Bitcoin Forum

I wasnt sure whether to post this in Economics or in here, I feel this is the right place overall as the concerns I'm going to raise are in part relevant to a lot of what goes in in here.  I guess the mods will decide.

For sometime now I've been completely aghast at what seems to be a total lust for partnering up with banks!  Every project and its dog seems to want to be under the wing of banks these days and I've got to the point where I need to speak up on it.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I'm not particularly averse to banks.  They serve a purpose, and they'll continue to be a part of our daily lives.  They've misbehaved sure, and while I feel that there does need to be stricter regulations to control just how misbehaved they can be (and the people at the top who allow this behavior should be held accountable), I don't hold the opinion that many do of "DOWN WITH THE BANKS!"

What does get me irked up, is the hypocrisy, short sightedness and lack of concern that is evident everywhere right now, both here and elsewhere.

Satoshi gave us an opportunity to take a step away from total reliance on the banking sector, and I feel that we as a community and industry are just throwing it away.  The way in which we are going, Bitcoin might as well of never existed and all of us could of saved a lot of time, blood, sweat, tears and money in the meantime.

Everyday I see a new project starting up with plans to cater for the banks, or existing projects partnering up in some manner, followed by a glut of delusional posts stating things like "the banks are afraid", "they want to kill Bitcoin".  

I had meetings with a number of banks over 12 months ago to discuss possible integration and mutual benefit with regard to eMunie.  I left all of these meetings with the same mindset and haven't followed up with any since, perhaps in the future I'll have to if eMunie becomes the success I hope but for now I'm happy to be incommunicado.

Why did I do this?  Let me tell you, because no one else will.  They are not afraid of Bitcoin at all, not in the slightest, or any other similar project either current or on the horizon.  They are interested in this technology because it will make them money, and LOTS of it, and I didn't want eMunie to be a component that makes banks yet more money!

You see it costs the banks quite a lot to send transactions around, as the infrastructure is old, outdated, overly complex and a collection of band-aids upon band-aids.  Each component in this beaten up old infrastructure has a middle man that takes a fee for the processing of that transaction, and these fees add up.  Some transactions can cost upwards of $13 in fees alone (that is why the banks feel justified charging you $30 for a bounced check).

Block chains, DAGs, ledgers or whatever are much more efficient!  All of these middlemen can be cut out, the system is more efficient and the banks can increase their profits MASSIVELY!

Some projects such as R3CEV have probably identified the same thing that I did, and decided that by developing a system that the banks can use, even if they charge a small fee, they will make incredible amounts of money.  The banks are all for it, as in the event of a successful product, they now only have to pay $1 instead of $13 for exactly the same transaction.

Other projects that started off without any intention of joining up to a "Banking Consortium" have also been sucked into this culture which is unfortunate, as these projects could have stood on their own two feet for a long period of time with a little more effort and a little less corner-cutting.  

The banks are forging these relationships purely to hedge, if one project fails, they are partnered with 10 others and only one need succeed.  An added benefit (minor though as they aren't "afraid" at all remember) of course is the fact that if everyone is happy to take partnerships and relationships with banks, no one is working solo, and if no one is working solo, then there is no long term threat from some unknown taking a chunk of the pie.

If you have a good project and you want to partner up with a bank, or you get approached, then make them work for it!  Don't make the mistake of thinking you have been "chosen" or that you are special in someway, you aren't, you're just another means to make money!

Great post!  It is disheartening to see the quick move to partner with banks.  Innovation can happen with out the banks.  I like Bitcoin because I feel it is more for the people, banks have never been for the people.  Thanks for posting.

Well, take your pick of being either a valiant fight against the man, or self promotion by the emonkeys, but I don't see banks going extinct anytime soon.  The vast majority of people are going to outsource security of their wealth to a 3rd party, otherwise every house on the street would be god's gift to kick door home invasions.  Even if they don't know where to find the private keys, they can just tie you to a chair and start cutting off your fingers until you give up your Zerocash and anonymously transfer it via their phone and walk off with you at zero net worth.  Core devs using terminology like "segregated witness" was a great foreshadowing of the future because nobody is going anywhere near bad neighborhoods if crypto becomes mainstream.

That's not really a valid counter argument is it, as the same thing can (and did) happen without crypto.

Someone could break into my home, tie me to a chair and do the same, demanding that I transfer a chunk of cash to some offshore bank account in a liberal country.  Or hold someone near and dear and demand that I go to the bank and withdraw a chunk of change or they'll harm them.  Why stop there, steal my car and take it to the local chop shop for some extra cash, and pawn off all the valuables in the house too.

Its a bit of a stretch to be honest, that with the advent of crypto and self controlled finance, everyone suddenly becomes a victim of forced bondage.

I'm just annoyed that there is this opportunity to provide another financial option either as an alternative or a compliment to the existing banking infrastructure and its being given away willingly without even considering IF there is another, better way.

Take Bitcoin for instance, if by some miracle Bitcoin became mainstream and every random Joe owned some, they would adopt the same security model the exchanges do.  The majority would just place most of their wealth somewhere like a Coinbase vault account as their "cold" wallet, then something like 5-10% of that would be placed in their non-vault, "hot" wallet that can be accessed by the shift card.  Some minor penance would be placed on their cell phone to, you know, support the whole decentralization cause.  Maybe they would have some of the cold wallet in a safety deposit box or something instead of an actual financial account, but none of them are really going to stop using banks at all should Bitcoin go mainstream.

No matter how computer literate someone is, most will still end up placing the funds in some type of chain of custody due to things like deaths occurring that need wealth transferrence via wills or other such issues.  Some Richard Stallman types would obviously keep nothing in a Bitcoin bank, but those would be the extreme minority in widespread adoption.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should stop using banks, of course that's not going to happen, and I stated in my OP words to that effect.  But I can't be the only one that sees something here is the wrong way around?

WE are in the position of power here, WE are the guys that know how this technology works and WE are all at the forefront of its innovation.  The banks, the corps and governments need US to educate them, yet they show a bit of "leg" and everyone goes rushing off in love giving away every Ace we have!

I'm not saying that we shouldn't work with them either, but at least get something worthwhile in return!  Instead of just giving up a deck full of Aces for a paycheck in fiat which everyone here apparently hates.

It's called Stockholm Syndrome.

It is the path of least resistance.
Some find such path leads them along the same path as banks, some find such path leads them on an indifferent trajectory to banks.

The world is full of subjective and opposing viewpoints, some of those have very little concern for any concerns voiced here. You must idiot proof your conclusions to accept that someone will always think you're wrong.

So this means we have yet to see the great cryptocurrency pump ala the tech bubble?

Pretty funny indeed, many of us came here because we wanted to get rid of our dependence on banks but now we all (or at least the majority of us) worshipping coins connected to banks :). Many people also looking at banks like saviours what will take the crypto scene to the next level by handing over money and "professionalism". ...and I didn't even mentioned the "bitcoin must be regulated to make it's way to businesses" idiots :/.

I guess the best way to prove a coin's worth outside the system is for that coin to cater to and must be accepted as of value by ISIS and other insurgents, drug cartels, the black market, and anything related to the criminal underworld.

You answered your own question.


It's silly to think anyone here has the upper hand on financial and banking institutions in anything whatsoever. Sure, some (many) talking heads don't really understand blockchain or Satoshi's/BTC 'vision', but there are plenty in the industry that do. Either it's ignored, demonized, re-structured or circumvented for profit, power and control. Simple.

Good post. A few point on this:

* Almost all Bitcoin users use third-party services, such as Coinbase, Bitstamp, etc. So the actual benefits are not that visible yet. The real potential of completely new kinds of applications which banks will never be able to implement are all in its infancy

* As a Bitcoin exchange you have to deal with the various regulations (AML/KYC/CTF). The option as a Cryptobased company is to focus on areas where this doesn't apply, but then you're forced to target very small markets.

* Most of the interesting advanced applications require more than digital cash. Bitcoin is anonymous digital cash, and the Bitcoin2.0 idea is more general. For asset transfer and operation at scale one needs different mechanisms. For example anonymous asset issuance in many cases doesn't make much sense, since the fraud rates are going to be very high. Bitcoin has simple smart contracts, but hardly anybody uses them really. Even the exchanges have a hard-time implementing proper multi-sig (Bitstamp and Kraken both use a commercial solution).

* I agree - both sides might be a bit naive. The one party you have not mentioned are the regulators, law-makers, etc. That is when it gets really complex. I personally expect very big changes in the structure and governance of the global financial system. It is very likely that in the future most people will understand the value of a limited money supply.

* Many of the benefits of this new kind of money might not only be related the privatisation of money, but in ways the Cryptocurrency community might not expect. If companies, governments, NGO's were to use a different kind of money the advantages for customers and citizens could be tremendous. I wish for instance I could instead of voting for one party based on empty promises, instead just limit their spending, and in particular spending on military. Or if I pay for a service of a company, which then is not delivered at expected, instead of having to pay a lawyer, use smart contracts so that I get automatically reimbursed (an even more trivial example is the need to prove that a paper document was delivered).

* There is an easy check for the viability of any such "banking projects": is it possible for everyone to buy in, and profit from it? In Bitcoin profits get widely distributed and that's the power. From that perspective these blockchain projects are uninteresting - there is no token of value.

Banks in my country give kredits to those who would otherwise suffer malnutrition. Maybe they are not the absolute evil?..

the only crypto needed to connect to fiat is BTC ... that is its job ... the rest are cryoto 2 crypto

[on the fringe are LTC & XPL ... maybe ETH]

Or just start a war and when all the asset holders are dead and no longer able to take delivery of their paper profits, the economy is magically saved.

We shouldn't forget that another translation of "revolution" is "catastrophe"...

good write up OP

probably one of the most important discussions the crypto community needs to be having yet it slides down the pages with comparative very little replies  ???

Yup, though I guess as long as everyone is increasing the amount of USD they are worth, who cares eh? :)

Isn't that what it's always been about? Maybe I'm cynical but don't most tech geeks want to change the world.... and get rich doing it?? Tesla dreams on beachfront properties. Who's kidding who?

If you really want to change the world, leave your front door and walk down main street. Trust me there will be somebody there who needs your immediate help. Change their world.

Sorry, but I'm not falling for any holier-than-thou attitudes on BCT. All techies who change the world become very wealthy indeed. No-one is pulling the wool over my eyes on this board.

Hey you can be cynical all you like, in fact I'd encourage it as I'm as cynical as they come.

If I wanted to get "rich" from crypto I could of already, probably 10x over, but it's not about the money for me.  I already have plenty and have lived a mortgage free life with a garage of cars for the past 10 years.  I could have been contracting in London pulling down 6 figure sums, as I have before, for the past 3 years that I've been here, but I'm not.   Sure money is nice, but it doesn't guarantee happiness, as in the end shit still happens.

It'll take me YEARS to recover what I have invested financially into eMunie, I'm not taking any large "insta mine" pay off, I'll likely be one of the lesser holders of EMU overall holding just a few thousand.

If it's a success, sure I'll make plenty from other income streams but I'll never be "billionaire rich" from it, that's for damn sure.

So yeah, be cynical as hell, but also keep an open mind...that's what I've learned anyway :)

If the banks choose proper dencentralized crypto to do this, I don't see anything wrong with that, it would add transparency and make crypto legitimate in the eyes of "Joe Sixpack".

Problem is, that's probably not going to happen, as transparency and decentralization is not something they're really after (as we can see with "permissioned ledgers").

when is release coming... i'm in.