If they have the solution, why are banks still failing?

[hannahB4]

In every field there is an expert in the area, just that it could not be available to all banking sector, sometimes when the issues of liquidity and solvency happen there is a lot of situation that will warrant that. In my country, you will learn of a bank acquiring another bank for that same bank to be sold later.

[Silberman]

When it comes to whether to choose the banks or crypto exchanges, it becomes hard to decide. Both of them are centralized shit. As long as your crypto is decentralized and stored by you, it's good. The moment you hand over the authority to someone else, and they have control over your assets, it's all bullshit. As I have already said in previous post, banking system is broken. I don't think I need to explain it anymore.
And the thing about the power what banks holds is connected to the whole system. Not only the banks, the whole system in the world that runs it is broken. Peoples are manipulated by the system in order to use it in a way that will make you keep coming back to it. It's a shame to be honest. 

No, it's not hard because each of them are not the same. Crypto exchanges are where you can trade your crypto or sell them for fiat but banks were mainly for storing money. We can still be able to choose both of them if we are not totally into decentralization. Not all crypto exchanges are centralized.

You should know that if you are not new in cryptos. It's not wrong to use a CEX but as long as you don't keep your funds on them right after you trade. Banks can try to manipulate the public but they aren't 100% successful with it. This is why Bitcoin grow this huge and became successful because there are people who are in the vision of Satoshi about decentralization. Banks can provide solutions on some issues but they are not perfect. They still can fall too.

If we are honest about it we will notice the majority of those joining the bitcoin market are not really interested on the vision of Satoshi, and they may not even have any idea of who he is, they are interested on the profits this market can produce, and while this is not wrong, their lack of understanding about what this market is about is what produces their mistaken behaviors, like leaving their coins at centralized exchanges for long periods of time and use them as a bank substitute.

[Finestream]

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

I'm going to argue that they do have the knowledge and experience — until they get too greedy and try to maximize revenues of the company. Greed is that one thing that can royally fuck someone up regardless of knowledge/experience, and no one is 100% safe from it. Hence, bitcoin > banks.

Greed is what destroys everyone, not only banks, I think, in crypto, we can also experience bankruptcy if we are too greedy.
one more valuable experience is failure, but if the bank has failed it is difficult to return and the person concerned with the failure of the bank will find it difficult to improve his reputation

And once the bank fails, it’s hard for their clients to trust them again that’s why some banks prefer to merge with other banks instead to survive, than to let them become completely insolvent. However, with crypto it’s different. The market will keep on giving opportunities to enter again and make you successful and profitable. But if you stick with greed, expect that you will always face losses instead.

[Maidak]

It's just a few banks that collapsed, not the entire banking industry, so we have nothing to look at. Banks are also business companies and they still compete with each other, the failure of some banks will be an opportunity for many others. So I think the government probably won't care much about this, and they won't intervene until things get worse. What is happening is just a total purge because in the past, many banks collapsed during the 2008 crisis, and things will continue to grow when the crisis is over.

[Silberman]

It's just a few banks that collapsed, not the entire banking industry, so we have nothing to look at. Banks are also business companies and they still compete with each other, the failure of some banks will be an opportunity for many others. So I think the government probably won't care much about this, and they won't intervene until things get worse. What is happening is just a total purge because in the past, many banks collapsed during the 2008 crisis, and things will continue to grow when the crisis is over.

The 2008 rescue back then was possible as countries were relatively debt free, but now they have too many debts, taxes are too high and the economic growth is slow, if another event happened which shocked the fundamentals of the economy as much as we saw back then I doubt governments could afford to rescue banks even if they wanted, as if they did so the amount of money they will have to print will be astronomical and hyperinflation will be inevitable at that point.

[Iadegbola34]

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?

[fuguebtc]

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?

The banking industry plays an important role and is said to be the backbone of our economy. If it did fall, that would put us in a situation no different from living in World War 3. But many people don't understand that, and they think the collapse of the banking industry will be a positive thing for cryptocurrencies. They forget that the crypto market also works and depends on the bank, without a bank, how can we convert fiat money to crypto and vice versa? I even believe that when the world economy collapses, many industries and many sectors will disappear, and the possibility of cryptocurrency disappearing is not impossible.

[Unbunplease]

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?

I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.

[TelolettOm]

I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.

Do you think the collapse of some banks was planned already?  
I don't know how many banks are needed, not sure if we should have fewer banks only. However, more banks mean competition, that's leads to better service/quality for the banks because they want to be the best. If we have fewer banks, there will be higher domination or a monopoly of a  few banks for the customers in certain areas. I don't think it will be a good sign for the future of banks.

[Wend]

I think they are just using the momentum to reduce the number of banks. There is no need for as many banks as there are now. Central banks want to increase their role and influence and are trying to capture the initiative that they lost earlier. That may be one of the goals of the crisis situation in the world.

Do you think the collapse of some banks was planned already?  
I don't know how many banks are needed, not sure if we should have fewer banks only. However, more banks mean competition, that's leads to better service/quality for the banks because they want to be the best. If we have fewer banks, there will be higher domination or a monopoly of a  few banks for the customers in certain areas. I don't think it will be a good sign for the future of banks.

If you believe that there is competition between banks, it means that there will be unfair competition because they are rivals. So the failure of a few banks is an advantage for the rest. Just like when you have a business or your competitor goes bankrupt, you will be glad you no longer have anyone to fight for customers. The collapse of a few banks does not indicate that the world banking system is in trouble or will collapse en masse.

[irhact]

It's just a few banks that collapsed, not the entire banking industry, so we have nothing to look at. Banks are also business companies and they still compete with each other, the failure of some banks will be an opportunity for many others. So I think the government probably won't care much about this, and they won't intervene until things get worse. What is happening is just a total purge because in the past, many banks collapsed during the 2008 crisis, and things will continue to grow when the crisis is over.

That's true but the banks collapings aren't just unknown banks, they're popular ones that should be used as an example to other banks. The entire banking sector might not have collapse but the recent events proves banks aren't to be trusted. Many banks are doing unethical things with customers money like using them for forex trading and other investment that mightn't be profitable to the banks so they get into debts.

I believe the debits the banks are in are the major reason behind their closure because if they had no debit they won't have the challenges they had that made them to collapse. We'll always have banks so new ones will be launched soon and the cycle continues.

[bussybuddy]

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is pretty worrisome, but it doesn't mean the entire banking industry is doomed. Yeah, economists are sounding the alarm about possible ripple effects, but we need to separate the issues faced by traditional banks from those in the cryptocurrency world. Sure, the government and banks have their flaws, but they play a crucial role in keeping things stable. Fixing financial problems requires a multi-faceted approach, including responsible practices and embracing innovation. So, let's not jump to conclusions and work together to ensure a solid and resilient financial system, alright?

Similar to some of the signals people use to judge the current situation as well as views about future direction, recent events represent a recessionary economic situation even before the organizations As the leading banks are still in such a risky situation, perhaps within a few months after the collapse of the silicon valley bank, people will also see the negative consequences that come with it.
Personally, I think that any industry has potential risks, imbalances always exist and fragile things will not be able to maintain their existence, the story of the solution to overcome this problem here I think the stakeholders also see the problem, but have led to the failure, they also have no way to maintain it.

[summonerrk]

The stock of Silicon Valley Bank, one of the biggest banks in the US collapsed to 65% before trading was halted. This is the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.
The bank's parent failed to get a buyer making the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation close Silicon Valley Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. Customers were scared and began to pull out their funds to avoid unforeseen circumstances.

Economists are warning that the fall of SIVB might spread and have a bad effect on the entire banking sector. The shares of many banks in the US and Europe dropped because of this incident.  According to Reuter U.S. banks have lost over $100 billion stock market value in two days, with European banks losing around another $50 billion in value.

I have always seen bad news about the cryptocurrency industry making headlines in national and international newspapers. The government and bankers criticize the industry and portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world. SVB recorded six straight quarterly losses, why didn't these financial gurus fix the bank? Yet they claim to be the only solution.
https://www.investors.com/news/silicon-valley-bank-liquidity-crisis-sends-shockwaves-through-financial-industry/
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-bank-stocks-add-losses-regulators-shutter-svb-financial-2023-03-10/

The American banking system has long been like a task with many variables, where there are already too many of these variables. At the same time, we will add here factors of human psychology that are unpredictable (as the financial market is unpredictable) and add here that dollars can be issued at the click of your fingers and at the same time not be provided with gold. Plus, we will add local conflicts: warriors and climatic troubles. So it turns out that the banking system is fragile and poorly controlled in the USA. There are too many things in it that complicate relations: futures, the purchase of bonds, stocks, etc.
It should be simpler and more controlled by the government.

[Woodie]

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing,  sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients.
If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.

[Silberman]

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing,  sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients.
If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.

I disagree, a bank run is just the last straw which forces a bank to go bankrupt, as an example lets suppose there was an earthquake and a house collapsed while the one next to it survived and was completely fine, in this case we cannot say the house which collapsed did so because of the ground or any other excuse, the truth is that it was structurally weak and the earthquake just reveled that weakness for everyone to see, and this is true for banks as well.

[Maidak]

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

A Bank failing isn't always as a result of the CEOs doing,  sometimes or should I say most times what kills these financial institutions is panic from its clients.
If the banks clients are going to panic withdraw funds from their accounts, this overwhelms the system and leaves it insolvent as these banks usually use what we the customers deposit to issue out loans and the alike to conduct their business...
But the million dollar question is "Would this a preventable occurrence?" I think yes and no because indicators should have been there and the guys sitting at the top just didn't do enough imo.

I disagree, a bank run is just the last straw which forces a bank to go bankrupt, as an example lets suppose there was an earthquake and a house collapsed while the one next to it survived and was completely fine, in this case we cannot say the house which collapsed did so because of the ground or any other excuse, the truth is that it was structurally weak and the earthquake just reveled that weakness for everyone to see, and this is true for banks as well.

Fractional reserve banking means banks hold only a fraction of customer deposits as reserves and use the rest for lending and other activities. Normally, this system works well, but it can become problematic if a large number of depositors withdraw their funds simultaneously. A financial institution's leadership and management are ultimately responsible for its health and stability. Risk assessment and mitigation, regulatory compliance, and governance structures are part of their responsibilities. Failures, however, can occur for a variety of reasons, not always at the hands of the CEO.

A bank's management must take preventive measures and manage risk effectively in order to prevent client panic from contributing to failure. However, due to the complexity and dynamic nature of the banking sector, it's impossible to eliminate all risks completely.

[umbara ardian]

Many people continue to use and trust banks for their financial needs, and not all banks experience the same problems or failures. Banks play an important role in facilitating financial transactions by providing services such as deposits, loans, and payment systems widely used by individuals and businesses. While some banks may face challenges, that does not mean that all banks will experience the same problems or fail. But even so, it will really continue because they are all hand-in-hand with the government that exists. It can last much longer, but the limitation is still a fatal drawback. So bitcoin was created to replace it.

[Blowon]

I think it's very natural that in business there are accidents and then they fail, even though the bank. even we ourselves must have witnessed many failed businesses, and not the least of which were banks that went bankrupt or they disappeared with customer money. even if it's the greatest bank in the world, I'm sure they can fail, because of that we can't stick to one solution in solving problems.

[freedomgo]

But some of these CEO and board of Directors claim that they have wealth of experience in financial matters. The way they attack cryptocurrency firms will make one believe that they have all the solutions and are infallible.

I'm going to argue that they do have the knowledge and experience — until they get too greedy and try to maximize revenues of the company. Greed is that one thing that can royally fuck someone up regardless of knowledge/experience, and no one is 100% safe from it. Hence, bitcoin > banks.

Greed is what destroys everyone, not only banks, I think, in crypto, we can also experience bankruptcy if we are too greedy.
one more valuable experience is failure, but if the bank has failed it is difficult to return and the person concerned with the failure of the bank will find it difficult to improve his reputation

Exactly. No one is excuse from having greed but we can chose not to be greedy or control our one’s greed as that will lead us into destroying our funds, not only in fiat but even in crypto as well. And worst is that those who claim to be more knowledgeable and more influential in the banks are said to be more greedy to gain selfish financial desires. That’s the reason why banks fail and experience bankruptcy, not because they are not knowledgeable and skillful, but because of too much greed and selfish desires that lost their focus on their job description.

[ChiBitCTy]

Having worked in finance for nearly two decades now, one thing that I've come to learn is that you can't trust banks.  Not the big huge banks anyhow, there is a difference between them and major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America etc.

Banks are corrupt, and I don't believe they have the moral capability to ever help make things right for others besides themselves.