You Can Now Keep Your Bitcoins In A Bank

[Hydrogen]

Crypto receipts!

This is the most perfect thing I have ever read about the blockchain:

Citi has developed an instrument it is calling a digital asset receipt. It works much like an American depositary receipt, which have been around for decades to give US investors a way to own foreign stocks that don’t otherwise trade on US exchanges. The foreign stock is held by a bank, which then issues the depositary receipt.

In this case, the cryptocurrency would be held by a custodian, with the so-called DAR issued by Citigroup, the people said. The bank would alert the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., a Wall Street middleman that provides clearing and settlement services, that it issued a receipt, one of the people said. That lends an important layer of legitimacy and gives investors a way to track the investment within a system that they’re already familiar with, the person added.

I want to cry. I want to give those paragraphs a hug. I have written, more than once, about the complexities and inefficiencies of having pretty much all U.S. stocks held by DTCC. “It’s enough to make you wish for a blockchain,” I once wrote. A secure, open, permissionless, immutable record of who owns what, one that doesn’t require investors to trust either a bank or a central Wall Street intermediary or to rely on those intermediaries’ old-fashioned systems: That is a core dream of the blockchain, a central appeal of cryptocurrencies.

And then here is Citigroup Inc. looking at investor demand and concluding: Yes, sure, Bitcoin is great, but what Bitcoin investors really want is to hold Bitcoins in the form of receipts issued by a giant bank and registered at DTCC. That’s where the real innovation is! That’s what the people want! “Take this blockchain away from me,” they cry, “and give me the old system that I know!”

A claim that you sometimes hear is that the blockchain will revolutionize back-office processes — settlement, custody, etc. — in the financial system. But look at the actual experience of cryptocurrency custody. The main story of institutional investment in cryptocurrency these days is a story of custody, broadly speaking: Large institutional investors want to get access to Bitcoin, but they do not want to own actual Bitcoins, themselves, on the actual Bitcoin blockchain. They want Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, or Bitcoin futures, or Bitcoins held in custody by regulated crypto exchanges or traditional big banks, or, sure, crypto depository receipts, why not. Everywhere there is a blockchain, a trusted central intermediary — often a bank or other old-school Wall Street middleman! — springs up to make it useful. Does that tell you anything about the prospects for blockchains to replace central intermediaries?

I confess, though, that it goes the other way too: “Two financial technology companies won New York state approval to issue cryptocurrencies pegged to the U.S. dollar,” the Gemini dollar and the Paxos Standard, “creating more regulated and transparent competitors to Tether and other so-called stable coins,” which are in turn competitors to … the dollar. If you want to hold your Bitcoins through a bank, you can, but on the other hand if you want to hold your dollars through a blockchain, you can do that too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-10/keep-your-bitcoins-in-the-bank

....

Summary: Citibank has created something they call a "digital asset receipt(DAR)" which could allow purchasers of bitcoin to have banks hold their coins. The details aren't clear. There isn't much information posted here about minimum purchasing amounts or who digital asset receipts will be marketed to. Its nice to see innovation and new offerings for crypto enthusiasts. Although I have a feeling these digital asset receipts might come bundled with $100,000 dollar minimum investments and cater only to high(er) end demographics.

I would guess some would opt for DAR's if they could provide insurance on bitcoins and crypto up to limited amounts.

[jscresult2017]

Wow! It's really good news for us! I'm interested in it. Hope it will help us to grow more. And it's a really a good news for Crypto marketers.

[butka]

Summary: Citibank has created something they call a "digital asset receipt(DAR)" which could allow purchasers of bitcoin to have banks hold their coins.

So these DARs are going to be similar to ETFs. Same story, different package. The point is, you as an investor, don't want to be dealing with creating and saving your private keys. You want someone else to do that for you. Is it good or bad news for the Bitcoin ecosystem? Honestly I don't know. On the pros side, it may help pump new money in. But I tend to think it is not so good, as we get these weird financial constructions, where someone else keeps your bitcoins, not you in reality. Will these custodians be transparent and to what degree? Will they enable landing or other financial instruments on top of these DARs? Will it affect the underlying Bitcoin system, will it introduce a sort of inflation... a lot of unknowns...

[Rfkduetr]

we get wallet and notebook for transaction?,

[gowobonyok]

bitcoin is always developing to increase their value. I think the bitcoin ETF effort is the same, which is to attract the public to invest in bitcoin.

[ngano ba]

It is good really if the banks are accepting the cryptocurrency ,so it will add the popularity of cryptos that it will be accepted by banks a deposit or any kind of bank transactions , it will add the goals of bitcoin and cryptos to be accepted by this finance institutions.

[eSurge]

It's really a great news that such giants like Citi pioneers facilitating such purchases and holdings withing their bank.

However keep in mind that trusting banksters to hold your crypto for you is exactly the opposite to what bitcoin was meant to achieve.

[GregH37]

Crypto receipts!

This is the most perfect thing I have ever read about the blockchain:

Citi has developed an instrument it is calling a digital asset receipt. It works much like an American depositary receipt, which have been around for decades to give US investors a way to own foreign stocks that don’t otherwise trade on US exchanges. The foreign stock is held by a bank, which then issues the depositary receipt.

In this case, the cryptocurrency would be held by a custodian, with the so-called DAR issued by Citigroup, the people said. The bank would alert the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., a Wall Street middleman that provides clearing and settlement services, that it issued a receipt, one of the people said. That lends an important layer of legitimacy and gives investors a way to track the investment within a system that they’re already familiar with, the person added.

I want to cry. I want to give those paragraphs a hug. I have written, more than once, about the complexities and inefficiencies of having pretty much all U.S. stocks held by DTCC. “It’s enough to make you wish for a blockchain,” I once wrote. A secure, open, permissionless, immutable record of who owns what, one that doesn’t require investors to trust either a bank or a central Wall Street intermediary or to rely on those intermediaries’ old-fashioned systems: That is a core dream of the blockchain, a central appeal of cryptocurrencies.

And then here is Citigroup Inc. looking at investor demand and concluding: Yes, sure, Bitcoin is great, but what Bitcoin investors really want is to hold Bitcoins in the form of receipts issued by a giant bank and registered at DTCC. That’s where the real innovation is! That’s what the people want! “Take this blockchain away from me,” they cry, “and give me the old system that I know!”

A claim that you sometimes hear is that the blockchain will revolutionize back-office processes — settlement, custody, etc. — in the financial system. But look at the actual experience of cryptocurrency custody. The main story of institutional investment in cryptocurrency these days is a story of custody, broadly speaking: Large institutional investors want to get access to Bitcoin, but they do not want to own actual Bitcoins, themselves, on the actual Bitcoin blockchain. They want Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, or Bitcoin futures, or Bitcoins held in custody by regulated crypto exchanges or traditional big banks, or, sure, crypto depository receipts, why not. Everywhere there is a blockchain, a trusted central intermediary — often a bank or other old-school Wall Street middleman! — springs up to make it useful. Does that tell you anything about the prospects for blockchains to replace central intermediaries?

I confess, though, that it goes the other way too: “Two financial technology companies won New York state approval to issue cryptocurrencies pegged to the U.S. dollar,” the Gemini dollar and the Paxos Standard, “creating more regulated and transparent competitors to Tether and other so-called stable coins,” which are in turn competitors to … the dollar. If you want to hold your Bitcoins through a bank, you can, but on the other hand if you want to hold your dollars through a blockchain, you can do that too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-10/keep-your-bitcoins-in-the-bank

....

Summary: Citibank has created something they call a "digital asset receipt(DAR)" which could allow purchasers of bitcoin to have banks hold their coins. The details aren't clear. There isn't much information posted here about minimum purchasing amounts or who digital asset receipts will be marketed to. Its nice to see innovation and new offerings for crypto enthusiasts. Although I have a feeling these digital asset receipts might come bundled with $100,000 dollar minimum investments and cater only to high(er) end demographics.

I would guess some would opt for DAR's if they could provide insurance on bitcoins and crypto up to limited amounts.

Banks just want to find a way to be in control by all means. Sure, maybe for some category of people who are dumb enough not to know they are their own bank or not so sure how good they are to securing their cryptocurrencies or bitcoin, may see it as a great service to make use of, but in reality, for any sane person, why will they ever want to use a bank, when they can easily just store whatever they have in their own wallet and as far as I am concerned, this is no different than keeping your funds in an exchange as a third party is involved and that makes the idea a centralized one.

[deevan]

So it means banks want to make Bitcoin as centralized currency so they can control people assets & charge people for holding their private keys, earn money through transaction fees. Why anyone wants other or banks to hold their private keys, banks are smart they are just finding new ways to loot people. Only those people would be attracted to this offer if they are afraid of losing their private keys they would think that banks will keep their private keys safely. In the end, banks will be making huge profits by offering these services.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

On the one hand, this helps normalizing bitcoin. If people know that you can have bitcoins in a bank, they will think it is just as any other asset you can have there: stocks, funds, gold...and they will unlink it with ideas like Ponzi, fraud, etc.

On the other hand, none of us would deposit their bitcoins in the bank because it goes against the very purpose of it and you won’t have your private keys.

I’ll keep mine in my hardware wallet.

[davis196]

So this "receipt" is just a piece of paper and it's value is backed by bitcoin and guaranteed by some bank?
Wow,such a great innovation.Such receipts already exist and they are called fiat money(the only difference is that they aren't backed by anything).
I guess that Citibank will try to file a patent about this shit....

[chocolah29]

So this "receipt" is just a piece of paper and it's value is backed by bitcoin and guaranteed by some bank?
Wow,such a great innovation.Such receipts already exist and they are called fiat money(the only difference is that they aren't backed by anything).
I guess that Citibank will try to file a patent about this shit....

Sarcasm at its best. I like that.
These guys behind this want to fool unknowledgeable people and they're actually looking for that. This whole thing is ridiculous and hopefully no one gets on the trap.
We don't need banks for storing our bitcoin, why people keep on trying to centralized bitcoin? It's honestly and obviously bitcoin is better off this way. No need of fuckin banks.

[unusualfacts30]

On the one hand, this helps normalizing bitcoin. If people know that you can have bitcoins in a bank, they will think it is just as any other asset you can have there: stocks, funds, gold...and they will unlink it with ideas like Ponzi, fraud, etc.

On the other hand, none of us would deposit their bitcoins in the bank because it goes against the very purpose of it and you won’t have your private keys.

I’ll keep mine in my hardware wallet.

It can help bring in more money via more visibility but whole purpose of cryptocurrency is to keep it with yourself rather than having someone else store it for you. It can help them get more customers and I think that is their whole reason behind doing this kind of thing. Not sure if it's really a good or bad news for crypto and businesses who offer similar services to the end user.

[0t3p0t]

So this "receipt" is just a piece of paper and it's value is backed by bitcoin and guaranteed by some bank?
Wow,such a great innovation.Such receipts already exist and they are called fiat money(the only difference is that they aren't backed by anything).
I guess that Citibank will try to file a patent about this shit....

Sarcasm at its best. I like that.
These guys behind this want to fool unknowledgeable people and they're actually looking for that. This whole thing is ridiculous and hopefully no one gets on the trap.
We don't need banks for storing our bitcoin, why people keep on trying to centralized bitcoin? It's honestly and obviously bitcoin is better off this way. No need of fuckin banks.

I am also thinking of something like they gather all our Bitcoins and then lock them in then release a press conference that there is a security breach on all our funds and now they have all our funds. If they have a good intention then why not? But the fact that there is no need for Bitcoin to have such banks because we are independent due to decentralized system of Bitcoin itself.

[charlotte04]

Crypto receipts!

This is the most perfect thing I have ever read about the blockchain:

Citi has developed an instrument it is calling a digital asset receipt. It works much like an American depositary receipt, which have been around for decades to give US investors a way to own foreign stocks that don’t otherwise trade on US exchanges. The foreign stock is held by a bank, which then issues the depositary receipt.

In this case, the cryptocurrency would be held by a custodian, with the so-called DAR issued by Citigroup, the people said. The bank would alert the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., a Wall Street middleman that provides clearing and settlement services, that it issued a receipt, one of the people said. That lends an important layer of legitimacy and gives investors a way to track the investment within a system that they’re already familiar with, the person added.

I want to cry. I want to give those paragraphs a hug. I have written, more than once, about the complexities and inefficiencies of having pretty much all U.S. stocks held by DTCC. “It’s enough to make you wish for a blockchain,” I once wrote. A secure, open, permissionless, immutable record of who owns what, one that doesn’t require investors to trust either a bank or a central Wall Street intermediary or to rely on those intermediaries’ old-fashioned systems: That is a core dream of the blockchain, a central appeal of cryptocurrencies.

And then here is Citigroup Inc. looking at investor demand and concluding: Yes, sure, Bitcoin is great, but what Bitcoin investors really want is to hold Bitcoins in the form of receipts issued by a giant bank and registered at DTCC. That’s where the real innovation is! That’s what the people want! “Take this blockchain away from me,” they cry, “and give me the old system that I know!”

A claim that you sometimes hear is that the blockchain will revolutionize back-office processes — settlement, custody, etc. — in the financial system. But look at the actual experience of cryptocurrency custody. The main story of institutional investment in cryptocurrency these days is a story of custody, broadly speaking: Large institutional investors want to get access to Bitcoin, but they do not want to own actual Bitcoins, themselves, on the actual Bitcoin blockchain. They want Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, or Bitcoin futures, or Bitcoins held in custody by regulated crypto exchanges or traditional big banks, or, sure, crypto depository receipts, why not. Everywhere there is a blockchain, a trusted central intermediary — often a bank or other old-school Wall Street middleman! — springs up to make it useful. Does that tell you anything about the prospects for blockchains to replace central intermediaries?

I confess, though, that it goes the other way too: “Two financial technology companies won New York state approval to issue cryptocurrencies pegged to the U.S. dollar,” the Gemini dollar and the Paxos Standard, “creating more regulated and transparent competitors to Tether and other so-called stable coins,” which are in turn competitors to … the dollar. If you want to hold your Bitcoins through a bank, you can, but on the other hand if you want to hold your dollars through a blockchain, you can do that too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-10/keep-your-bitcoins-in-the-bank

....

Summary: Citibank has created something they call a "digital asset receipt(DAR)" which could allow purchasers of bitcoin to have banks hold their coins. The details aren't clear. There isn't much information posted here about minimum purchasing amounts or who digital asset receipts will be marketed to. Its nice to see innovation and new offerings for crypto enthusiasts. Although I have a feeling these digital asset receipts might come bundled with $100,000 dollar minimum investments and cater only to high(er) end demographics.

I would guess some would opt for DAR's if they could provide insurance on bitcoins and crypto up to limited amounts.

Now that would be awesome since they would have a good security for our coins and if they lose it then we may have someone to blame for and also we could use a loan using crypto as well.

[dothebeats]

So this "receipt" is just a piece of paper and it's value is backed by bitcoin and guaranteed by some bank?
Wow,such a great innovation.Such receipts already exist and they are called fiat money(the only difference is that they aren't backed by anything).
I guess that Citibank will try to file a patent about this shit....

What's even worse is that when you lost your receipt, you also lost your possession to these coins. Who's insane enough to entrust cryptocurrencies in banks that are experienced in handling fiat money but not in cryptocurrencies? I'd rather trade those and keep it in my wallet all day rather than entrust it with a financial institution whose beliefs differ from what cryptocurrencies impose to its users. If the details are too vague and the terms are somewhat one-sided and in favor of the bank, why would I do such a thing in the first place?

[muslol67]

It didn't seem too safe to me. Do we know how the bank will secure it? Or is it taking responsibility in the event of a theft?

[Bitcotalk]

bitcoin is always developing to increase their value. I think the bitcoin ETF effort is the same, which is to attract the public to invest in bitcoin.

If it is about attracting the public to invest in bitcoin, then it is not a bad idea which I believe like you and some other people have mentioned it is just more like the idea of ETF.

Well, I know one way or the other, this would probably serve some people and the good thing however in this whole thing is that we are at least beginning to see financial institutions embracing this idea and trying to see the ways they can get to benefit from it, which I believe we will get to see more of this in the long term as we start approaching mainstream adoption, no doubt!

[aleksnutis]

I would prefer to keep my bitcoins like the Winklevoss brothers: print the private key on paper and cut it into several pieces. Then put the pieces in the cells of different banks throughout the country.

[Lucius]

This option is maybe good for big investors who will invest big money in crypto but they do not know how to secure those coins, this is not for ordinary people. We all know that if you do not have full control over your private keys, you do not really have that coins - so any idea of storing cryptocurrency in traditional bank is wrong in my opinion.

We can just look back at 2008 and big financial crisis which is wipe out over 10$ trillion only in USA, and the biggest culprits were the banks. To give something so sensitive as cryptocurrency to banks is beyond any common sense, even if they give you such option hold your private keys and trust no one.