How does bitcoin works with traditional banks to stabilise world economy?

[Sexie]

Almost said that bitcoin will affect the existence of traditional banks. Is it true? Please share your ideas, so that people will not confuse about both of them.

[1714831125]

1714831125

[1714831125]

1714831125

[1714831125]

1714831125

[1714831125]

1714831125

[1714831125]

1714831125

[1714831125]

1714831125

[CHENIEN]

Many people talking about the conflict between banks and cryptocurrencies, although there are some banks adopt crypto but still the issue continue that there is a big negative effect of banks because of crypto business. There are also speculation about future banks of cryptocurrencies, but until now I didn't see any building of crypto banks. But the reason why crypto affects banks businesses, it is because of the value also, but it is not the total problem, because the people earn money from crypto are also transact business into banks, which the money deposited are gain from crypto business. So for me, there is no reason that banks has a big economic negative impact because of crypto, but instead banks are also benifited from cryptocurrency business.

[fiulpro]

I don't know why people think that it will have a negative impact on the banks and stuff.
You know people always will cash out Bitcoins and.. all the transactions are no way possible without interference of fiat.
No matter what money will always exist and.. it will keep circulating in..the system.
Also you know banks and other sectors are charging high fee ... When you make payment from them kinda when you buy and sell Bitcoins.
Thus they are getting benefited only.

[Roukawa]

I don't know why people think that it will have a negative impact on the banks and stuff.
You know people always will cash out Bitcoins and.. all the transactions are no way possible without interference of fiat.
No matter what money will always exist and.. it will keep circulating in..the system.
Also you know banks and other sectors are charging high fee ... When you make payment from them kinda when you buy and sell Bitcoins.
Thus they are getting benefited only.

The decentralization and usage of bitcoin is a big threat for the banks since people will now withdraw their savings and investments in the banks in order for them to put in a digital wallet wherein they know that it is more secured and their money will not be lesses due to additional charges.

[yesuidanggan]

I don't think BTC can work with Banks to stabilize the economy! There is a limit to the circulation of bitcoins, but it is an electronic gold of the Internet. Banks issue their own money!

BTC and bank are two contradictory sides!

People buy BTC through the bank, affect the profits of the bank, many Banks are national, which is equivalent to the loss of the country!

[obadia]

Bitcoin will not affect the existence of traditional banks, at the inverse, traditional banks had more activities and commissions thanks to the activity created by cryptocurrrencies.

It would be a problem for banks if it would be a complete eco-system that runs only on cryptos, but it is not the case yet. This being said two evolutions are happening at the same time:

- Further acceptance of blockchain and technology in traditional banking.
- Further involvement of Crypto-currency actors in the real economy.

Ultimately, the both will consolidate somehow when: Cryptos will be considered as "assets" and there is a legal background allowing the oversight of cryptos. You see that projects like Blackmoon, Bankera or MtPelerin are pushing the right buttons with the right regulatory benchmarks.

Time will tell)

[Murloc]

Banks and financial institutions usualy agree that blochchain is a great technology and they are willing to accept it in their spheres. But cryptocurrencies are usually position themselves as a strict opposition to traditionsl banks and I am not surprised that they are getting rejected. Cryptocurrencies hopefully will be implemented into the banking system. Financial sphere usually develops very fast and it is more likely to accept innovations but the issue about cryptocurrencies is more about populism and fear of loosing the competition between banks.

[Hydrogen]

Almost said that bitcoin will affect the existence of traditional banks. Is it true?

Bitcoin introduces competition into the banking industry. In theory this bolsters free markets: fueling innovation and progress, driving down prices and costs for consumers, leading to a more efficient and effective economy.

Bitcoin also has potential to introduce a more stable and reliable means of storing value. This could imply greater security and dependability over traditional fiat currencies or their cashless society alternatives. Bitcoin long term value appreciation could have potential to offset the wealth destruction of high inflation rates. Bitcoin also has the potential to store value in case of hyperinflation or government default on debt. There's a lot of potential as far as bitcoin goes, which is part of the reason for its massive price gains of 2017. Note: you will seldom if ever see the mainstream media mention any of this.

Whether any of these potential outcomes will see the light of day is anyone's guess. But yes it could definitely have widespread and large scale implications.

[jaysabi]

1) The economy is already stable. There is nothing to stabilize.
2) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy when it's such a minor blip in terms of nominal value compared to the overall economy?
3) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy considering it's an unstable store of value and a transactionally-limited currency?
4) What interest does a bank have in using Bitcoin, as opposed to Ripple (a crypto created for use by banks) or when they're only really interested in blockchain, and not even Bitcoin's blockchain, but a private one for internal use?

Answering these last three questions should help you determine that the answer to your question is that Bitcoin doesn't work with traditional banks to stabilize the world economy. Nor should anyone expect it to.

[Hydrogen]

1) The economy is already stable. There is nothing to stabilize.
2) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy when it's such a minor blip in terms of nominal value compared to the overall economy?
3) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy considering it's an unstable store of value and a transactionally-limited currency?
4) What interest does a bank have in using Bitcoin, as opposed to Ripple (a crypto created for use by banks) or when they're only really interested in blockchain, and not even Bitcoin's blockchain, but a private one for internal use?

Answering these last three questions should help you determine that the answer to your question is that Bitcoin doesn't work with traditional banks to stabilize the world economy. Nor should anyone expect it to.

Hi thar. I don't want to step on your toes by responding to your post with a dissenting view.

But if you want a different perspective, I can supply.  

For example, the concept of the economy being stable. There are current risks posted by investment banks with trillions of dollars in derivatives exposure. We saw this in 2008 with subprime mortgage derivatives wrecking the global economy. Bank bailouts began in 2008. They are still ongoing in 2018, as far as I know. Banks are limiting the degree to which insurance covers accounts, reducing withdrawal terms and engaging in other crackdowns as they go deeper into insolvency. There are many dangers and threats to economic stability lurking about which go unrecognized and unmentioned which bitcoin could provide an alternative to. Bitcoin provides economic stability in the form of it not being threatened by the EU being $16 trillion in debt or the USA having a deficit of $21 trillion. Its not that difficult to think of ways in which bitcoin and crypto currencies in general can contribute towards a more stable economy.

Similar might be said of those other points you made.

[Imfinnabeon]

Almost said that bitcoin will affect the existence of traditional banks. Is it true? Please share your ideas, so that people will not confuse about both of them.

Of course it will affect the traditional system which banks sit upon right now. But I don't think it will be doom and gloom and certainly I don't want Bitcoin to be the only currency in the world. If Bitcoin somehow usurps US dollar, Yen, and other currencies we are in for a world of hurt. We need to co-exist, have options, this is what Bitcoin is about. It is about giving power back to the people, not being a totalitarian currency that forces people into using it, that is what the other guys do .

[leea-1334]

Many people talking about the conflict between banks and cryptocurrencies, although there are some banks adopt crypto but still the issue continue that there is a big negative effect of banks because of crypto business. There are also speculation about future banks of cryptocurrencies, but until now I didn't see any building of crypto banks. But the reason why crypto affects banks businesses, it is because of the value also, but it is not the total problem, because the people earn money from crypto are also transact business into banks, which the money deposited are gain from crypto business. So for me, there is no reason that banks has a big economic negative impact because of crypto, but instead banks are also benifited from cryptocurrency business.

The conflict is there, whether or not banks will seem to be friendly towards it. Those that seem to accept Bitcoin only recognize it as a currency, but do not recognize that they cannot control it. Look at all the banks dipping into crypto and blockchain. They are developing private blockchains, and centralized crypto, not even necessarily open source. Not decentralized, not public. All against the spirit of crypto. This is the internal conflict.

Like you said, I also do not see crypto banks happening even though several ICOs claim this. Reality is that, it cannot happen.

[mrcash02]

There are two possible reasons why people use banks nowadays:

1. Because there isn't any other option;
2. Because they think their money is safe there.

With Bitcoin's introduction, people will have another option besides banks. But then it hits on the second point, security. Traditional banks are still considered safer than Bitcoin, so people will be in doubt about what to do... There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides and only time will tell what side people will take. Banks only need to worry if many people start moving their money to Bitcoin, and there is a chance it doesn't happen, taking people's fear in consideration.

And if people takes Bitcoin side, banks will have to offer an alternative more interesting for both parts, probably an alternative in parcery with local government, involving regulations and new rules to seem beneficial to bank's users at first impression, but that will be the same thing than before Bitcoin appeared... The same old fiat system with a new makeup.

[aeternus]

Almost said that bitcoin will affect the existence of traditional banks. Is it true? Please share your ideas, so that people will not confuse about both of them.

Bitcoin is a direct competitor to banks and their business but bitcoin isn't your average competitor because bitcoin isn't taking the customers of banks to another centralized solution, bitcoin transforms you in a bank so in theory every person in the world is a competitor against banks.

And once bitcoin is accepted globally and used everywhere and a person uses bitcoin as its main way to store his wealth it isn't likely he will use banks again, as such banks not only lose the client, banks lose the client forever.

[obadia]

There are two possible reasons why people use banks nowadays:

1. Because there isn't any other option;
2. Because they think their money is safe there.

I think you are essentially wrong here, and to prove I simply use myself as an exemple:

There are many "safe" ways to go without a bank, from cash under your pillow, to buying gold for small amounts and investing in infrastructure/productive assets if you have more resources.

The reason why I use the system is:
1. Comfort, while being system-dependent, banks makes the use of fruit of my work easy and has been pretty reliable in my experience. Also there are many perks coming with it, such as checks and balances by institutions (which doesn't happen in block-chain based companies, yet), ability to use credit (again, not a strong topic in the crypto-world, yet) and finally, the fact that it is easy to use.

2. There are many "safe" ways to go without a bank, from cash under your pillow, to buying gold for small amounts and investing in infrastructure/productive assets if you have more resources.

Ultimately the use and price of a currency (even if you speak about fiat or crypto), are defined by the acceptance it has. The actual volatility and lack of checks in cryptos makes it unapplicable to real life, with frauds, hacks and speculative excesses that makes in a terrible choice for a baker, a care seller or a plumber.

The biggest concern of a modern central bank is: Stable currency and Gvt debt management. That's why all countries try to have a small inflation (it is not only to reduce the debt but to induce artificial growth by taking from the fortunate to the socialwelfare system) but stable inflation. Even a country like Switzerland or Norway, which do not need to print money (both governments, for different reasons, make money each year) still want a stable currency and a small inflation. Switzerland makes huge efforts to devalue their money to stay stable and competitive.

In a world in which you can go buy bread at 10am for 2usd then go at 1pm and have to pay 2.5usd then go back at 4pm and have to pay 1.5usd, the administrative cost would be unbearable, and trading of any sort (including the trade of the baker) would be nearly impossible.

Bitcoin has not been created to be a world day-to-day currency, but more a speculative and reserve currency for the people ready to take the ride.

Sad to say, you need governance in a currency for it to be used broadly. The beauty of cryptos is that you can hard-code governance, the ugly part is that a small selection of people will end up by doing so (call it the Fed, call it federated miners..)

[jaysabi]

1) The economy is already stable. There is nothing to stabilize.
2) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy when it's such a minor blip in terms of nominal value compared to the overall economy?
3) Why would bitcoin have any effect on the economy considering it's an unstable store of value and a transactionally-limited currency?
4) What interest does a bank have in using Bitcoin, as opposed to Ripple (a crypto created for use by banks) or when they're only really interested in blockchain, and not even Bitcoin's blockchain, but a private one for internal use?

Answering these last three questions should help you determine that the answer to your question is that Bitcoin doesn't work with traditional banks to stabilize the world economy. Nor should anyone expect it to.

Hi thar. I don't want to step on your toes by responding to your post with a dissenting view.

But if you want a different perspective, I can supply.  

For example, the concept of the economy being stable. There are current risks posted by investment banks with trillions of dollars in derivatives exposure. We saw this in 2008 with subprime mortgage derivatives wrecking the global economy. Bank bailouts began in 2008. They are still ongoing in 2018, as far as I know. Banks are limiting the degree to which insurance covers accounts, reducing withdrawal terms and engaging in other crackdowns as they go deeper into insolvency. There are many dangers and threats to economic stability lurking about which go unrecognized and unmentioned which bitcoin could provide an alternative to. Bitcoin provides economic stability in the form of it not being threatened by the EU being $16 trillion in debt or the USA having a deficit of $21 trillion. Its not that difficult to think of ways in which bitcoin and crypto currencies in general can contribute towards a more stable economy.

Similar might be said of those other points you made.

I don't mind someone responding. That's the whole point.

I don't know what banks you're talking about reducing withdrawal terms or engaging in crackdowns as they go into insolvency. The banking sector is thriving in the US and bank profits have been high for several years. The banks are healthy in that they routinely pass stress tests and even the most at-risk banks have improved to the point where the Fed is approving expanded dividend and capital repurchase plans. Derivatives remain a systemic risk, but that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. There are Bitcoin derivatives as well (futures are derivatives).

I don't see he connection between Bitcoin and national debt. If the economy was denominated in btc, it would still be possible to have a national debt. That wouldn't solve anything. The fact that the government any control Bitcoin is why the economy will never be denominated in btc. Pretty sure it would be a bad idea anyway. We left the gold standard because it hampered economic growth.

[Happiest]

The two don't have anything to do with each other because they are just two different things. Probably, in the future we might see a project where these two works together but now i don't think there is. Since the arrival of cryptocurrency a lot of people have been doing little savings in the bank but instead putting their money into cryptocurrency where they believe that the future lies. And i most tell you, the banks do not seem to be welcoming this. More reasons why some banks banned the purchase of bitcoin with their credit cards.

[shulio]

Bitcoin and other crypto currencies allows people to be their own bank. One can send the other one in safest possible way with crypto coins. People who need loans will use banks. Other than that, we do not need banks to rule our money anymore.

[Hydrogen]

I don't know what banks you're talking about reducing withdrawal terms or engaging in crackdowns as they go into insolvency. The banking sector is thriving in the US and bank profits have been high for several years. The banks are healthy in that they routinely pass stress tests and even the most at-risk banks have improved to the point where the Fed is approving expanded dividend and capital repurchase plans. Derivatives remain a systemic risk, but that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. There are Bitcoin derivatives as well (futures are derivatives).

I don't see he connection between Bitcoin and national debt. If the economy was denominated in btc, it would still be possible to have a national debt. That wouldn't solve anything. The fact that the government any control Bitcoin is why the economy will never be denominated in btc. Pretty sure it would be a bad idea anyway. We left the gold standard because it hampered economic growth.

European banks limiting withdrawals as they face insolvency and also cutting the maximum amount under which insurance protects depositors accounts are threads which have been made in this section over the past 6 (?) months.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/eu-eyes-capping-deposit-withdrawals-when-banks-are-found-failing
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/europe-s-sovereign-bank-doom-loop-can-t-be-broken

I guess my claim of banks limiting insurance is questionable as it depends on which country we're referring to. There was an article posted in this section not long ago regarding some banks cutting depositor insurance.

In searching for these links I realized its difficult to find sources via search engine for negative news on the economy. This reminds me. There used to be a website called http://www.eudebtclock.org which used to keep track of total EU debt(in trillions). I think they got shut down last year in 2017.

Where things get interesting is, if someone tries to find out how many trillions the EU is in debt via search engine. Its very hard to find the total amount of debt listed in trillions of euros. Its listed as a percentage of GDP or whatever assorted statistic. But the total amount of debt -- its almost as if an attempt has been made to scrub and censor the data from the internet.

Bank stress tests don't do anything. That aspect of regulation has been subverted and gamed the way credit rating agencies have been. They didn't prevent the 2008 economic crisis. They fail to prevent economic crisis in greece or any other nation. Banks should not be expanding their programs due to concerns over the economy.

Danger posed by bank derivatives to anything in bitcoin given the ridiculous monetary amount of exposure banks are subject to. There are banks who have 4 times the GDP of the united states in derivatives exposure. $70-$80 trillion per bank in worst cases. Bitcoin derivatives: insignificant in comparison.

Bitcoin contributing to economic stability could revolve around the concept of the competition bitcoin gives banks driving innovation, progress and industry advancement. It could also help to preserve wealth should the dollar crash which would help in the event of a recovery, etc.

[jaysabi]

I don't know what banks you're talking about reducing withdrawal terms or engaging in crackdowns as they go into insolvency. The banking sector is thriving in the US and bank profits have been high for several years. The banks are healthy in that they routinely pass stress tests and even the most at-risk banks have improved to the point where the Fed is approving expanded dividend and capital repurchase plans. Derivatives remain a systemic risk, but that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. There are Bitcoin derivatives as well (futures are derivatives).

I don't see he connection between Bitcoin and national debt. If the economy was denominated in btc, it would still be possible to have a national debt. That wouldn't solve anything. The fact that the government any control Bitcoin is why the economy will never be denominated in btc. Pretty sure it would be a bad idea anyway. We left the gold standard because it hampered economic growth.

European banks limiting withdrawals as they face insolvency and also cutting the maximum amount under which insurance protects depositors accounts are threads which have been made in this section over the past 6 (?) months.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/eu-eyes-capping-deposit-withdrawals-when-banks-are-found-failing
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/europe-s-sovereign-bank-doom-loop-can-t-be-broken

I guess my claim of banks limiting insurance is questionable as it depends on which country we're referring to. There was an article posted in this section not long ago regarding some banks cutting depositor insurance.

In searching for these links I realized its difficult to find sources via search engine for negative news on the economy. This reminds me. There used to be a website called http://www.eudebtclock.org which used to keep track of total EU debt(in trillions). I think they got shut down last year in 2017.

Where things get interesting is, if someone tries to find out how many trillions the EU is in debt via search engine. Its very hard to find the total amount of debt listed in trillions of euros. Its listed as a percentage of GDP or whatever assorted statistic. But the total amount of debt -- its almost as if an attempt has been made to scrub and censor the data from the internet.

Bank stress tests don't do anything. That aspect of regulation has been subverted and gamed the way credit rating agencies have been. They didn't prevent the 2008 economic crisis. They fail to prevent economic crisis in greece or any other nation. Banks should not be expanding their programs due to concerns over the economy.

Danger posed by bank derivatives to anything in bitcoin given the ridiculous monetary amount of exposure banks are subject to. There are banks who have 4 times the GDP of the united states in derivatives exposure. $70-$80 trillion per bank in worst cases. Bitcoin derivatives: insignificant in comparison.

Bitcoin contributing to economic stability could revolve around the concept of the competition bitcoin gives banks driving innovation, progress and industry advancement. It could also help to preserve wealth should the dollar crash which would help in the event of a recovery, etc.

I'm not up on the status of EU banks. US banks are much improved health-wise from 2008, but the problem is they were "too big to fail" before, and they only got bigger as they used government loans to snap up failing rivals in 2008 and are now much more of a systemic risk than they were in 2008. Stress tests are the best gauge we have for measuring preparedness, and banks regularly failed them in the years after 2008 in the US and the government required reforms because of them. The fact that they pass them now shows improvement. Again, I don't know how things are in the EU, but Greece is a perfect example of a country that can't fix itself because of an ingrained culture of tax evasion and an overly large welfare state. Bitcoin, an instrument that can't keep a stable value hour to hour, isn't going to be a bastion of stability if the USD fails. I just can't see how that would work.

One thing for sure, if the US doesn't stop running ridiculous deficits, it's going to end up like Greece. The problem isn't unforeseeable, but no politicians here have the political will to take a common-sense approach to fiscal discipline and the American public is far too stupid as a whole to demand accountability. We want wants fulfilled now. Low taxes, big government programs, bloated military, foreign interventionist wars forever. In a word, ridiculous.