Bitcoin Forum

In short, the answer is no. Banks and crypto are not opposites, but they have different purposes and ways of working. Banks are traditional financial institutions that provide services such as savings, loans, and money transfers. Crypto is a digital currency that uses blockchain technology.

There are some potential conflicts between banks and crypto. For example, banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans. Additionally, banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

However, there is also potential for collaboration between banks and crypto. For example, banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Additionally, banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.

Here are some examples of potential conflict and collaboration between banks and crypto:

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.
Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

Collaboration:

Banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.
Ultimately, the future of the relationship between banks and crypto is uncertain. However, it is clear that both will continue to evolve and influence each other.

Additional thoughts:

It is important to note that the relationship between banks and crypto is still in its early stages. As both technologies continue to develop, it is likely that we will see new and innovative ways for them to work together

I don't know where this is coming from but one thing that is certain is that banks and crypto are never in competition whatsoever as Crypto can't do without banks but banks can do without crypto.

What you stated above are the concerns of the government and not banks, only that some banks will not tell you when they are behaving anti-crypto, it's the government's undertone and regulators on their neck. It's business as usual for banks as no one can purchase crypto without the banks and no one will sell crypto for money and not get the money in their bank account or in fiat online.

I believe that fiat banks and crypto banks will always be separated unless a bank has both in their different branches of operations. Mind you, the risk with crypto is very high, fiat banks might not consider it but might continue to deal with crypto-related businesses if there is no restriction in their country.

This is false, it's not that easy to use crypto for illegal activity, do you think fiat can't be used for illegal activity? go search in google. Even you use a privacy coin, you still need to trust someone and it's sometime will expose your identity, receiving money through bank will make the sender know your real name.

Yes. But since Bitcoin is decentralized, it shouldn't be associated with banks or any other third party intermediary.

The government of a country decides which currency should be used and not banks. Since government knows that they can't control the use of bitcoin because it is decentralized that is why some countries see it as a threat to their local currency,making them to ban cryptocurrency.

Not banks but the government. Who says bank isn't used for money laundry. In my country as long as you know the bank manager of a branch and you are a politician, you have the free access to launder money and give the bank manager his own quarter.

Banks are concerned that crypto can affect their source of income, they are concern that it will affect their business and people won't want to deposit large amount of money in the banks anymore, remember that Banks are very good at using their customers funds to make more money, especially those amounts in fixed accounts locked for a long period of time.

Crypto is eye opening, as banks as made many people believe that interest way is the way to make money off your deposited amount, the longer you leave the money in your account the more you get get some percentage annually, now we all know it's nonsense, crypto gets people to where they wanted to get to, and faster.

Government is worried about a few different things too, they pretend that they are saving the people from a big bubble but that's not true, there is more to their concerns, they control banks and they have no control over Bitcoin because it's decentralized, Bitcoin also brings better ROI than Real estate and co, meaning many lives can change if done right, the poorer people gets the better for the government.

I understand that cryptocurrencies can be used to launder money, but the only individuals who will engage in such criminal activity are those who hold crypto assets for illicit purposes. Now, I want to ask you, Isn't money laundering also done using fiat currency? Doesn't it also apply to things that are illegal?

In other words, fiat money is identical to cryptocurrency, which is utilized for criminal purposes like money laundering. Because of this, I occasionally find it puzzling when individuals claim that Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies can be used in criminal activity when the same is true with conventional money.

Another possibility is that banks may be reluctant to embrace cryptocurrencies because they cannot regulate and control them. They may not want to jeopardize their success with FIAT currencies. Maintaining a good relationship with the government is advantageous for banks since they can open or close the door to cryptocurrencies at their discretion.

In fact, banks can also respond to the public's demand for cryptocurrency adoption by implementing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), where cryptocurrency is backed by FIAT currency but the network is centralized and controlled by the bank.

Individuals familiar with Bitcoin must accept the reality that government and bank policies are the key determinants of how extensively the public can use Bitcoin. Governments and banks also undoubtedly consider profit as a significant factor influencing decisions related to Bitcoin.

Sadly, up to now, there are still many cryptocurrency investors with that distorted mindset. Those are just silly, ridiculous claims that the government has spread to keep people away from bitcoin, and most people realize that. But why hasn't the OP realized that yet?



What he's saying in general is cryptocurrencies including altcoins, not just bitcoin. And we can also see altcoins like LINK or XRP collaborating and being used in the banking system. That would create a huge effect, but unfortunately it is still a centralized system and they cannot compare to the decentralization of the bitcoin network.

Ordinarily banks issue payments and savings, similar to what cryptocurrency is about. But, there are multiple differences between the both. Cryptocurrency transactions have nothing to do with banks. Bitcoin as a network keeps record of all transaction in the blockchain and users can access the transaction histories using explorers. It's open for everyone to see. Banks on the other hand, don't have a place where customers can see what another account is doing with their funds. Only the banking authorities have access to individual accounts. That's is contrary to bitcoin, where a specific address can be examined, though the owner is not known, to find where a transaction was sent to and the amount removed from the address. Bitcoin use private keys and digital signature to access funds stored on the blockchain; input and output. Signatures are used on banks too and the facial recognition, that's for inside bank transactions. But, no private keys whatsoever is needed in banks. Unless banks have started looking out to implementing such features. Cryptocurrency and banks are two different financial systems, where fiats are converted to cryptocurrency and vice versa. But, in a transaction where both parties don't need fiat, its crypto to crypto without any third party. And, it's necessary not to forget that p2p is the primary aim of cryptocurrency, which keeps it far different from banks.   

In my country, the rate of inflation is concerning and I do not see any wise person or knowledgeable person that should safe in fiat. But you are not wrong, some people are business men and women and they have to depend on banks if their customers pay more in fiat and that is how most businesses are.

In countries with high inflation rate, many people in the countries are saving money using cryptocurrencies.

Fiat are mostly used in illegal activities and money laundering.

Bank will not use cryptocurrencies to reduce cost, they will use it like those exchanges with high transaction fees. Banks will use crypto for earning.

They're opposites in some sense and not in others. For example, banks are heavily centralized while Bitcoin is decentralized, or banks are third parties while Bitcoin eradicates third parties. Those are opposites. However, in the sense that they're both providing financial services to the people, they're not really opposites. It's just that they have different systems.

I guess it's acceptable to a certain extent that banks would adapt to the growing demand and use of Bitcoin. The problem, however, is that the current banking system is fundamentally flawed. Fractional reserve, for example, is both risky and unfair. And if they continue to apply this principle while embracing Bitcoin, the main purpose of Bitcoin is defeated.

If a bank is a service that provides transaction services, then crypto also functions the same. Many cryptos are similar to banks in that they are centralized. Unlike bitcoins.
I don't want to equate bitcoin with crypto including banks. Apart from all that. The presence of bitcoin as a payment system is able to provide the best that is different, such as managing bank transactions.

Banks are never honest. They take advantage of customer deposits to be rotated which can bring profits through interest percentages.
The central bank does not like the uncontrolled bitcoin system.
Do banks need to be trusted? everyone has the answer.


I know that bank collaboration with crypto, such as XRP, is already underway.

Banks and cryptocurrencies will be used together, central banks and banks or generally governments won't be able to stop it. People have their voice and power so governments can not prohibit their citizens to use cryptocurrencies in all nations globally. Simply, they can not do it in nations where power is not centralized in dictators and dictatorship.

Banks will follow central banks that are going to create more CBDCs that will be used by citizens. Citizens have other options, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and if they feel unsafe with CBDCs or any cryptocurrency deployed by banks, they will choose Bitcoin.

CBDC tracker (https://cbdctracker.org/) with information about CBDC developments globally.

Banks shouldn’t be concerned just yet about the so called reduction of the use of fiat currency. Fiat money is for now, what’s legally recognized as money, used as the medium of exchange and somewhat unrivaled as the primary means of making payments so banks shouldn’t fret.

Banks concerned about crypto being used to launder money and fund terrorists? More like unhappy they’re losing out on the revenue that would have been gotten from laundering the funds themselves. Financial institutions have long been used to launder funds as well as fund terrorist organizations and activities perhaps unwittingly.

       -  Is there any chance that the bank has an interest in cryptocurrency? It's like I've never heard news like this, because usually banks don't like cryptocurrency because they see it as a competitor. And a big obstacle to their business. Few people really recognize Bitcoin and crypto in the reality that is happening today.

Even though they know they can really help, they still pretend not to. Because they are afraid or worried that their customers might switch from fiat to cryptocurrency. After all, they are not the same, and they have many differences from each other in reality.

I assume that you are referring to the Central Bank because commercial banks will always abide by the regulations of the former. Central Banks will always stand against cryptocurrencies because it is decentralized. They are scared that they will lose control of the nation's financial sector. The central banks use monetary policy to control inflation, hence they assume that allowing cryptos is like transferring monetary control to actors in the cryptosystem.

Crypto is the most inappropriate currency to use for financing criminal activities. We shouldn't forget that crypto transactions is recorded on the blockchain and can be accessed by everyone. So transactions can be traced especially if the actors use a centralized platform. But cash fiat cannot be traced which is why it is best to finance criminal activities.


Commercial banks are not against cryptocurrencies because they can always offer profitable services in the sector. Banks can offer exchange services and give cryptos loans and credit facilities. It is the central bank that is against cryptos because commercial banks have more to gain than lose if they integrate crypto services with fiat operations.

Banks and cryptocurrency are different, maybe you should then put it this way that fiat and cryptocurrencies which you will still get the response that they are different fro each other, only the similarity is in the means of making payments, having the different purpose they both come to serve is what makes their difference, bank is a physical building where financial activities are being done, cryptocurrency is a digital form of currency that uses blockchain to operate it's activities.


Which means they are different from each other, you can have loan in cryptocurrency because it work by a decentralized network of blockchain, where every other applications and contracts and networks on blockchain independently exist on its own.

With my firm conviction, I believe in the coexistence and development of both.  But saying that the government cannot ban us from using bitcoin is not entirely correct, they are still the ones who make all the decisions. If we really have a voice and power, why can't anyone fight for bitcoin to become a currency? Meanwhile, the government only accepts bitcoin as a commodity and they will never allow bitcoin to become a currency and we will have no right to demand that from them. CBDC will be what they force us to use and we do not have the right to choose bitcoin as an alternative payment method to CBDC.

First thing first, Fiat is actually a lot easier to be used for illegal activity, especially if the transaction is not a wired transfer, just cash, and no deposit or anything to the Bank. If what you mean as Banks are the institution where you safe your money, then no, they never have any problem with crypto, some of Banks in my countries actually supporting Crypto Exchange.

The institution that has problem with Crypto is Central Bank which is controlled by the Government, they would never let crypto to be widely used as a currency replacing their fiat currency, for many and complicated reasons but mainly because Crypto is a lot harder for government to be controlled and monitored.

I think you misunderstand between the two.
Banks are controlled and supervised under the auspices of the government, while cryptocurrencies are decentralized and cannot be controlled by any government throughout the world. One of the reasons why many people prefer Cryptocurrency transactions over transactions using bank services is because banks can face failure while cryptocurrency does not face a single point of failure. Another advantage of Cryptocurrency compared to banks is that it is a peer to peer transaction method and does not have intermediary services like banks.

The government has control/supervision and can limit some transactions in banking, Cryptocurrency allows users to transfer funds instantly without restrictions because Cryptocurrency is not under government supervision. You can transfer Cryptocurrency across countries without working hours restrictions, whereas Banks have working hours limitations and it takes some processes to transfer across countries.

Banks have a lot to lose from crypto's disruption, but they can gain a lot by adapting. I think we should emphasize synergies over conflicts. Banks have regulatory approval and reach most crypto businesses dream of. Crypto can help banks innovate out of stagnation.

Smart contracts could automate loan approval and remittance for banks. This would cut fraud, expenses, and transaction time. It would also alleviate banks' concerns about unlawful crypto use. Money laundering would be harder with a transparent, immutable ledger. Lets see this as a chance to mix old and modern. If both industries innovate and adapt, they can rise together.

Banks depend on the government.
If the government approves the use of crypto in banks, the banks will comply and follow suit.
But if not, banks will never use crypto and will still use fiat, maybe digital fiat.
In this case, banks are neutral because everything depends on government policy towards crypto.
But both banks and crypto will indeed continue to grow.

As Op said in Short Crypto is doing the work of Banks, Banks were introduced in the world to provide financial services the doors people to help them make their daily transactions and make their Business easy. They failed  ;D and thanks to them we got crypto instead, As for the numbers there are millions of Banks working for this purpose but still millions of people cant get a simple loan and, cant open an account to save their money. Crypto Business just learned from the flaws of Banks and introduced all of their services in the hands of people more transparent easy to access in the form of a digital financial world, not only a solution.

Covering a step of perfection to decentralized transparent solution for all this, Now you should know in an easy and short story that how they are relatable.

Not totally, but has different characteristics; govenment acknowledgement, decentralization, security, volatility, and more. Both are financial systems (individual vs institutional).They clearly have the power to do so as evident with countries such as China. Governments want to regulate this industry which would be difficult given its nature. The only way possible is thru third party wallets and system but it would make a huge difference if ever things would be totally regulated. Interest towards this industry might negatively change simply because the concept itself will be changed. I do hope that co-existence to happen than with full restriction.

The future relationship between banks and crypto is uncertain. Both have some potential conflicts but also a potential collaboration is there. However, it is clear that both will influence each other in the future.
Yes, I agree with you that crypto uses blockchain and bank traditional finance institutions that provide services such as loans, etc. but there are some more things I want to mention.
-As you all know crypto now becoming popular so maybe the bank should adopt their business which will make a new collaboration.
-Banks may be using blockchain for more secure and transparent records.
-The bank will meet with crypto to start a new offer for customers to give them loans based on crypto assets.

It's not about only crypto vs. banks, it's about decentralized vs. centralized. So definitely they are opposites. But it doesn't mean both can't work together. Like the government works with the opposition party when necessary. Banks could collaborate with crypto, but it doesn't mean they will lose their revenue. Rather they would earn additional revenue from crypto collaboration that would make easy solutions for crypto users. At the end of the day, we turn our crypto into fiat. So the bank could make it possible. But they dislike crypto due to decentralization. But I believe very soon major banks will start collaborating with cryptocurrency.

Cant really be possible on such way on which tending to make out some acceptance and adaptation but sacrificing anonymity and total decentralization? It cant really be that that happening if we do speak about on how
government is really that liking on which it cant really be that possible to be integrated in between crypto and government itself. We do always have that fine line when it comes to their main differences but somehow it could really be that reconsidered but expect that there would be things that would be removed out.Government doesnt really like the essence on having that decentralization which it would really be totally opposing on what they do prefer and want and this is why its not shocking that they would really be going against with cryptocurrencies main feature or characteristics but just like been said above that having those opposites doesnt
mean that it couldnt really be able to have that integration but just like on what i said earlier that it would really be having those notable restrictions or something that had been removed which it would be completely
that taking away that anonymity or having that full control thing.

OP is mixing things together. Banks are custodians, the way an exchange can take custody of your cryptocurrency.
It's not about banks vs crypto but fiat money vs crypto. Banks can compete with exchanges and companies that offer you interest for holding coins with them.
So, is crypto in opposition to fiat money, yes it is.
Are banks in opposition to crypto exchanges? I'd say no, but they are competing for customers. If people are allowed to do everything with their crypto that fiat money offers now, they won't use fiat money anymore.

Banking is totally against the trading and crypto trading,today I went to bank and had some talk with the bank employee.The employee thought the crypto trading was against the government.They thought it’s like black money involved is the major part in the crypto currency.Bitcoin was regulated in my country,but the banker with the financial knowledge doesn’t aware about it was the sad part.From that I had learned,how it’s hard to trade the cryptocurrency in the country where the bitcoin is illegal or in neutral state.The fraud also using bitcoin for their transaction is the reason behind the banker opinion.

The modern banking system relies on fractional reserve banking, and crypto would essentially disallow banks from doing so. Fractional reserve banking only works because the government usually acts as arbiter with an infinite balance in case the bank goes under which is why banks would be reluctant to adopt more crypto into their portfolio.

The government hasn't hesitated in the past to bail out private banks, so it remains within their interest to act recklessly with depositor funds and be bailed out with no penalty.

Money or bitcoin or even gold is always used for good and bad things. And I dont think that will ever change, you have to exchange values if you want to own something. The banks are afraid because they cant control Bitcoin, otherwise they are also afraid of gold. Now banks are trying to offer a hodl service so they can get power over some of Bitcoin.

I don't think that the approach between the parties is as it is stated, for example, the TDC Visa and Mastercard, or any other, work with the banks and are together but not mixed, but people tend to think that this idea is "thanks..." to banks, or they are the ones who handle the transactions, in fact TDC can be issued for any type of business,  soccer teams, telephone companies, stores, etc..

The commercial join that can comes to exist (it already exists in some way) is only linked to financial success, if the banks make profits,they don't care about anything else, or they will care as much as when they give you a loan and they think about the benefit to you as a person or that you finally pay the interest on the assigned credit.

Banks are mostly private institutions that seek returns, so things like whether it is legal or illegal, then they themselves fall into that "border" or gray zone of what it means to work with the situation of money laundering, suspicious transactions. etc

Bitcoin is always mentioned as a Trojan horse but the reality is that the Trojan horse is the bank.

Yes man, banks use people's money to make their own money, and not only that, their transactions are limited and it can be easily accessible, someone can easily access the amount of money in your account (people like customer service), but in Bitcoin wallets your transactions are not limited and no body can access it if they don't have your seed phrase.

It is true that the banks are worried about Bitcoin from their customers and this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is not allowed in some countries, and the government, too, are also benefiting from the banks. That's why the government is doing everything possible to stop the adoption of Bitcoin, but since Bitcoin is unstoppable, its awareness is still spreading in society. Bitcoin has given a lot of people another chance in society.

I am from a country where government corruption is widely felt in every sector of the country and this has been happening for a very long time now even before the recognition of crypto-currency, and the means by with the government launders money and the countries funds has been through fiat and the banking system not just this but other forms of money laundering has been Carried out using the banking system.

It's not for the bank to decide what happens, but rather the government, and if they decide to pass the orders that should be followed. just the way the Nigerian government has decided to restrict crypto transactions in the bank.

Secondly, if the government is concerned about crypto being used for illegal activities like money laundering, could it be that if they put restrictions on crypto currency, money laundering crimes will not be committed through other means? Right from the start, money laundering has been in play, even before crypto was born.

Banks are just centralized traditional financial systems, while Bitcoin is a centralized digital asset that the banks or government are just trying to regulate but I doubt they could be able to do it.

This is what happening all around the world. Majority of the money laundered and tax evasion were happening through fiat. Through fiat only illegal transactions and illegal activities were funded. Just to keep people under control, the governments always make false claims on cryptocurrency. It is our responsibility to understand the real fact than just fearing on the statements from government. Slowly few banks have begun to support cryptocurrency investment. Over time similar to fiat we can experience the usage and access to cryptocurrencies.

Exactly, you are saying the truth, they think he will affect their source of income, that is why they don't like crypto transactions, no one wants to leave is money on bank now, everyone needs what to give him profit, because I don't think if you leave your funds in the bank he will increase, they will just debit you for keeping your funds save and hr will be decrease, but crypto investment like Bitcoin you invest your money on it for long term, you will get higher profit.That is why some countries refuse to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment because they cannot control it and cannot collect any tasks. Because Bitcoin has surpassed them, there is nothing they can do, The only thing Bank do for customers is just giving them loans.

I agree with you. Illegal activities these days on crypto will be nearly impossible not now that exchanges are getting their users kyced. Even if you use Dex, the transaction could still be traced. I have a feeling that sooner or later, Dex might do same.

It reminds us that Bitcoin's blockchain technology is decentralized and peer-to-peer. In traditional banking, select staff can examine account details, but data protection rules control these interactions.

Bitcoin promises decentralization and autonomy, but sacrifices personal responsibility. If you lose that seed phrase, you cant recover the funds or call customer assistance. Imagine locking your keys in an indestructible vault.

Yes, financial sovereignty and control are government issues that cause regulatory barriers. Many nations are trying to understand and regulate Bitcoin, not just fight it. As society gains information and insight, Bitcoin opinions may change.

If we consider loans an essential function of banks, then yes, cryptos are different. I've personally never use bank loans, so to me, it's not essential. As for savings and money transfers the op mentions, they can be totally done without banks, namely with Bitcoin.
Now, banks being worried about cryptos being used for illegal activities - well, it's not their place to be worried about that. They aren't the law enforcement or policymakers, and there've been huge scandals of very big-scale money laundering and other illicit activities done not just by people who are customers of banks, but by banks themselves, and major ones at that. So they should focus their worries on that.

Maybe bank is not opposite from crypto but they're not totally the same. Banks is a place where you can safely put your funds and gain small profit in the future, while in crypto, you can also keep your fund safely and earn a potential high profit from staking or from holding the price. Banks is only best at holding physical money since it can guarantee you its security. But in crypto, the level of security is also best if you knew what you are doing. More over, you can possibly gain a lot just by holding.

If you say they have different purposes, I wouldn’t be in very much agreement with you but, when you look at it from the way it’s operates, there you can find some real difference.

I suppose your contest to banks as in the OP is you referring to fiat currency otherwise, if your referring banks as a financial institution, then you would be making a lot of mistakes trying to put cryptos and banks in contrast.

Having the above in view, fiat and cryptos are both currencies and means to finance. Hence, it’s hard for them having different purposes.

When it comes to means of operation, there remains a difference between a decentralized system and centralized systems. While one is more privacy concern and can serve variety of purposes, the other is limited by boundaries.

Fiats and cryptos aren’t meant to be exclusive, I always tend to view them for a fill up on the limitations of the other.

I don't know where you got that information but I have never heard something like that coming from banks. I have heard that from other governmental authorities but I have never heard that from banks. IF it comes to money laundering than banks know better that fiat can also be used for money laundering and even those so called banks can't stop those money launderers. Yes, I agree that there has been allegations against crypto-currencies that they can be used for money laundering but those allegations are largely biased because as already discussed that fiat can also be used for illegal activities like money laundering and in fact fiat is more used for that purpose than crypto.



I don't think that till today banks have any good relationship with crypto currencies other than just a few ones. The one I know is XRP which has some kind of collaboration with banks. If we talk about Bitcoin then I haven't heard that any bank has collaboration with it and I'm sure there won't be any bank that may have any kind of collaboration with it ever because it's decentralized and unregulated while banks work based on the centralization principles. Of course in crypto-currencies XRP is the favorite one for the banks and surely in coming times the CBDC's will have more dominant position with the banks, but for now we can say that XRP is accepted by some banks if not all.

Banks are institutions, cryptoCURRENCY is digital money. There can be a collaboration between the two, banks have been issuing fiat to their customers for many years, they are a corporation heavily invested in making profits and are open to accepting other forms of money. The cryptocurrency wave is already here and I believe the banks will not be left out in this innovation since there is profit to be made. I think the only cryptocurrency the banks have a problem with is bitcoin and privacy coins. If there is going to be any crypto-bank relationships, it’s going to be CBDCs.

Banks are control by the government while crypto are decentralized currency that is not control by government.you can hold fiat physical to buy what ever you want to buy from the market and pay with Fait for the seller to see and touch the money at the moment while you can't use crypto physical but you can use it as form of transfer to the seller before you can go with the goods is some country that is legal tender.

Yes, banks has failed people through bad network and other things that is making people to fall in love with crypto despite the condemned the banks users are condemning crypto in the front of their customers but Many people still prefer to invest their money in crypto than leaving the money in the bank. Crypto transaction is safe and secured which is part of some of the things that made me to prefer it than bank transaction despite it is not legal tender in my country.
[/quote]

You tried in your definitions of both topics of discussion but you have not really taken the time to discuss the underlying relationships between bitcoin vs banks but for as much as I know,  cryptocurrencies are best alternative to traditional paper currency and more so also,  blockchain technology is the best alternative to banking systems,  but both institutions work hand In hand with each other and that is something that we have to acknowledge at all time.

But between the two, banks have been a little hostile towards Bitcoin since there have been several attacks coming in from the banks towards Bitcoin,  with some central banks making restrictions between bank involvements in cryptocurrency transactions.

For sure there are a lot of differences between banks and cryptocurrency, we can already see crypto as decentralized and banks are centralized platforms, the technology is different since cryptocurrency operates on the blockchain and they do transactions differently with the banks, where everything is just centralized which is actually not something that I would definitely recommend. I mean for sure back in the day these two were just completely different and there are some saying that cryptocurrency is going to kill banks in the future because there is just no one that would actually want a centralized platform or just put your money in savings where you dont really have complete control about it right.

But right now I can already see how the cryptocurrency adapt to a lot of countries even here in my countries cryptocurrency already adapted to the point where it is already available to a lot of platforms or banks, some of the banks here in my country already allowed users to buy cryptocurrency using there platform, I mean for sure this banks or companies already realize that they cant really stop Bitcoin so they probably just need to adapt on it because its probably one of there competitors if they didn't do something a lot of money is going to be put on cryptocurrency,

What you describe sounds like cryptocurrencies are completely superior to banks and they appear to be risk-free. Don't forget, the higher the return, the higher the risk, and if you say holding cryptocurrencies can bring high returns, don't forget to emphasize that their risk is also higher than that of banks.

Many people are comparing the two because they only look at the returns and think crypto is better. But banks are not only a place to save money, but also a place to provide insurance services, custody, mortgage loans... many services that cryptocurrencies do not have. Each field has different use cases, comparing the two seems unfair.

There are some differences between banks and crypto people keep money in banks to secure their future by investing in crypto for the long term. While regulated banks offer stability and security cryptocurrencies offer the possibility of decentralized transactions and financial freedom. Bank's activities are accepted as legal tender by government regulation based on economics. Hence, it may lose its value or become worthless in case of hyperinflation. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized in nature and hence there is no government intervention. It depends on the blockchain technology and has no impact on the economy individuals invest independently.

Only bitcoin is decentralized, the remaining cryptocurrencies are not decentralized at all and are also under government management, no assets can escape government control except bitcoin. Another thing, other than bitcoin, there are no projects with technology worth using. Crypto is just a speculative market so it is also greatly influenced by the economy. Evidence is that inflation, rising interest rates and economic crises all have negative impacts on the cryptocurrency market, including bitcoin.
In general, I use both banks and crypto, I don't take sides, no one forces me to choose one of the two.

I think it's the opposite, bitcoin/crypto doesn't need a bank, users need a bank role simply because they can't immediately migrate the financial system for some reason.
Banks need crypto if global adoption rates gradually increase, or they will lose their business to competitors in the industry.

Cryptocurrency is just a financial market and to exist it needs investors and investors need fiat to invest to drive the market, so cryptocurrency really needs banks. Bitcoin can operate without banks or fiat currency, but the value of bitcoin is measured in fiat currency, hence the connection between banks and cryptocurrencies.

Banks are considered the government's backyard to manage fiat money and the economy so it cannot be said that as cryptocurrencies become more popular, banks will depend on cryptocurrencies. Does that mean the government will depend on what it approves to operate?

Bitcoin and crypto don't need banks but you, me and everyone needs banks. How do you invest in bitcoin if you don't have a bank account? Bitcoin is not free and we need money to own it and how do you use bitcoins for everyday payments if you don't convert them to fiat? Banking is necessary and it existed thousands of years before bitcoin was born. How will banks need crypto in the future if governments do not legalize crypto?

Again, bitcoin(satoshi) didn't need investors from the start, it needs Hal as a adopters/contributors/users. In conclusion, bitcoin needs more people like Hal Finney.
And that's what I said that users can't migrate completely from conventional systems because one of the reasons is long-standing dependency. Fiat is only a standard for assessing all entities and activities that have unconsciously become common practice.
Bitcoin can actually also value goods and work relatively, a simple example in a small scope (points for @n00ber also how to invest in bitcoin without fiat without a bank): Almost all campaigns run by @icopress in the service section give a standard flat value for each post is B0. 00008 ~ B0.0001 (ignoring fluctuations). Anyone who doesn't mind can take it. If all managers, sellers of goods and services on this forum implemented the same thing, then slowly the reference standard value on this forum specifically would become only bitcoin.


I accumulated my own bitcoins from the signature campaign and some past jobs. I didn't ever invest into bitcoin with even a cent), if regulations doesn't prohibit me from buying all my necessities with bitcoins and local shops accepted bitcoins, I'd do it as needed.

If I read your post, my enthusiasm immediately flares up and I want to say that evil people have ruled the world for 70 years through banks and paper money. As you have said, banks use customer savings, they use customer money to spin money to make a profit, so they don't like bitcoin technology that cannot be controlled. However, God Almighty has come to help by giving birth to intelligent people like Satoshi Nakamoto who created blockchain. Maybe it's time for the world to look for a better solution than the current traditional financial system.

If I look at why Bitcoin was created, I am more confident that one day this dream will be achieved. Bitcoin will remain Bitcoin. Will be used for massive buying and selling. But it's different with Fiat.
So what happens in the future?
Physical Money (FIAT) will no longer be used because it is troublesome. The same story as the disappearance of the Barter system in ancient times.

Banks joining crypto doesnt mean they're abandoning their controlled systems. Its more like they're covering all bases. You're right that banks are dipping their toes in the cryptocurrency pool Both centralized and decentralized approaches have pros and cons. Avoid black-and-white stories. Centralized systems monitor behavior, protect customers, and simplify policy changes. However, cryptocurrency decentralization appeals to financial authority and privacy advocates, but it also fosters fraud. Change or die is the game. As bitcoin gains popularity, banks want a piece of the digital pie. However, they're adding it as a service, not to replace their prior methods. Its unclear if crypto will kill banks.

Banks joining cryptocurrency have been increasing with time. Centralized exchanges nowadays does the banking functionality in the cryptomarket. Even the financial authorities have begun to be positive, which were earlier against the cryptocurrency usage. Banks feared of cryptocurrency and quite often statements say that bitcoin usage have eaten the revenue of banks. Beyond some point the banks understood the need of technology. One country have adopted bitcoin as legal tender amidst hard opposition. More countries watching the move of the country so that they can further use bitcoin legally.

I don't see anything like opposite here since bank had been in existence before Bitcoin and Bitcoin does not have anything to do with Bitcoin that affect it. The bank houses the traditional way of using money which encompasses monetary regulations. The government has more active force on the bank and controlling it in a way that she like which can be full of corruption. Bitcoin is decentralized which the bank is centralized and can not stand alone without the government policies biding it in the way it ought to be.

I agree, banks are more regulated and I think in this country there is only 1 physical bank that accepts crypto. Some banks doesn't accept crypto too, if you will going to say that you will need bank for crypto purposes or investment they will surely not allow you to open account I know this thing when my uncle try to open a savings acc in a bank. In crypto all are accepted worldwide it just that there are some limitations in country.

Yeah, cryptocurrency is different from banks because banks store their information on a different database, while cryptocurrency information is stored on the blockchain. But it's not correct to think that all cryptocurrencies are decentralized because some cryptocurrencies are fully centralized and have offices where they operate. I know of a project that is registered and licensed under the UK government, and the project has offices in the UK and employees working every day. That is to say that not every cryptocurrency is decentralized; quite a lot of them are very centralized.

True, because not all cryptocurrenci do the same way in decentralisation but indeed if the discussion is about decentralisation maybe we have to narrow down to one of them such as bitcoin but in this case the concept becomes different because the context has narrowed down to a subset of cryptocurrenci namely bitcoin
But when referring to banks and crypto even though some in crypto have little in common of course more differences are opposite. Currently the problem is that many think that this will be a competition but in the end when we think further the function is not to compete with each other and it could be better if they coexist even though this is difficult due to regulation.

Let's not talk about Satoshi's purpose and we should look at what is happening. Not only you and me but everyone knows that the purpose of creating bitcoin is to become a peer-to-peer payment method. But the problem is what do you, I and everyone consider bitcoin? If you don't consider bitcoin a profitable investment, then what is your purpose in accumulating bitcoin? Don't make assumptions about whether the government will accept it or not, because only we ourselves know best what we want.

I really don't understand why so many people invest in bitcoin and want to make a lot of money from it, but they use the excuse that because the government doesn't accept it as a currency so they turn it into an investment? That's like them making profits from bitcoin like the government is forcing them. We should live realistically.

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

They're just doing the innovation through digital payments and currencies that they govern.

But they don't talk about plain cash being used by those activities.  ::)

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency won't defeat or kill central banks, commercial banks and fiat currencies or CBDCs. Bitcoin can outperform fiat currencies, CBDCs in purchasing power over time but by beating, killing I meant Bitcoin will get rid of fiat currencies and CBDCs. It simply won't happen in future and it is kind of over fear.

If a Bitcoin maximalist, investor hope it will happen, it is unrealistic hope. If globally, there are governments, it will not happen.

Well, Satoshi's idea  (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)was to create


This eliminates the idea of central banks, and all other banks, as they are third parties. Another thing is that with the development of the bitcoin industry, mainly centralised exchanges, which is where most retail investors buy their bitcoins, this idea seems like a nice utopia today, but we cannot see it as feasible.

So, to answer the question of the thread, yes and no. Bitcoin was conceived as the opposite, but this is not necessarily the case, as is unfortunately the case.

It is true that the purpose of Bitcoin is precisely to eliminate the intermediary or the bank.  You say that cryptocurrencies cannot be used without the use of a bank but it doesn't seem like that to me, there are some p2p methods or you can always pay in bitcoin and you will only have money for your wallet

Banks are now looking at how they can gain something - meaning profits - out of cryptocurrency. Why is this so? Because many of banking leaders are now convinced that cryptocurrency is here to stay and its market is expanding. So banks are now looking forward how they can collaborate and cooperate with cryptocurrency most especially since they are sensing of a big demand coming from their own client base. Potential conflicts can always be ironed out for the sake of making a slice in the profit cake.

This notion keeps circling in my mind because I have a penchant for weighing the benefits of one approach against another. It's true that P2P can be employed to bypass intermediaries, but thus far, these intermediaries wield significant control, and the reputable stature of banks as trusted financial agents endures in society.

If one were to solely rely on Bitcoin without any FIAT currency, I would find myself unable to procure sustenance (at least for the present moment). For minor expenses, executing BTC exchanges through P2P runs smoothly. However, when it comes to what I perceive as substantial transactions (such as converting BTC to FIAT with large amount), I still find myself reliant on banking services for this large-scale transactions.

Yeah, that won't happen. Before, many have believed that and even I but as time passes, we're getting the idea that it's exaggerated.

Yup, that's it.

We may want to have the idea to be firm and get into the world someday. But it just can't and the matter of fact is that it's good as it is another entity where people can use both of it but it can surely outperform those.

Banks can be the masterminds behind crypto projects. Blockchain projects are global fintech testnets. So cryptocurrency is useful for fiat banking systems: all the financial companies experience troubles with bigdata processing at high security level. So the price of BTC is a kind of "airdrop" for testnet participants. Moreover, some fiat banks might influence the prices of cryptocoins in order to make technologies develop in certain ways.

bitcoin may not outperform fiat, but i believe, just be grateful that btc was invented. fiat is still the major currency that most population will stick to. cbdc is just an alternative but i don't think it will be the major currency, but who knows the future, right?
large population are still depending on bank services, so there's no in a hurry here.

When crypto is used in a country the country's bank does not decide it but the country's government decides whether it should. There are many countries who know that they cannot control Bitcoin if it is accepted as a currency in their country so the country's government does not provide legalization. Again, governments don't use Bitcoin because they think their domestic currency will be threatened because it's decentralized. But many countries have legalized cryptocurrencies and they have achieved financial prosperity but many are afraid to do so and do not legalize bitcoin or crypto because they think their local currency will fall.

In my opinion, banks are under the control of every government, while when it comes to Bitcoin, it is not under the control of anyone, but it is an decentralize crypto currency. Therefore, most governments do not want Bitcoin to be introduced in their country. As far as banks are concerned, the majority of banks do not want crypto currency or Bitcoin to become legal in their country.

Many people still prefer to keep their assets in crypto currencies instead of banks. Since their assets may be at risk of devaluation in banks, they are likely to get good returns on crypto currencies, especially Bitcoin. If people invest more and more. Assets in crypto currencies or Bitcoin instead of banks, this will also have a huge impact on banks. However, banks have their importance and its importance cannot be denied. However, I don't think the relationship between banks and crypt currencies can be cordial, rather the situation between the two is more likely to remain tense, as both perceive each other's existence as a threat to themselves.

Why don't you mention the risks of investing in cryptocurrency and bitcoin? The risk of depositing money in a bank is that the money may lose value over time and the account may be frozen. The risk when investing in bitcoin is that we can lose everything we have if bitcoin suddenly crashes, or our wallet can be hacked...but in return, we have the opportunity to profit big profit instead of depositing money in the bank. Both have their pros and cons.

Apart from bitcoin, the rest of the cryptocurrencies are mostly centralized, so it may not pose a threat to banks as governments may also be looking to control cryptocurrencies, with the exception of bitcoin.

Banks and cryptos don't seem like adversaries to me. Every country has banks but not every country has crypto approval. When there are more than one private bank in a country, the competition between the private banks can be called rivals, but since crypto is not approved in most countries, crypto will not be an opponent of the bank. But Bank China let people of their country transact through crypto or let people of their country invest in crypto. Because whenever the people of a country invest in crypto, the amount of people keeping money in the bank will decrease which is harmful for the bank. That's why banks are always anti-crypto but not anti-crypto.

I don't understand, if cryptocurrencies are considered an investment market, why cryptocurrencies become a competitor of banks?  don't we also have stock markets and foreign exchange markets that are also investment markets? Why aren't they competitors of banks? People are also investing heavily in forex and stocks and the market has a capitalization of tens of trillions of dollars, while cryptocurrencies have not even exceeded $2 trillion.  how will it affect the bank's interests?  are people making unnecessary comparisons and seeing banks as competitors to cryptocurrencies?

You raised a hot topic in crypto talks. Traditional banks have a strong reputation after hundreds of years, while Bitcoin is still establishing its place. P2P trading show us a decentralized future, but infrastructure and society's mindset havent shifted yet.

As you noted, daily requirements are still FIAT-based. Bitcoin can transform the world, but its a "add-on" not a replacement. Its like a tool thats good for some chores but not all.

Due to its safety and strength, people still trust normal banking for major transactions. As Bitcoin ages and our systems adjust, this may alter. Fans cant wait to watch how it changes as its being worked on

Aside from banks, I'm sure the government is searching for a method in cryptocurrencies, and banks being involved, in my opinion, will not go well since the banks' basis is with the customers' money, and they are absolutely frightened because the price is not steady. However, banks have access to cryptocurrency. Since money is needed to purchase bitcoin. And the bitcoin has just increased its environment and keep expanding every seconds.  The demand has seriously increased recently and people are really interested. And am sure the government and the banks would have looked for ways just put a stop to bitcoin but it can not work.
But bitcoin are banks are similar but operate in different functionality.

I will say the answer is yes because bank is purely for physical cash transaction which is centralized system of operation while crypto is only for digital and it is for decentralized mode of operation therefore they don't have the same mode of operation.

I don't think banks have any issue with cryptocurrency because they are also benefiting from it but it is the authority that has problem with it. The authority fear that crypto would shadow the fiat currency so they don't want the cryptocurrency to be used in their countries.

As I said, the conflict between banks and cryptocurrency is sponsored by the state governments. Cryptocurrency is a very good investment platform which banks can make more profit from but the government restrict them from using it. So the bank is not happy with the government but individually the bank workers invest in bitcoin.

As long as it's not the kind of banks people are used to. Going through the wrong kind of banks would be like putting a square peg in round hole whereas it's necessary to fashion a round peg that specifically fits the cryptocurrency round hole, instead of using an incompatible square peg or centralized financial system that is incompatible with the ideals of true cryptocurrency which represents the round hole.
The compatible ones have to be decentralized and non-custodial allowing users to have full control over their funds... or rather, not giving them (the banks) full control over their customers funds. The abuse of customers funds which led to the collapse and bailout of banks in the past was part of the reason Bitcoin was invented, and the power to control funds was given back to their owners. Should we then hand over this power back to the banks to abuse again? Well, certain people have done that with centralized exchanges which are more like the centralized traditional banks but we are currently working hard to create decentralized alternatives that can be as convenient and fast as the centralized ones so people don't have reasons to continue to use them.

And don't forget that cryptocurrency exchange/transaction has to be decentralized peer-to-peer exchange, rather than through the banks or intermediaries. Whatever you build on this space should be built according to this principles.

We all know that crypto currency market is a risky market. Anything can happen at any time, but Bitcoin is more reliable than other currencies, but still Bitcoin cannot be exempt from risk. It is a fact that where there is gain there is also loss and this should never be ignored. The value of Bitcoin can fall, and often the value of Bitcoin fluctuates. Also, any bad news can cause a sudden drop in the price of Bitcoin.


This happened during the crash of Luna, and the same thing happened during the crash of FTX, but we believed that Bitcoin would recover its value very soon, and the current price is in front of you how Bitcoin has recovered its value after major crashes. If we are not careful, our wallet can be hacked, but many people's bank cards i.e. ATM cards can also be hacked without being careful. Such cases are common. So be very careful with things online. The government is creating regulations to regulate and legalize cryptocurrency, but I think Bitcoin is definitely a challenge for the banking sector.

Yes it will be a challenge to banks but I think sooner or later we can see that more banks will accept it and more companies with good names will begin to upgrade to web3. People will soon accept crypto as well that why the demand will rise so banks will be needed to accept pegged coins I think. Next year will be halving that is why it is possible to see bitcoin with new ATH.

Banking institutions have learned that they are missing out on not accepting cryptocurrency, the reason why now some are partnering with some existing cryptocurrency.  Unlike in the earlier years of cryptocurrency, banks are very hesitant and even giving warning to people who are actively participating in the cryptocurreny market.  Some central bank even banned the use of cryptocurrency but due to the performance of the cryptocurrency industry, some banks are now accepting Bitcoin as mode of payment. and even some of them are investing in the knowledge to learn about cryptocurrency.

in principle they are. On one hand we got Banks who are all for the "saving of the denominations of money that you have" which means if you want to save up let's say, 1 million dollars, you can best believe your money, as long as you don't touch it or do anything to it, will remain to be 1 million dollars even after years have gone by. It's a little counterintuitive to some people as it may drive you to think that "there's no difference between saving your money in the bank" and saving it under your bedsheet covers, but what you're really after when you entrust your money in a bank is the sense of security and insurance.

On the other hand, crypto is there to save the value of your money. Say you wanted to invest 1 million dollars in crypto, if things go well and they often do, not only are you going to just have 1 million bucks lying around, you'll most likely have more money after the whole ordeal as it yields profits, and of course, ensures that the value of your money from years ago is retained no matter what.

But before depositing money in the bank, you need to think about inflation, 1 million dollars after many years is still 1 million dollars, but the product you buy for 1$ you will have to pay 2$, 3$ after many years. So will your money still retain its value when kept in the bank for many years?

Meanwhile, investing in bitcoin can help you double or quintuple your $1 million, and you won't have to worry about how much the products out there will go up in price. But bitcoin isn't just profitable without risk, so diversify between banking and investing.

Literally cause here in my country (PH), there's a lot of banks that are not accepting crypto into their institution like for example opening a bank account, when they interviewed you what is your source of income and you answered crypto, then they would reject your application losing more clients. Then there's one bank that are open to crypto which is called UnionBank, not only they are gaining clients but they are starting to rise due to more attention people giving to them as they are being more preffered than most of the bank. It's understandable for them to not being open to crypto since it's decentralized which is really risky for them like the safety, but once they've understand how it could be a good impact to banking for sure they would rise.

Can fiat never have hyperinflation? Yes, national currencies are subject to even greater risk than Bitcoin. Look at the foreign exchange market and everything will immediately become clear to you. In my country, the currency has devalued against the dollar by almost 40% since the beginning of the year. And the state purchases almost exclusively imported goods. Consequently, prices have risen sharply and continue to do so.
Also, inflation risks have not gone away, exceeding 15% for the year. Salaries are not indexed. Question. How to survive under such conditions?
It is much easier to use cryptocurrencies than these pieces of paper, which are rapidly depreciating.

You might find it surprising that banks aren't necessarily opposed to cryptocurrencies. Regardless of how advanced and advantageous cryptocurrency may be, it remains intertwined with traditional banks and fiat currencies. One can't truly make purchases without the support of banks, as cryptocurrency relies on fiat currencies for exchange.

Interestingly, banks might indirectly support cryptocurrencies because some of their owners could have obtained loans for their businesses. Even as cryptocurrency becomes more widely used, banks are likely to persist in their roles within the financial landscape.

There is no need to rush to premature conclusions. It’s much easier now to just watch how the price reacts to certain events. The news background is too dynamic, but somehow this does not give any positive results. Therefore, we can assume that the previous high will not happen during the period that everyone is so looking forward to.
Large speculative players understand everything perfectly and are aware of the reaction of the bulk of investors and traders. Do you understand what I'm getting at? They will definitely make money on this by carrying out a series of manipulative operations. The majority will again be left without money.

Yes, They are opposite to each other. In the bank, you can take a loan but in crypto, you can't take a loan. First, you should invest then you create money. But some things are similar for example: Banks provide safe places for businesses to deposit their own money and you can withdraw when you need money. Almost this thing is similar to crypto where you deposit crypto in centralized exchanges.

You can take loans in cryptocurrency just as you can take loans in bank, some cryptocurrency are created just for this purposes. I have seen many cryptocurrency that you can buy, stake them on their website and get a loan in stablecoin that when you repay the loan you can get your tokens that you kept as collateral. Some cryptocurency exchange also offer the service of taking loans on their exchange with a collateral of high value cryptocurency like Bitcoin.

Banks and altcoins are alike but banks and Bitcoin are different, banks and altcoins are alike because we have many altcoins that are centralized and work just like banks works that they can freeze your coins. BNB freezes hacked funds in hackers wallets just like banks.

. Many of your claims concerning crypto loans and controlled cryptocurrencies working like banks are accurate. You should be cautious. Cryptocurrencies provide greater financial independence than ever, but they also carry hazards that traditional banks have mainly avoided.

If you simply compare banks and altcoins because they freeze money, thats not true. Banks can do it because the rules protect people. Crypto rules are usually written after a mess.

Caution is your best companion on this financial adventure. Altcoins are not banks, despite popular belief. While useful, crypto loans are risky. Remember that anything you do can make or break your money.

Banks are not against crypto. There are already banks in several countries using the Ripple network for international deliveries. This shows that banks and crypto are working together and not opposites.

These two items regarding conflict have been refuted and the answer has been received that the relationship between the two is good in terms of cooperation. It's possible that the item you raised tends to be Bitcoin because there are differences between Bitcoin and crypto. It's just that people outside the forum still think that crypto is Bitcoin
.
Bitcoin does not consider that banks are government-owned or privately owned financial bodies that are managed by groups consisting of several people and must be avoided, but the implementation of the bank system is irresponsible.

Crypto? I am guessing that you hopefully mean Bitcoin by this because I would not vouch for any other cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin when it comes to holding your money. But as I was saying, when it comes to Bitcoin, the very purpose of it is for you to be your own bank and not only that, but a much better bank, because nobody can touch/freeze/withdraw your Bitcoin without your express permission (assuming that you hold your Bitcoin in your own wallet and not a third party wallet like an exchange website wallet).

So in a nutshell: Bitcoin is the better bank because with Bitcoin you are your own bank.

You can take a loan in crypto and that's like a P2P loaning service that we have in the lending section.

But when your crypto is in the centralized exchanges, your funds are on their custody and they're the owner of it.
Yes, you may be the owner of it but as the usual thing that we're saying, 'not your keys, not your coins'.

Banks really using cryptocurrency? Think again. As far as decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is concerned it's very unlikely that centralized financial institutes like Banks will ever use them. They are using centralized cryptocurrency like XRP or USDT.

We need to understand this thing that governments and banks have no objection on use of centralized cryptocurrency but the decentralized ones. Today's centralized cryptocurrency are no way near to original model proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto, i.e. peer to peer electronic cash transfer.

Both banks and crypto are financial engines that makes every monetary implementation and project possible. Why could there possibly be a conflict between both or in this instance classed as opposites?

Government is mostly making a lot of noise about crypto because of some scam projects that have proved unreliable with crashing or freezing of accounts and money laundering activities. All they want is to tax, monitor and control Crypto.
If they succeed, then we would see how both entities would exist in physical proximity and relational services.

Let's get something clear here guys, banks are the custodians of fiat (government approved currency ) while cryptocurrencies are digital currencies which transactions are recorded, verified and maintained by decentralized system using cryptography. Therefore cryptography can be liken to a digital bank.
The reason why most people might prefer fiat or rather commercial bank for their savings to cryptography is its volatility. However both serve almost the same purpose; medium of exchange for goods and services.

Crypto and banks weren't opposite. Both does similar functionality, but on a different process. With banks third parties does the work of recording the transactions and have complete control of the user accounts. With cryptocurrency thing is different, everything happens in an orderly manner based on the framework developed. Banks have control over the user funds and the banks were under the control of governments whereas cryptocurrency is completely different and functions recording each and every activity through the cryptographic operation.

I wouldn't want any mention of crypto for Bitcoin. Their business continues to maintain their desire not to use Bitcoin and still thinks that Bitcoin is bad because of money laundering activities or other illegal acts. For me, Bitcoin will have no effect on sustainability until they really realize that Bitcoin is a system that can be a solution in transactions.

We spend too long rhetoric about banks and governments being anti-Bitcoin or those who are pro-crypto which can be controlled by them, which will not provide good benefits for us here because banks are not transparent in managing our funds. They use their savings to make a profit. Bitcoin does not. As for other cryptos, it's up to them.

Well, you're blaming the bank for using your money to make a profit? So I want to ask, do they force you to give them money? Or do you voluntarily and agree to give them the money to get that small profit back? They are just a business, and they need profits to survive, if you know that they are taking advantage of you, stop using their services. Just like when you go shopping, you know the store's prices are very high compared to other stores but you still buy and is it your fault or the store's fault? As for me, I'm still using both in different situations so I don't want to badmouth or compare them.

Your explanation is quite direct in this regard because you have also explained the differences between the two and the similarities between the two through almost similar goals. However, over time, most people have also chosen cryptography for their investment, although they also do not stay away from conventional banks because they may still be needed to store some of their fiat. But as for the problem of using both of them, I personally still use them very often because up to now there have been no problems that have prevented me from continuing to use both of them.

I am using both bank and cryptocurrency.I think everyone use bank account because anyone who want to invests in crypto uses a bank to receive thier investment in cash or another account .And when it becomes to volatility , cryptocurrency is more much volatile than bank.By investing in bank, you get fixed profit and by investing in cryptocurrency, the more profit you can get and also the more risk you may face and your investment will become zero.I think we should use bank for saving and use cryptocurrency for investment.

The truth is that, cryptocurrency and banks may ve direct opposites and their comparison may be unrealistic better we compare banks to blockchain technology since both of them deals with ledger and balance opening and closing.


And wherever we want to make any comparison it should be between cryptocurrency and other traditional currencies or cryptocurrencies against other assets in its class such as gold stock and the rest.

There's always that main differences but doesnt mean that they cant really be able to collaborate but of course there would really be always that fine line in between about their main differences.
Banks are heavily centralized on which it would really be just that so normal that they would really be getting in line with government rules and conditions on which it would really be just that so right
that you would really be that following on what government been mandating and knowing banks function then everything could be traced and control which is really that totally opposite when dealing up with crypto and this what makes things even more interested for some people who do really give out value when it comes to anonymity or simply that being decentralized. Interest would really be totally different to each person or investor but generally speaking, who doesnt really love on dealing with things which could protect out their privacy? This is why crypto did make or get that much traction and attention just because of this main characteristic or benefits and this is really that preferred.

I know they do it so they can pay their employees and make business-like profits.
In this context I don't want to blame them, as long as they can still be trusted then go ahead. In terms of actual profits, it is not that big for me personally if I use them as a place to store fiat money. Just a few percent interest which in my opinion will not be balanced with the return when Bitcoin passes the purchase price in a matter of years.

Of course, I always avoid saving money in banks even though I still need them to make withdrawals when I exchange into fiat currency considering that my country does not legalize bitcoin as a transaction tool.
I haven't had any fiat currency balance in my account except for a few for daily needs when my savings at home are empty.