Bitcoin Forum

Is this finally the time where we see bankers clash with crypto enthusiasts? We know that crypto goes opposite of what a bank is. But now is it the time where the banks openly push back for all the crypto policies being implemented? Do you think this is to save wall street that they are trying to tighten the laws on crypto? Or do you think they have a valid point?

A shitshow, but it's something expect to happen since stablecoins really can harm fiat and banks.

The only reason people trust banks it's due to FDIC who gonna backup failed banks, but on the other hand, there was an exchange who also claim they have SAFU in case they lost their money. It's back to the people which one they gonna trust.

Beware for people who hold stablecoins.

They can't do shit. The gene is out of the bottle. Even if they ban crypto world-wide, people will still use it to make p2p trades and there will be decentralized platforms available for this purpose. Let's say I have some btc and you got some software keys. I pay you btc and you give me the keys. What can they do about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing and that's the thing that drives them crazy. Banks are mostly dead. They just don't know it yet. When this current boomer generation dies, so will the legacy banking. The new gen will know about crypto right from their birth. They will born into it. They won't get confused. They'll probably question why would they even have to use banks when crypto is available. There  is still hope for banks though. The ones that adapt will survive. The rest will be gone.

Isn't that beef mostly between two types of banks? :)

Stablecoin issuers imo are very close to banks in the way they're working. So basically we have an "old style bank" sector who wants to preserve their privileges and a "new style bank" sector wanting to get a bigger share.

"Crypto" isn't Bitcoin. Stablecoins are actually very much the opposite of Bitcoin, it's only a blockchain-based PayPal.

So I'm not really concerned about that particular issue. I think however that from customer protection perspective, it's not bad that regulations for stablecoins should be quite strict, and if there is a loophole increasing the risk for stablecoin holders dramatically, it should be closed.

Bitcoin bank is the best and everyone can create and control their own Bitcoin banks with Bitcoin private keys from good open source and non custodial Bitcoin wallets.

With other banks, it's not their own banks as banks don't give users private keys and full control of their funds. Deposit money to other banks if people afford to lose their money.

In addition, people who like decentralization will only choose Bitcoin bank.

Stable coins are terrible and worst than central banks or commercial banks.

Stable coins can depeg.
Stable coins can be frozen even in your wallets.

PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204055.0)

Stablecoins are fiat currencies that use blockchain technology. So what we are seeing is a clash between two centralized institutions and not against Bitcoin.  Traditional bankers want Congress to block some so-called loopholes in the Genesis Act to shield their businesses from losing close to $6.6 trillion due to some privileges stablecoin issuers might enjoy from the law. We need to grab popcorn and watch them fight.

That's right, for various reasons, cryptocurrency cannot be stopped by anyone, even if there is a global ban, it is not a problem, because cryptocurrency can belong to anyone, anywhere, and anytime. This means that it cannot be interfered with, and this is technically the case. If banks can adapt to cryptocurrency, it would actually be beneficial for them as well, not only because it is profitable but also because it makes it easier for them to use it as an alternative. However, it seems they are not aware of this, or perhaps there is some kind of resentment involved. And if they don't adapt, they will fall behind in terms of current innovations, which will cause them to disappear because they are not involved. This often happens to similar things that do not recognize or follow developments in the times, technology, and innovation.

I thought Banks real competitors were Fintech. And I'm surprised there's an association for cryptocurrency
It just shows that these fight or battle they are brewing has nothing to do with Bitcoin
But two groups trying to profit over the other.

Their attack is on Stablecoins and their ability to offer indirect yields not a full attack on cryptocurrency
Banks have no reason to fight with Bitcoin. They are both different and satisfy different target market
Their fight would be on the others.

In terms of the interest of the system that serves the government, the government doesn't need to promote stablecoins. Regulate, limit, provide oversight? Yes.

But to promote stablecoins takes away power from banks, which in reality are the biggest factor that keeps governments alive and the capitlistic system supporting them as a whole running.

So if governments take away from the profits and control of banks by allowing non-bank tools to fulfill everyday tasks such as payments and money transfers, a core function of banking for the vast majority of people goes away. With a government endorsed stablecoin you could literally do without banks at all. It's likely that in this instance we'll see the government backing down in its crypto support because banks are a foundational issue for them so everything pro-crypto has to benefit the banks also.

First it was the banking fight against Bitcoin, as it has turned out to be an eye-opener to the people, showing them the benefit of financial freedom. Now the government has given stablecoin another chance to break the bank even more, which, if they don't raisetheir voice now, their era might be coming to an end since stablecoin can typically be doing exactly what the traditional banking system is doing. No one will want to go back to old ways when digitalization is welcomed by all.

Yes that is definitely a valid argument as well, the FDIC ensures up to 250k per person and stabecoins have no insurance like that. Crypto in general doesn't have an equal to FDIC and why would they? Its a young industry that is maturing and not much regulated framework has ever been put in place. That's what were working towards in the future.

Its basically just bankers trying to keep their traditional bank deposits from moving into crypto due to higher yield. The genius act bans yield from stablecoin issuer but non stable issuer can distribute yield on their behalf, the thing that they called loophole so that's true it's centralized vs centralized. Honestly, I think the GENIUS act won't get changed.

The Genius Act loophole could cost banks trillions of dollars in deposits, but that doesn't mean the end of the banking era or their dominance. Because after all, any agency or organization that wants to issue a stablecoin needs to maintain a 1:1 asset reserve. These assets are cash or treasury bonds or approved highly liquid assets and more importantly they must be stored at the bank and managed by the bank.

As some have pointed out, this is simply competition between centralized financial institutions. Because even if stablecoin institutions prevail over banks, that doesn't free us from governments and their centralized systems.

Yep.

Two dogs in one pen trying to get a bigger bone to pick, while we, as retailers, are not in the picture as of now, we can only watch ;D

6.6 trillion will be taken out of all the banks in America alone, that is a huge amount and this will surely affect their businesses I think the clash is now already official if they have gone to the congress for the changing of rules. Although one thing becomes more clearer that the Genius act will give mass promotion to the Defi farming and liquidity sector because people are staking their stable currencies there using the exchanges that the banks called a loophole and to be honest, I don't understand how it is a loophole.

They want to tighten the rules and I guess they will get what they want because the case is now in bigger hands, and there are people in congress who are still against all this and they will also not want such an amount to be flowing from banks to stable currency.

Stablecoin still needs to be under the jurisdiction of the government, hence, it needs to follow the protocols of their Central Bank. And if their CB will favor on implementing such currency, it means, they are also recognizing the benefits of having cryptocurrency in their financial system. As we have seen in today's setting, crypto has indeed so many advantages that anyone can't resist. What they can do is accept the fact that crypto can be an alternative method in their financial system. So they just need to regulate it for the government to explore their opportunities in this market. And be a win-win situation for both sides.

When these institutions are involved, you just know it’s about the gains. The banks and its subsidiaries operate by means of what they could salvage from transactions and everyone else. With Bitcoin and many other altcoins making headlines, it’s only normal that you would find those you could have seen to be anti-Bitcoin or took that position in the past looking for loopholes to exploit.

A challenge will come when you begin to see the two of them as two different individuals, because even bankers can also be crypto enthusiasts and also hold and invest in cryptocurrency just like any other person is. I pity anyone who would allow their profession to stop them from investing in Bitcoin because if they get laid off work tomorrow and have no investments at all, they will be very depressed.

Old industries will always try frustrating the new ones, but the effort of the banks in trying to stop bitcoins from growing will only make it grow.

That's right. After all, no matter how much stablecoins or crypto grow and become popular, but they still have to be subject to government and central bank regulations and management. Even bitcoin, a decentralized asset, could not have become popular and adopted globally without the consent of governments and central banks. How can it be said that they can threaten or disrupt the traditional monetary system, which is backed by governments and banks?

In the future, if crypto can become popular and be adopted to replace the current monetary system but if they are still under government control. That means banks and governments evolved, not us.

I honestly think that stablecoin and bank the same entity ;D. I mean the reserve is controlled by the stablecoin issuer, the same way bank managers their money. It's basically the same thing and there's no such thing as financial freedom with stablecoin, its got the blacklist function to ban money much like bank can blacklist a bank account.

Maybe the defi is revolutionary but overall its just the same thing.
The only different stablecoin that bring financial freedom are those delta neutral hedge stablecoin but even then they are still centralized to some extent.

Bitcoin not crypto
Crypto is similar to the banking system. It's a centralized system controlled by a small group of people who decide on consensus and management. Unlike the Rothschilds and Rockefellers in traditional banking, in crypto you have  Vitalik Buterin, Joe Lubin, and other crypto founders and insiders. Crypto is like the fiat bank system.

Unstable coins are just IOUs, from central bankers.Through crypto, the banksters will continue to rob you via inflation. If you have $10,000 and hold onto it until this time next year, it will have significantly less purchasing power , that's a fact.

For example, if the annual inflation rate is 8%, in just one year the real value of your money drops to about $9,200. In other words, you ‘lose’ $800 in value, even though you still technically have the same $10,000. After 5 years, that $10,000 would be worth only around $6,800 in today’s terms. Inflation silently eats away more than 30% of your wealth.

Crypto, is not the solution  it’s just a new version of the fiat system, controlled by a small group of insiders like Vitalik Buterin, Joe Lubin, and others

Only Bitcoin truly protects you. There's no money printing, no inflation, and no hidden theft.

Conflict is not between banks and crypto, and it is fight between old and new types of financial institutions. Stablecoins also behave even like banks except that they employ different technology and therefore emerging competitors of banks. And you are right one stablecoins have nothing in common with Bitcoin as they are more similar to digital PayPal. Due to this reason, stablecoins should be regulated by rigid policies to ensure that customers do not face significant risks. Most important element of the debate is this focus of customer protection.

The US government's purpose in passing the Genius Act is to strengthen the dominance of the US dollar, which is showing signs of decline as the de-dollarization process is taking place quite rapidly. Therefore, promoting stablecoins pegged to the USD is an extremely wise decision by the US and necessary to maintain USD dominance.

As for the bank's interests being affected, this is not too difficult to solve. Because after all, stablecoin issuers also operate under the control of governments and the Fed. Competition between stablecoin issuers and commercial banks is just competition between businesses. It would not affect the government's tax revenue or the power of the Fed.

This feels less like "banks vs. crypto" and more like a power negotiation over who gets to own the rails of future finance. Regulators are stuck in the middle: push too hard, and they stifle innovation; go too soft, and you risk instability. Both sides have valid points. My guess is we end up with hybrid models where banks and crypto firms both play, but under slightly different guardrails.