrupt, and I don't believe they have the moral capability to ever help make things right for others besides themselves.

It can be said that banks play an important role in the economy. The easy thing is that we can see from the amount of credit that banks give to entrepreneurs. When they give credit, they can get interest of 15 to 20 percent per year, while they give interest to consumers only 8% per year.

Yes, that's the reality, that banks can go bankrupt, then where you can save the value of your assets and diversify it, if not bitcoin as a solution, they manage a lot of money and they are destroyed by money, fatal mistakes in managing the company's finances any company can sink, including basing as a service industry finance.
Unfortunately there is no solution even if you get help, because indeed the loss due to the negligence of SVB is very high and customers draw massively, so to cover from bankruptcy.

What is clear is that we have to learn from what happens to SVB, saving money in banks in addition to being affected by inflation and the cost of storage services also has the potential to lose money when bankruptcy occurs in other banks like this.

I think greed and bankruptcy exist not only in the banking sector but also in the crypto industry. Excessive greed and risk-taking can actually lead to financial losses and negative outcomes for individuals or businesses engaged in any financial endeavor, including cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies, while offering potential opportunities, also come with their own risks, including market volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and cybersecurity threats. Engaging in speculative or overly risky behavior without proper knowledge and risk management can lead to financial failure.

On the other hand, the failure of a bank can have serious consequences, affecting not only the bank but also its customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Restoring the reputation of individuals or businesses involved in a failed bank can be challenging. In both traditional banking and the crypto space, it is important for individuals to educate themselves, understanding the risks involved in their finances.

Banks still continue to fail despite of having solutions in place, one of the main reasons is the ever revolving landscape which makes it difficult for banks to keep up with changing regulations, technologies, and customer needs. Another reasons is the increasing competition from non bank financial institutions, which is often more agile and innovative than traditional banks. Banks face several challenges in implementing their solutions effectively. Some banking systems and outdated technology can hinder their ability to offer modern banking services and products. Banks need to balance the need for profitability with customer satisfaction which can be a delicate balancing act. While banks have solutions in place to address many challenges, implementing them effectively and navigating the complex financial landscape remains a challenge.

Some banks have political connections. The owner of the bank might be a politician or have sympathy for a political party. So they can give uncollateralized loans to politicians to fund elections. It becomes a bad debt if such a politician losses the election. This will make the bank face some problems. Another political influence is that the ruling party can decide to witch-hunt a bank that is connected to an opposition party. They will come up with different allegations just to ensure that the bank falls. The best form of banking system will always be a decentralized one that is not connected to any country or government. This is why Bitcoin remains the best option because it is transnational and doesn't depend on any government to operate.

Regardless of what the OP said and What's worse, bank owners trade their customers' money into digital assets or stocks. with reason to play first. if it's ok, the rotation rotates and what happens if the price drops or collapses at that time. Customers wonder why we can't withdraw our money. Yes. They have everything they need because it is stored in their database and if we use crypto this is the difference as you say OP. Yes, everything wants to be easy and safe.

The bankruptcy is not the phenomenon of the crypto industry.Because when the bank doesn’t have money to settle the investor,it will get the help of the central bank.If the crypto project was closed,then no central bank is their to support the project dead.When you want to get more money,you can hold till the all time high.But with your greedy,you should not take advantage and hold till the project ends.It will make you to lose all your investment with the fake trust.