Is there any real use for bank-backed cryptocurrency ?

[Jansenist]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

[Haunebu]

There will always be people who would be interested in a cryptocurrency which is backed by banks since they might feel it would be more secure in nature and because of the big names involved.

So, it might take off if enough investors are interested in such a currency.

[cabron]

They can use the stable coin and send these stable coin to anyone where transaction fees are the bank-backed cryptocurrency, you as a trader will like such service but then the KYC still is going to be huge problem with banks. When it comes to blockchain, the bank secrecy law doesn't apply to it.

[okala]

I have not seen an official announcement of any bank developing they own cryptocurrency, and to say they stands against crypto have always been a negative side I will not expect any new development of bank creating their own cryptocurrency because the nature of cryptocurrency is decentralized and at that the bank will not be able to control the affairs of such coin even if they own it as long as it operate on the blockchain.

[dothebeats]

Perhaps banks think that people are still looking for security in their assets and only bank-backed projects would ever give them that. For most financial services, the banks have always been there to 'help' the average Joe into solving his financial needs, and so with this thinking, the banks are somewhat superior, and with the hype created by cryptocurrencies they can easily ride their way to new profits. I don't see any practical use for bank-backed cryptocurrency as they are still cryptocurrencies all the same, albeit being centralized and controlled for that matter. Also, compatibility with other banking services is what's the only thing I see for these type of cryptocurrencies, nothing more.

[Guvn0r]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

There was a serious discussion over at Indian central bank (RBI) about cryptocurrency, there was widespread rumor that the govt was interested in a centralized coin which can for some extent replace paper currency. Having said this, I don't think there is anything for our community to be excited about such a coin because it defeats the purpose and vision satoshi had when he first made BTC.

Then as a practical use for crypto in banks, they can use a stablecoin to do International money transfers which I think is more easier than traditional wire transfer.

[pushups44]

The Marshall Islands is developing a sovereign cryptocurrency:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-12-14/what-happened-when-the-marshall-islands-bet-on-crypto

Other than that country, I am only aware of Venezuela creating the Petro. But I think the world will follow the Marshall Islands if its experiment turns fruitful. This is somewhat of a beta test.

[Beerwizzard]

All news about bank backed cryptocurrencies are telling that they are gona be some stablecoins like USDT or TUSD but that ones would be used to cut some expences and fees for the bank that issued them without any serious relation to the other crypto world. Which means it would have no impact on the Bitcoin price. Banks are just finaly using blockchain to cut their costs.

[mrdeposit]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

There will be more advantages than possible disadvantages in my opinion. The real use case is more important than judging the centralized or decentralized ecosystem. Not every bank will create its own personal cryptocurrency but they will try to implement new features with this system.

[Indamuck]

our modern world currently needs lending for people to purchase houses and cars.  I do think we would be able to function without loans, prices would just drop to levels that people could afford.  Banks participate in predatory lending without crazy high interest rates.

[spadormie]

Ripple(XRP) is a virtual currency that is backed by banks. In fact, the creator of XRP are banks. There is a thread last year that says that "should ripple be trusted?" That question was raised since XRP was made by the banks and banks are only care for themselves and not people. That's why many people on that thread starts selling ripple. For me, there's no case of ripple to be determined as a non-trusted coin. Since, the growth of it is amazing.

[Ailmand]

Due to cryptocurrency volatility, people might be looking for price stability. They might be looking for security too with a cryptocurrency that is backed by bank. I really think that in the future, banks will slowly adapt block chain technology and who knows, they might be creating their own crypto to be able to cope-up with technology advancement.

[Jansenist]

I have not seen an official announcement of any bank developing they own cryptocurrency, and to say they stands against crypto have always been a negative side I will not expect any new development of bank creating their own cryptocurrency because the nature of cryptocurrency is decentralized and at that the bank will not be able to control the affairs of such coin even if they own it as long as it operate on the blockchain.

There is :
https://www.jpmorgan.com/global/news/digital-coin-payments

Its even planned for this year if am not wrong

[kryptqnick]

There will always be people who would be interested in a cryptocurrency which is backed by banks since they might feel it would be more secure in nature and because of the big names involved.

So, it might take off if enough investors are interested in such a currency.

Banks are also authorities one can hold (or try to hold) responsible when something goes wrong, whereas if you lost your bitcoins, you can only blame yourself. Another thing is that the banks themselves can be interested in such cryptocurrencies for various reasons. For instance, to stay in control and benefit from cheap and fast transactions. Or to try to win over people who are potentially interested in cryptocurrencies, so that the real cryptos become less of a threat to banks.
All in all, I don't like the idea of it and would not prefer such a crypto over a normal one.

[Snaic]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

We see that now many individuals and legal entities issue their coins and tokens. This is usually a decentralized cryptocurrency. However, individual states and their central banks express an intention to issue or issue their centralized coins. This process will occur regardless of how we feel about the appearance of their centralized coins. Personally, I am quite positive about this. Anything that will attract people's attention to cryptocurrency in general, and even more so to its use, should positively influence the development of a common cryptocurrency. In the future, all types of cryptocurrency, as well as cash and various types of non-cash money will go together in society and complement each other.

[Gravel Coin (GRV)]

I don't think so, but look at these:

https://www.shacknews.com/article/109940/jpm-coin-is-the-first-us-bank-backed-cryptocurrency

Anyway they are doing it.

[Bonsaiav]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

The existence of banks has been given full authority by the government that shelves them especially in exploring government financial sectors (Monetary Sector, Real Sector and External Sector) and government revenue budgets, for example: Government Main Income, Government Expenditures, Government Financing, also including the Position of Government Securities.

As far as I know, not only JPM because before, Ripple had also done the same thing. As we know ripple not only (once) took over the position of ethereum, as a coin (ranked second) which was the most traded. IMO this proves that there is a high level of trust and public interest in Ripple as a smart investment supported by the bank.

Of course it's useful, because the system they manage is not different from when they manage their finances, such as the existence of income from transaction costs and other deductions issued by customers.

[pixie85]

Bank coins have no use. They are trying to piggyback on the popularity of cryptocurrencies and make people think that they're better because they have most features of decentralized cryptos and are also backed by the bank.
The banks think this will make some people choose their centralized shitcoins over real cryptocurrencies and they are right because many people don't understand the advantages of decentralizations or don't care.

[d5000]

Perhaps banks think that people are still looking for security in their assets and only bank-backed projects would ever give them that.

Yep, I think that's possibly their niche - creating a kind of "TetherUSD" backed by an entity thought by many people to be "trustable" (above all those that aren't in the "crypto scene"). Such a "coin" may be even give them profit for a very low cost if they realize it via a private blockchain where you haven't to care about attacks.

However, private blockchains are, in reality, simply private company-owned databases with a special "securing algorithm". There may be simpler and more efficient ways to secure a financial database than to run a whole blockchain. So I guess for banks, if they really want to sell a product that makes sense, could go for the "consortium blockchain" model (similar to Ripple): centralized but publicly viewable/checkable. The other interesting technology for banks could be to use a coloured coin on a strong blockchain (like Tether), which would be even cheaper, although they would have to pay transaction fees. I think only Bitcoin provides currently the security needed for that purpose (if someone created "Bank coins" out of thin air double-spending them, the entity owning the coin would get a lot of trouble).

Also, compatibility with other banking services is what's the only thing I see for these type of cryptocurrencies, nothing more.

I think it's the other way around: they may choose a cryptocurrency because they want to be compatible with other cryptocurrencies and their services. For example, imagine a "BankUSD" (in the spirit of Tether) which can be traded to Bitcoin via Atomic Swaps. That would be a serious rival for traditional Bitcoin exchanges.

[Artemis3]

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other   

Its not useful but people don't understand the benefits of decentralization, and the risks of centralization. But everyone is giving a try at their own crypto, Governments as well. Not that i would recommend them... In the past it used to be fashionable for companies to issue their own credit cards, so i expect them to start issuing their own cryptos as well, just because they can.

But in the end most altcoins won't survive.