Debt and Crypto?

[0t3p0t]

I see debt as a poison that slowly but surely has become a tool that allows the upper layer to suppress the lower class of the society. We're living in a system that's purely based on debt, and build up with debt. Central banks keep printing money like it's nothing, just to keep the economy going. People are able to take out loans and mortgages that don't represent their own financial capabilities, which basically means that financial institutions are willingly putting people into debt. I am anti any form of debt, and handle the main principle being that if you don't have the money for it, don't buy it.

Technically there are certain ways to allow whatever entity to issue certain crypto tokens endlessly, just like central banks are able to print money, but that doesn't change anything from the fact that you're not improving anything. The only thing you're doing is relocate the problem and give it a different name. Nah, debt in whatever form of shape is poison.

I agree with your idea about crypto and debt this explains what the current economy and people in every nation has. Debt maybe a poison that kills and let people drown but it could sometimes help and make them successfull if they did it right. It is also a privilege to those who have nothing but the only problem is on how they are going to pay such expensive goods, houses and cars? Is this what governments want and promised to it's people to get locked in prison because of debt? I myself hate it too because I know how hard life is and I don't want to get into trouble. Cryptocurrency is the best way to have financial freedom without getting involved in debt.

[1715204086]

1715204086

[1715204086]

1715204086

[1715204086]

1715204086

[pereira4]

I always saw Bitcoin like a gold alternative but better, since you can carry it and move it around without being stopped and put to prison on every border if you tried to escape your collapsing government.

As far as debt goes, technically it's possible via payment channels. Just like on Poloniex people ask for coins to get loans, you put them there and they pay you back with an interest, but done right, decentralized with payment channels. I think the lightning network will make it possible to make passive income by decentralized loans. Of course im not sure how that would work in practice since there must be some kind of collateral but we'll see.

What has caused the massive collapses has been uncontrollable debt, they print too much money, and the debt never stops growing, at some point it becomes a bit of a joke. Having a finite supply doesn't mean there isn't people out there willing to put their bitcoins somewhere so people can get loans. There could be not enough offer for people wanting to get loans tho, this is all very difficult for me to theorize since I don't know how it would work in practice.

In any case, other cryptos could be delivered for that, the challenge is how to do it in a decentralized way.

Gold wasn't a suitable currency instrument either, which is why the whole world has abandoned gold-based currency. It limits economic growth because it can't be produced at will. Currency (money) is just a representation of value that exists in the world (value = goods/services) so the worth of money is how much money exists divided by how much value exists. When value increases faster than the money supply, you have deflation (money increasing in value) and when the money supply increases faster than value, you have inflation (money decreasing in value). The trick is to marry the currency growth rate and economic expansion so money stays mostly stable, and this is the job of the Fed. It cannot be accomplished with a decentralized, uncontrollable currency, which is why crypto is never going to replace fiat.

Economic growth depends on taking stored value (savings) and loaning it to someone who will create something new of value to repay the debt with interest. This is sustainable because the new thing of value increases the overall amount of value in the world, which did not exist previously, and justifies the increase of the money supply (the loan). A crypto-based system would inhibit this, and inhibit economic growth, because the money supply cannot be increased.

But since they can print fiat at will, we end up with delusional, unsustainable hopes of constant growth, which is why capitalism is collapsing, it's based on constant growth and this is not how things work in real life.

In any case, like I said before, bitcoin for me was never meant to replace fiat, but to act as a catalyst against it when fiat goes full retard thanks to corrupted fiat policies. When they bailout corrupt bankers and your savings go to hell you will see the need for bitcoin as a neutral safe haven that's limited in amount and basically immutable.

[jaysabi]

Currency (money) is just a representation of value that exists in the world (value = goods/services) so the worth of money is how much money exists divided by how much value exists.

This seems so wrong that I can't believe anything else that you wrote. Basically, you are saying that there is money sitting around somewhere that represents the value of the house I bought. That can't be true.

Not sure what your hang up is about it. Most "money" that exists is digital, so if you're thinking there has to be physical currency sitting somewhere to represent the value of your house, that's not necessarily true. You don't pay your mortgage in cash, it's done by electronic transfer or check, and the latter is a physical analog to electronically move money through a series centralized ledgers. In that sense, the digital fiat system we have isn't any different from bitcoin but for the fact that it's centralized instead of decentralized. But it's still true that the value of your house is represented by the digital fiat in existence.

[BitcoinTurk]

In the past I have been able to say that this process is extremely risky, as a small amount of bank debt and a profitable buyer of Bitcoin. The stress that is required will remain constantly in your head with many other risk reasons. The situation will be even more serious if cash shortages or panic sales are made after a sharp decline.

[xdrpx]

If there's a finite cap and the banks are willing to create a platform where they would act as the "Escrow party" and the lenders and borrowers can participate on this platform and pay the Banks some form of commission or escrow fees. This way they banks would only need to maintain the ratio of lenders vs borrowsers by regulating the borrowing rates of interest to attack borrowers or leders appropriately. This will eventually also put the banks out of "monopolistic" power where they're too big to fail and several such platforms would emerge by private parties who would provide a service for cheaper interest fees and create competition, unless ofcourse the fees are also regulated.

Also, I feel in a realistic scenario If the banks created their own cryptocurrenceis, then a finite cap wouldn't exist. They would still want the power and authority to be able to print more of the cryptocurrencies based on need and on whatever algorithm they use for it. Banks would prefer to use a private blockchains and sometimes be able to freeze funds to prevent money-laundering and illegal transfers. I'm also going to mention that several banks have also tied up with public blockchain services like Ripple for cheaper and quicker money remittances.

In the end most of the present day debt comes from Banks who maintain some reserve but have the ability to print cash in excess of the reserves when need arises. This makes them "Ultra superior" and important, which also makes it risky for the economy if they collapse.

[mrcash02]

Very interesting point: When lending money, everyone wants to receive more money back than they lent, but when the supply is finite, there must be other people losing money to make the first one earn interest, right?

So we are just redistributing money (Bitcoins) among ourselves. We aren't building fortune, but exchanging fortune among ourselves where you never increase your budget without making another person lose part of his budget...

About the loans, it works perfectly, because it will be an eternal exchanging scheme. You borrow money, you recover it by doing business and pay the lender, but thanks to other people who have lost money for you, by paying for your services/products, then you and your lender will need these people later and you will pay them for their services/products. So this money is constantly coming and going...

But to make it work I believe it's necessary to keep spending money, and avoiding accumulating wealthy. Hmm, that is the complex part as everyone wants to upgrade their life status...

[1Referee]

We have a saying in our family that debt is only bad if it's bad debt, basically anything that don't make a profit.

I know what you mean, but the main point still remains that you are exposing yourself to debt, regardless of the purpose. I know a family member of mine who has taken out a mortgage loan to buy himself a property, and have it rented out to several students at the same time where they each get a room for themselves. At current stage his monthly mortgage costs are almost €800 per month, where he nets a fair +€2000 per month after collecting rent from all students. After various smaller potentially unexpected expenses, he on average walks away with €1000 in profit every month. In this case he makes his debt work for him, which is good for him as long as it works, but definitely not something I would ever do.

It's impossible to fund everything on your own and if people are to lend you money, they're going to ask for something in return, whether that be interest or shares (if you are building a company).

If something is impossible for me to fund on my own, I will just accept that it's not a reachable target for me, it's that simple. I'll either set myself a target to accumulate the required number of funds to invest or buy something later on with my own money, or focus on something completely different. I am not a slave of my bank and never will be.

[exstasie]

Very interesting point: When lending money, everyone wants to receive more money back than they lent, but when the supply is finite, there must be other people losing money to make the first one earn interest, right?

So we are just redistributing money (Bitcoins) among ourselves. We aren't building fortune, but exchanging fortune among ourselves where you never increase your budget without making another person lose part of his budget...

A finite supply changes nothing there. That's just the nature of debt. The debtor has less, the lender has more. The difference is interest.

Crypto currently isn't a good framework for loans. It lacks the creditchex, identity confirming, background check and debt collection infrastructure which banks and loan institutions rely upon to make running their business viable.

For now. Several companies have emerged to take advantage of that vacuum (Civic, Bloom, and others). The traditional credit reporting agencies don't have skin in this game, but I think third party services will be used to verify identity and check backgrounds just the same.

[richardsNY]

It is also a privilege to those who have nothing but the only problem is on how they are going to pay such expensive goods, houses and cars?

It's actually very simple, if you don't have anything, you don't buy anything. Debt is indeed a way to overcome the temporary lack of financial resources, but at what cost? If we look at the younger generation having nothing and resorted to loans to fill up their gaps, it's safe to say that they have made the situation worse for themselves. It was stated that in the last decade  the total debt of the younger generation has tripled in number, which is a worrying development. That's what you get when banks and other financial institutions are so easily allowing people to get into debt, and the shocking part is that this will not stop and likely triple again in the next decade. Great system this is....

[zarados]

I was wondering what everybody's thoughts were on issuing debt based on cryptocurrency. Debt is an extremely important factor for economies to grow. In a simple example, very few people would actually be able to purchase a house without debt. If you can't purchase large cost items like cars and houses, to name a few, the economy will literally collapse. Not to mention that transportation would become a very big problem. There's more examples to be made for starting businesses and many more but I won't discuss that in my original post.

Cryptocurrency is not inherently a debt instrument and cannot simply be "printed" or issued past its limit. I know a lot of people here feel that banks should die and banks are evil, but realistically I don't see how an economy can survive without debt instruments and issuers. If Bitcoin does replace all currency, does this mean that banks will collapse, or issue their own cryptocurrency to 'lend coins' to people who would like to make a big purchase and pay it off over time? Would it even be possible to pay interest back on a large scale if a coin has a finite supply? If there is 21 million Bitcoin in debt lent out and circulating, how could there possibly be a way to collect more than that by the bank. Would multiple cryptocurrencies solve a problem like that, or would it mean that the debt just gets pushed off onto some other coin and then also onto another infinitely?

I love Bitcoin and all this technology, however I have not theorized a way in which it can completely rework debt instruments and the institutions that supply them. IE: Banks.

Would love to have a discussion going on this topic. I have pretty limited economic logic!

Well, what you need to remember here is about the function of the cryptocurrency itself. By understanding the function of cryptocurrency, you will understand what should be matched to it based on its functionality as well. Debt/Loans and cryptocurrency can certainly be synergized, because cryptocurrency is a protocol that can replace the role of cash. However, to get a large loan, of course there are various requirements that must be fulfilled by the applicant.

[jaysabi]

If there's a finite cap and the banks are willing to create a platform where they would act as the "Escrow party" and the lenders and borrowers can participate on this platform and pay the Banks some form of commission or escrow fees. This way they banks would only need to maintain the ratio of lenders vs borrowsers by regulating the borrowing rates of interest to attack borrowers or leders appropriately. This will eventually also put the banks out of "monopolistic" power where they're too big to fail and several such platforms would emerge by private parties who would provide a service for cheaper interest fees and create competition, unless ofcourse the fees are also regulated.

Also, I feel in a realistic scenario If the banks created their own cryptocurrenceis, then a finite cap wouldn't exist. They would still want the power and authority to be able to print more of the cryptocurrencies based on need and on whatever algorithm they use for it. Banks would prefer to use a private blockchains and sometimes be able to freeze funds to prevent money-laundering and illegal transfers. I'm also going to mention that several banks have also tied up with public blockchain services like Ripple for cheaper and quicker money remittances.

In the end most of the present day debt comes from Banks who maintain some reserve but have the ability to print cash in excess of the reserves when need arises. This makes them "Ultra superior" and important, which also makes it risky for the economy if they collapse.

This isn't exactly true. Banks can't create money at will, and they only do so in relation to demand for loans. The money supply increase because of the loans, not because the bank has created extra cash. Only the Fed can print extra currency, and they do so in relation to how much banks increase the money supply through loans to try and keep the ratio of physical currency to digital fiat steady. For regular banks to increase the money supply, the demand for loans has to be there first, the bank can't create loans if no one wants them. Also, by law the banks have to keep a minimum amount of reserves, so they 1) only create loans to match demand, and 2) only are able to create as many loans as able while maintaining the required reserves.

One would expect that when demand for loans is high, banks would have to offer higher interest rates to entice more people to deposit money so they could make more loans without falling below the mandated reserve amount.

[joms07]

Desperate to get into bitcoin, investors slip into debt. ... Some investors are taking dangerous risks to get into cryptocurrencies. Roughly 18 percent of people who buy bitcoin use a credit card to do so, according to a new survey by loan marketplace LendEDU.

[haroldtee]

We have 100m sats for a single bitcoin and that in itself is a whole lot and considering how things must have changed to see banks being phased out, that means adoption would have been huge and realistically, having a satoshi being equivalent to $1 could be possible, so, having limited supply to go around for debt may not be an issue.

Even though, I believe banks cannot just disappear into thin air, considering they will find ways to still function as a bank, irrespective of how technology has changed. It is an evolution of currency and adaptation should not be a problem for banking institutions in the long run. Worst that would happen is that, being a regulated environment, each country may come up with their own centralized cryptocurrency, banks using it and then see how that goes.

I do not even want to go into the debt part as that is more like the banks and government fashioning a way to enslave us all, so whether the ability to borrow is in play or not, that is not a concern for me. Why live a life you cannot afford or maintain anyway?

[omonuyak]

Bank will never want bitcoin to solve becouse bitcoin will not allow them to keep debtors under their evil debt management that has keep many people and countries that are now in debt. Many debt instruments will be obsolete when cryptocurrencies is well established and developed.  If bankers are allow to have they ways they will kill bitcoin and cryptocurrency becouse that is the only force that can but they criminal activity to an end.

[Harlot]

I don't think that cryptocurrency being used as a payment for debt a good idea because first of all it is volatile. Anyone owing Bitcoin is at an disadvantage they might be paying more in the next month compared to what they have previously paid. Also there are no possible scenarios where Bitcoin will become an official debt instrument as our own respective fiat currency is protected by law. For me personally I would rather owe something based on Fiat currency rather than be paying Bitcoin back for something.

[metenjean]

In my opinion bitcoin will not replaced a currency or replaced any bank because bank served many purpose, in case of bitcoin thrive and the "old transfering system using the bank collapsed" the government might think a better way to work with bitcoin, perhaps by creating their own blockchain or even work to becoming a bitcoin exchangers which also gaining the fee from every transactions. Example of this; we can exchange currencies not only in the bank but also in money changer. So there is also possibilites that we can use bank to exchange coins and do transactions with their systems. So thats one case solved for bank to gain profit in this.

An economy wont survive without debt instrument and bonds because that is one way to gain investment to expand business and improve economic growth of a country. And that is why bitcoin won't be considered legal yet since the government still trying to find a way to pressure the price. High volatility is making price unstable to become an investment, even if the supply is limited it can be still be used to replace bonds only if the price is stable just like currency. Paper money was printed based on gold reserve a country hold. Look at Feds keep doing Quantitative easing and printing money while drowning in debt. Based on that the supply is unlimited but the value keep decreasing overtime however it can maintain "stable decrease" overtime not an "overnight fallout" like cryptocurrencies

[ylnar123]

Desperate to get into bitcoin, investors slip into debt. ... Some investors are taking dangerous risks to get into cryptocurrencies. Roughly 18 percent of people who buy bitcoin use a credit card to do so, according to a new survey by loan marketplace LendEDU.

Indeed, people with credit cards use it to purchase bitcoin but since then some credit companies closed their ties with cryptocurrency to avoid being used as passage to cryptocurrency. Though this is not illegal, the companies cut ties because of the volatility of bitcoin and other cryptocurrency which could possibly lead to bunkrupcy.

[naidray]

I see debt as a poison that slowly but surely has become a tool that allows the upper layer to suppress the lower class of the society. We're living in a system that's purely based on debt, and build up with debt. Central banks keep printing money like it's nothing, just to keep the economy going. People are able to take out loans and mortgages that don't represent their own financial capabilities, which basically means that financial institutions are willingly putting people into debt. I am anti any form of debt, and handle the main principle being that if you don't have the money for it, don't buy it.

Technically there are certain ways to allow whatever entity to issue certain crypto tokens endlessly, just like central banks are able to print money, but that doesn't change anything from the fact that you're not improving anything. The only thing you're doing is relocate the problem and give it a different name. Nah, debt in whatever form of shape is poison.

Huge poison and I do not agree with the OP saying that people cannot do anything without having to borrow or be indebted to the banks. The banks have always decided to make everything pretty difficult with their monopolies and manipulations which I want to believe is what has affected the middle and lower class till date in having to live life of debt. One way our own government and banks have decided to enslave us.

If banks phase out, I really do not care what happens, the most important thing is that blockchain technology at large as brought the freedom.

[fasdorcas]

Bank will never want bitcoin to solve becouse bitcoin will not allow them to keep debtors under their evil debt management that has keep many people and countries that are now in debt. Many debt instruments will be obsolete when cryptocurrencies is well established and developed.  If bankers are allow to have they ways they will kill bitcoin and cryptocurrency becouse that is the only force that can but they criminal activity to an end.

For banks, all the crypto currencies are seriously one of the biggest threat and that they are very much afraid of them as most of the people have started opting for crypto currency other than relying on banks and above all, crypto is also helping the investors in having greater profit too.

If someone is taking a loan from bank in order to invest that money into bitcoin or other crypto currency, he surely will be able to make huge money out of that.

[Martinkuhn]

actually when we say banks are evil and afraid of crypto... it is half true.

Commercial banks have no fear of crypto as they are just intermediaries and they make money with credit.

So whether the world is using USD or BTC, there will be people who will need to take out loans and credit.

This is how banks will make money.


The real BANKs that is afraid of crypto are the Central Banks, as central banks are the ones who are controlling the
supply of money and interest rares. They have power over their country and economy as they control how much money
is available and whether people can get cheap loans.

With crypto, they have not control at all.. thats why they are worried.

Back to the main topic, debt is a good thing. We all need debt and using crypto as the underlying asset for debt instruments will
be a natural thing when crypto becomes widely accepted.