Why don't banks work with cryptocurrency?

[South Park]

This is not exactly accurate, banks love risk and because they are necessary for the economy to work if they take a risk and they lose then the government needs to rescue them as they are too big to fail, so it does not mater what they do they win, but they do not like bitcoin at all because they can see that bitcoin is a direct competitor and they see as well they cannot destroy it, so they are doing the best they can at the moment to slow down the adoption of bitcoin until they can figure out a plan to destroy it completely.

Makes sense. Credit cards and payment gateways represent a major source of revenue for the banks. If cryptocurrency becomes a popular mode of payment, then it will make credit cards obsolete. The banks definitely don't want this. But at the same time, the banks can benefit from cryptocurrency if they integrate it to their platform. Look at PayPal. They posted record profits this year, after accepting Bitcoin for the first time in 2020. The difference between mainstream banks and PayPal is that the latter looked for a mutually beneficial method where both the sides benefit in the end.

Which is why I think at the end the banks are going to feel forced to accept cryptocurrencies as they do not want to miss on those profits, but the issue here is that PayPal can get those profits as the number of competitors are small but once the majority of banks and similar institutions do the same then the profit margins will drop considerably, this will bring diminishing gains to everyone that adopts bitcoin but bitcoin will become stronger because of it, making some of the services that banks offer obsolete even faster.

[Abiky]

PayPal has started working with cryptocurrencies and it proved to be very profitable for them. So I am not sure why the banks can't do the same. It is not necessary for them to take a decision to exclude modes of payment other than fiat currency. And although it is true that cryptocurrencies threaten the current banking model, there are a few sectors where both the sides can benefit from cooperation. Cryptocurrency is still in early adopter stage, and if the banks incorporate it into their platform, then in the long term they will benefit.

Banks envy crypto because it goes against their rules. Something they can't control or manipulate would be considered a threat to banks and governments alike. Only a small number of banks (if any) are working with crypto in order to make a quick buck. But the vast majority won't take it seriously because of the reasons mentioned earlier. I'm fine with that as long as crypto stays true to its roots. Decentralization and censorship-resistance is what crypto/Blockchain tech is all about. Take that away from it, and you get nothing more than another "glorified" banking system. Expect to see constant opposition from banks the more crypto becomes popular in the mainstream world. With or without banks, crypto will survive as long as there's a community backing it every step of the way. Just my thoughts

[Princejebs]

Banks have been directly opposed to cryptocurrency since the beginning of the cryptocurrency journey. Because banks always think that cryptocurrency may take their place. Moreover Banks always give  antisocial The activity directly blames Bitcoin.

They are only fools to think that way. Banks are always self centered and never considered customer interests. Some weeks ago, I went to collect new ATM card and while I was waiting, I was looking at their exchange rate and interest rate digitally placed on a wall and the interest rate was just so poor and it got me thinking why would anyone want to save his money in the bank with that tiny return, that's stealing not investments.

[VictorProsh]

Isn't it obvious? Why would they want to embrace decentralized cryptocurrencies over their centralized currencies? That would cause them losses in several ways which is why they usually dislike cryptocurrencies.

On the other hand, many banks have openly embraced the technology behind cryptocurrencies like BTC which could help their improve their centralized currencies.

They could offer cryptocurrencies as alternate payment methods though if their governments permit them to do so.

Centralized cryptocurrencies are much more dangerous than decentralized ones, so your argument is not valid, as for losses due to volatility, I think this problem will be solved soon. My project confirms this.
if you don't believe it, you can see for yourself by reading it
http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

[Lubang Bawah]

Isn't it obvious? Why would they want to embrace decentralized cryptocurrencies over their centralized currencies? That would cause them losses in several ways which is why they usually dislike cryptocurrencies.

On the other hand, many banks have openly embraced the technology behind cryptocurrencies like BTC which could help their improve their centralized currencies.

They could offer cryptocurrencies as alternate payment methods though if their governments permit them to do so.

Centralized cryptocurrencies are much more dangerous than decentralized ones, so your argument is not valid, as for losses due to volatility, I think this problem will be solved soon. My project confirms this.

True, the best concept of cryptocurrencies is decentralization, if cryptocurrencies are centralized it will make those who have control easily control prices as they like, and this makes asset holders can be lost at any time without reason or violation, prices go up or down of course because of transactions in the market and this is transparent rather than a centralized concept.

[South Park]

Isn't it obvious? Why would they want to embrace decentralized cryptocurrencies over their centralized currencies? That would cause them losses in several ways which is why they usually dislike cryptocurrencies.

On the other hand, many banks have openly embraced the technology behind cryptocurrencies like BTC which could help their improve their centralized currencies.

They could offer cryptocurrencies as alternate payment methods though if their governments permit them to do so.

Centralized cryptocurrencies are much more dangerous than decentralized ones, so your argument is not valid, as for losses due to volatility, I think this problem will be solved soon. My project confirms this.

I have always wondered why we even call a coin a cryptocurrency if it is centralized because it is obvious that it goes against one of the most important principles of cryptocurrencies which is decentralization, those centralized coins are incredibly dangerous not only because once again you are relying on a centralized party to not steal your money, now they have so much control over it that it is fair to wonder if you have any property at all, which is why I do not recommend anyone to ever invest in a centralized coin even if it is created by banks and governments.

[Abiky]

I have always wondered why we even call a coin a cryptocurrency if it is centralized because it is obvious that it goes against one of the most important principles of cryptocurrencies which is decentralization, those centralized coins are incredibly dangerous not only because once again you are relying on a centralized party to not steal your money, now they have so much control over it that it is fair to wonder if you have any property at all, which is why I do not recommend anyone to ever invest in a centralized coin even if it is created by banks and governments.

Anything that's centralized should not be called a "cryptocurrency" or a "Blockchain" per se. XRP is a good example of a distributed ledger that's utterly-centralized. Banks won't work with cryptocurrency simply because it goes against their rules. They will ultimately create digital currencies of their own with the intention of destroying cryptocurrencies altogether. After all, people won't need to use crypto if digital Fiat does nearly the same (except for the fact that it'll be centralized). Banks are still relevant even with crypto/Blockchain tech in play simply because governments endorse them. Fiat is attached to the banking system, so central banks won't be going anywhere. Crypto doesn't need banks to thrive anyways, as it was designed to be as an alternative than a replacement of Fiat currency. As long as crypto remains a decentralized and censorship-resistant kind of money, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts

[lightning0]

Banks are regulated and controlled by the government. Most people will believe in the institutional areas regulated by the state, and they think banks are safer.
Cryptocurrency is decentralized, and it will not be regulated by any government agency. When someone uses cryptocurrency for illegal and criminal activities, it cannot be tracked. If the bank uses cryptocurrency, it will improve the current financial system and incorporate blockchain technology, which will not be able to control users.

[goldkingcoiner]

Currently during our age of fiat, we don't really have many laws and regulations concerning Bitcoin or any other of the cryptocurrencies offered on the market. This is really scary for banks, seeing as the legal liabilities are too risky for them to take any action of offering crypto. Its not even legally seen as money aka legal tender in most (almost all) countries.

[cheezcarls]

In my own opinion, most of the banks are seeing cryptocurrency as a threat to their financial system. It’s because people are preferring more of a system that gives them full custody of their assets and transferring it from one account to the other without borders. This is what the banks are concerned, because people will be turning to crypto than saving more money in their bank accounts.

As the old saying goes, “Not your keys, not your coins.”

I don’t save much money in banks right now, as most of my savings are in crypto.

[paxmao]

Banks have been directly opposed to cryptocurrency since the beginning of the cryptocurrency journey. Because banks always think that cryptocurrency may take their place. Moreover Banks always give  antisocial The activity directly blames Bitcoin.

They are only fools to think that way. Banks are always self centered and never considered customer interests. Some weeks ago, I went to collect new ATM card and while I was waiting, I was looking at their exchange rate and interest rate digitally placed on a wall and the interest rate was just so poor and it got me thinking why would anyone want to save his money in the bank with that tiny return, that's stealing not investments.

Yep, banks and companies actually have the obligation to be egoist and to cater only for the interests of the shareholders and many times just of the Management. However they will and do use crypto as long as they can actually fulfil this duty, so we should make it in their own interest to use and have crypto available by demanding it an going to those who embrace the change.

[Fortify]

There is a logical explanation for this.
First, the volatility inherent in digital assets. The fact is that the main goal of every bank is to make a profit. The slightest fluctuation in the cryptocurrency market increases the risk of reducing all projected profits to zero. Today, cryptocurrency is showing a certain stability, but even despite these indicators, most financial institutions still prefer to provide traditional banking services for corporate clients, whose activities they understand.

Decentralized Cryptocurrency is not controlled or limited by anyone alone, there is no single administrator and regulator. Not a single financial, tax, government organization can influence the actions of participants in the payment system.
Ethereum is a multifunctional virtual platform on which blockchain-based applications (online services) are created. Applications work as "smart contracts (smart contracts)" that exclude third parties (intermediaries) in the transaction process. On their basis, it is possible to create a platform that will stimulate banks to lend against the security of cryptocurrency without fear of losses, and this, in turn, will interest the financial sector to place its assets in cryptocurrency?

In solving this problem, I took as an example the existing US financial system.
Assuming that Ethereum is the Dollar, and the smart contract is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (OCC), and ETH-WORLD tokens are the Securities of the US Treasury, we get a financial model of a new decentralized economic system based on cryptocurrency. I implemented all this in my project, in contrast to the existing Fiat, it completely lacks an external emission regulator and is managed by the smart contract program.
http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

Banks have been around for centuries now, they are juggernauts with huge and archaic data systems driving them. They are also a business that relies on an immaculate reputation of trust, if their brand gets associated with.. let's say an exchange wallet getting hacked then it could absolutely ruin them and no bank chief executive is going to tolerate that. They are a business that naturally adapts slowly so it should be unsurprising to anyone that it will take them a while to see the value of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency is also a direct threat to their business model which can involve taking small transaction fees at certain stages, but eventually they will come around the cryptocurrency - especially when you see other giants like Paypal trying to take a slice of the action.

[VictorProsh]

There is a logical explanation for this.
First, the volatility inherent in digital assets. The fact is that the main goal of every bank is to make a profit. The slightest fluctuation in the cryptocurrency market increases the risk of reducing all projected profits to zero. Today, cryptocurrency is showing a certain stability, but even despite these indicators, most financial institutions still prefer to provide traditional banking services for corporate clients, whose activities they understand.

Decentralized Cryptocurrency is not controlled or limited by anyone alone, there is no single administrator and regulator. Not a single financial, tax, government organization can influence the actions of participants in the payment system.
Ethereum is a multifunctional virtual platform on which blockchain-based applications (online services) are created. Applications work as "smart contracts (smart contracts)" that exclude third parties (intermediaries) in the transaction process. On their basis, it is possible to create a platform that will stimulate banks to lend against the security of cryptocurrency without fear of losses, and this, in turn, will interest the financial sector to place its assets in cryptocurrency?

In solving this problem, I took as an example the existing US financial system.
Assuming that Ethereum is the Dollar, and the smart contract is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (OCC), and ETH-WORLD tokens are the Securities of the US Treasury, we get a financial model of a new decentralized economic system based on cryptocurrency. I implemented all this in my project, in contrast to the existing Fiat, it completely lacks an external emission regulator and is managed by the smart contract program.
http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

Banks have been around for centuries now, they are juggernauts with huge and archaic data systems driving them. They are also a business that relies on an immaculate reputation of trust, if their brand gets associated with.. let's say an exchange wallet getting hacked then it could absolutely ruin them and no bank chief executive is going to tolerate that. They are a business that naturally adapts slowly so it should be unsurprising to anyone that it will take them a while to see the value of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency is also a direct threat to their business model which can involve taking small transaction fees at certain stages, but eventually they will come around the cryptocurrency - especially when you see other giants like Paypal trying to take a slice of the action.

If my idea turns into a real project, banks will be the first to occupy this niche.
http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

51.   In a world where there are negative rates on deposits, there can be no successful development of the economy, so I am sure this platform will be in demand by banking businesses. The smart contract allows the owners of the ETH deposit, together with the financial sector (banks, funds, insurance companies, exchanges), to manage the entire crypto currency market. Stablecoins backed by ETH this could be (a new single world currency under the conditional name Phoenix, which The Economist wrote about in 1988, issue 306.) Stablecoins cannot be managed and it only obeys a simple economic law.
52.   When creating this project, I did not initially set myself the task of repeating BITCOIN or something similar. I was looking for solutions to preserve financial assets in cryptocurrency. With any volatility in ETH, the ETH-WORLD-Stablecoins asset grows. The maximum amount of the deposit, I suppose, will produce the emission of smart contract tokens 80-85 million Stablecoins, which means there are only 8-8.5 million free tokens, while the volume of the smart contract deposit will be only 50-60% of the total amount of all ETH.
53.   Free Stablecoins tokens not encumbered with an ETH deposit are an asset produced by capitalizing the entire deposit of a smart contract who has a controlling stake in these shares, he has control over the decentralized crypto market. Stablecoins, minted with the entire volume of ETH of the smart contract passed through the deposit, perhaps this is Phoenix...

[Abiky]

Currently during our age of fiat, we don't really have many laws and regulations concerning Bitcoin or any other of the cryptocurrencies offered on the market. This is really scary for banks, seeing as the legal liabilities are too risky for them to take any action of offering crypto. Its not even legally seen as money aka legal tender in most (almost all) countries.

That's one of the many reasons why banks don't work with cryptocurrency. The industry is still young and widely unregulated. Besides, not every bank will find crypto attractive because it goes against what was established in the first place. As long as crypto remains as a threat to the existence of Fiat, the number of banks (if any) supporting crypto will be little to non-existent. Crypto doesn't need banks' support to thrive thanks to the way it was designed. It's all about bringing banking to the unbanked in a completely decentralized manner.

Utility is what matters above all else. And I'd say crypto is extremely useful for day-to-day payments. It'll never replace Fiat, but it'll remain an alternative for those who need it the most. Instead of worrying about banks' support towards crypto, we should worry about preserving it for the long term. The more people join the revolution, and bigger and stronger crypto/Blockchain tech will be. It seems that both banks and crypto will exist for a long, long time. Just my opinion

[Alisha-k]

Banks can't work with cryptocurrency because the will have difficulty regulating this coins due to its decentralized nature. Decentralized coins where government policies wouldn't affect and the banks wouldn't have the avenue to addup unnecessary incentives. And also cryptocurrency isn't stable and the fluctuation in price will make them run at loss

[harizen]

In my own opinion, most of the banks are seeing cryptocurrency as a threat to their financial system. It’s because people are preferring more of a system that gives them full custody of their assets and transferring it from one account to the other without borders. This is what the banks are concerned, because people will be turning to crypto than saving more money in their bank accounts.

Banks don't care about that. It's not even a big reason to consider why banks don't work with cryptocurrency. Banks will not function to their original purpose if they don't have any control over their clients and customers. Not siding with the banks but their insured policies gives assurance to their clients that everything is in good hands especially in the case of money fraud, theft, and scams.

Another reason is the chargeback concerns. It's difficult to solve a case of crypto chargeback because, in the first place, there's no first place to start with the investigation. Known several people close to me working in a chargeback division and cryptocurrency-related transactions fraud is one of their number 1 problem.

[VictorProsh]

In my own opinion, most of the banks are seeing cryptocurrency as a threat to their financial system. It’s because people are preferring more of a system that gives them full custody of their assets and transferring it from one account to the other without borders. This is what the banks are concerned, because people will be turning to crypto than saving more money in their bank accounts.

Banks don't care about that. It's not even a big reason to consider why banks don't work with cryptocurrency. Banks will not function to their original purpose if they don't have any control over their clients and customers. Not siding with the banks but their insured policies gives assurance to their clients that everything is in good hands especially in the case of money fraud, theft, and scams.

Another reason is the chargeback concerns. It's difficult to solve a case of crypto chargeback because, in the first place, there's no first place to start with the investigation. Known several people close to me working in a chargeback division and cryptocurrency-related transactions fraud is one of their number 1 problem.

Quite right, my project just gives full control over the borrowers. It is more profitable for the bank that the borrowers did not return the loan, since the price of tokens (collateral) will grow, constantly much higher than the borrowed funds. Thus, it turns out that the bank's profit is placed in cryptocurrency coins ETH-WORLD = Stablecoins, which is very limited by the final emission.

http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

[Sanugarid]

There is a logical explanation for this.
First, the volatility inherent in digital assets. The fact is that the main goal of every bank is to make a profit. The slightest fluctuation in the cryptocurrency market increases the risk of reducing all projected profits to zero. Today, cryptocurrency is showing a certain stability, but even despite these indicators, most financial institutions still prefer to provide traditional banking services for corporate clients, whose activities they understand.

Decentralized Cryptocurrency is not controlled or limited by anyone alone, there is no single administrator and regulator. Not a single financial, tax, government organization can influence the actions of participants in the payment system.
Ethereum is a multifunctional virtual platform on which blockchain-based applications (online services) are created. Applications work as "smart contracts (smart contracts)" that exclude third parties (intermediaries) in the transaction process. On their basis, it is possible to create a platform that will stimulate banks to lend against the security of cryptocurrency without fear of losses, and this, in turn, will interest the financial sector to place its assets in cryptocurrency?

In solving this problem, I took as an example the existing US financial system.
Assuming that Ethereum is the Dollar, and the smart contract is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (OCC), and ETH-WORLD tokens are the Securities of the US Treasury, we get a financial model of a new decentralized economic system based on cryptocurrency. I implemented all this in my project, in contrast to the existing Fiat, it completely lacks an external emission regulator and is managed by the smart contract program.
http://prosh.info/smart_eng.html

The government consider cryptocurrency as illegal, so why would they work with it?. Moreover, the popularity of cryptocurrency is increasing and more people have taken interest in investing to crypto instead of putting it in the bank. In their perspective, crypto is a big threat for them that must not be tolerated.

[PhucS]

In my own opinion, most of the banks are seeing cryptocurrency as a threat to their financial system. It’s because people are preferring more of a system that gives them full custody of their assets and transferring it from one account to the other without borders. This is what the banks are concerned, because people will be turning to crypto than saving more money in their bank accounts.

As the old saying goes, “Not your keys, not your coins.”

I don’t save much money in banks right now, as most of my savings are in crypto.

I think so. Most banks in the world do not like cryptocurrencies, they always see it as an enemy, which can cause bad influence. The crypto market is growing, the value is increasing, many people will invest in it instead of depositing their savings in the bank. I guess that's the main reason they don't work with cryptocurrencies

[markdario112616]

Banks require KYC for every client which is in fact it's a contrary to Bitcoin's nature of being anonymous, which seems to be a good advantage for the Banks as they can regulate the distribution of Crypto in the Market as I see it. But! Since Bitcoin is not relatively accepted by a Government, there are some who would tag it as Illegal, legal and neutral so technically that's one of the reasons why banks wouldn't want to handle Crypto since there's Rules or Laws that applies in the regulation of Bitcoin. Plus, the volatility of Bitcoin itself is quite alarming for the banks.