Bank vs Crypto: Are they opposites?

[red4slash]

For sure there are a lot of differences between banks and cryptocurrency, we can already see crypto as decentralized and banks are centralized platforms, the technology is different since cryptocurrency operates on the blockchain and they do transactions differently with the banks, where everything is just centralized which is actually not something that I would definitely recommend. I mean for sure back in the day these two were just completely different and there are some saying that cryptocurrency is going to kill banks in the future because there is just no one that would actually want a centralized platform or just put your money in savings where you dont really have complete control about it right.

Yeah, cryptocurrency is different from banks because banks store their information on a different database, while cryptocurrency information is stored on the blockchain. But it's not correct to think that all cryptocurrencies are decentralized because some cryptocurrencies are fully centralized and have offices where they operate. I know of a project that is registered and licensed under the UK government, and the project has offices in the UK and employees working every day. That is to say that not every cryptocurrency is decentralized; quite a lot of them are very centralized.

True, because not all cryptocurrenci do the same way in decentralisation but indeed if the discussion is about decentralisation maybe we have to narrow down to one of them such as bitcoin but in this case the concept becomes different because the context has narrowed down to a subset of cryptocurrenci namely bitcoin
But when referring to banks and crypto even though some in crypto have little in common of course more differences are opposite. Currently the problem is that many think that this will be a competition but in the end when we think further the function is not to compete with each other and it could be better if they coexist even though this is difficult due to regulation.

[1715211364]

1715211364

[Smack That Ace]

Cryptocurrency is just a financial market and to exist it needs investors and investors need fiat to invest to drive the market

Again, bitcoin(satoshi) didn't need investors from the start, it needs Hal as a adopters/contributors/users. In conclusion, bitcoin needs more people like Hal Finney.

Let's not talk about Satoshi's purpose and we should look at what is happening. Not only you and me but everyone knows that the purpose of creating bitcoin is to become a peer-to-peer payment method. But the problem is what do you, I and everyone consider bitcoin? If you don't consider bitcoin a profitable investment, then what is your purpose in accumulating bitcoin? Don't make assumptions about whether the government will accept it or not, because only we ourselves know best what we want.

I really don't understand why so many people invest in bitcoin and want to make a lot of money from it, but they use the excuse that because the government doesn't accept it as a currency so they turn it into an investment? That's like them making profits from bitcoin like the government is forcing them. We should live realistically.

[sunsilk]

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

They're just doing the innovation through digital payments and currencies that they govern.

Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

But they don't talk about plain cash being used by those activities. 

[tbct_mt2]

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

They're just doing the innovation through digital payments and currencies that they govern.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency won't defeat or kill central banks, commercial banks and fiat currencies or CBDCs. Bitcoin can outperform fiat currencies, CBDCs in purchasing power over time but by beating, killing I meant Bitcoin will get rid of fiat currencies and CBDCs. It simply won't happen in future and it is kind of over fear.

If a Bitcoin maximalist, investor hope it will happen, it is unrealistic hope. If globally, there are governments, it will not happen.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

Well, Satoshi's idea was to create

<...> an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party

This eliminates the idea of central banks, and all other banks, as they are third parties. Another thing is that with the development of the bitcoin industry, mainly centralised exchanges, which is where most retail investors buy their bitcoins, this idea seems like a nice utopia today, but we cannot see it as feasible.

So, to answer the question of the thread, yes and no. Bitcoin was conceived as the opposite, but this is not necessarily the case, as is unfortunately the case.

[mendace]

The proposal of cryptocurrencies, since bitcoin, was to not have to pass our rich money through banks, this is the ideal situation. The reality is that today, owning cryptocurrencies must necessarily go through banks for disbursement for purchase or receipt of amounts for sale. I see projects like this one in this paper tks1ing.blogspot.com which deals with retail currency, that is, having a retail cryptocurrency accepted everywhere, can be used to buy and sell bitcoin in exchange for this currency. Bingo! Then you can break dependence on banks. Paper: tks1ing.blogspot.com

It is true that the purpose of Bitcoin is precisely to eliminate the intermediary or the bank.  You say that cryptocurrencies cannot be used without the use of a bank but it doesn't seem like that to me, there are some p2p methods or you can always pay in bitcoin and you will only have money for your wallet

[DapanasFruit]

Banks are now looking at how they can gain something - meaning profits - out of cryptocurrency. Why is this so? Because many of banking leaders are now convinced that cryptocurrency is here to stay and its market is expanding. So banks are now looking forward how they can collaborate and cooperate with cryptocurrency most especially since they are sensing of a big demand coming from their own client base. Potential conflicts can always be ironed out for the sake of making a slice in the profit cake.

[bayu7adi]

It is true that the purpose of Bitcoin is precisely to eliminate the intermediary or the bank.  You say that cryptocurrencies cannot be used without the use of a bank but it doesn't seem like that to me, there are some p2p methods or you can always pay in bitcoin and you will only have money for your wallet

This notion keeps circling in my mind because I have a penchant for weighing the benefits of one approach against another. It's true that P2P can be employed to bypass intermediaries, but thus far, these intermediaries wield significant control, and the reputable stature of banks as trusted financial agents endures in society.

If one were to solely rely on Bitcoin without any FIAT currency, I would find myself unable to procure sustenance (at least for the present moment). For minor expenses, executing BTC exchanges through P2P runs smoothly. However, when it comes to what I perceive as substantial transactions (such as converting BTC to FIAT with large amount), I still find myself reliant on banking services for this large-scale transactions.

[sunsilk]

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

They're just doing the innovation through digital payments and currencies that they govern.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency won't defeat or kill central banks, commercial banks and fiat currencies or CBDCs. Bitcoin can outperform fiat currencies, CBDCs in purchasing power over time but by beating, killing I meant Bitcoin will get rid of fiat currencies and CBDCs. It simply won't happen in future and it is kind of over fear.

If a Bitcoin maximalist, investor hope it will happen, it is unrealistic hope. If globally, there are governments, it will not happen.

Yeah, that won't happen. Before, many have believed that and even I but as time passes, we're getting the idea that it's exaggerated.

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

Well, Satoshi's idea was to create

<...> an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party

This eliminates the idea of central banks, and all other banks, as they are third parties. Another thing is that with the development of the bitcoin industry, mainly centralised exchanges, which is where most retail investors buy their bitcoins, this idea seems like a nice utopia today, but we cannot see it as feasible.

So, to answer the question of the thread, yes and no. Bitcoin was conceived as the opposite, but this is not necessarily the case, as is unfortunately the case.

Yup, that's it.

We may want to have the idea to be firm and get into the world someday. But it just can't and the matter of fact is that it's good as it is another entity where people can use both of it but it can surely outperform those.

[BVeyron]

In short, the answer is no. Banks and crypto are not opposites, but they have different purposes and ways of working. Banks are traditional financial institutions that provide services such as savings, loans, and money transfers. Crypto is a digital currency that uses blockchain technology.

There are some potential conflicts between banks and crypto. For example, banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans. Additionally, banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

However, there is also potential for collaboration between banks and crypto. For example, banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Additionally, banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.

Here are some examples of potential conflict and collaboration between banks and crypto:

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.
Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

Collaboration:

Banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.
Ultimately, the future of the relationship between banks and crypto is uncertain. However, it is clear that both will continue to evolve and influence each other.

Additional thoughts:

It is important to note that the relationship between banks and crypto is still in its early stages. As both technologies continue to develop, it is likely that we will see new and innovative ways for them to work together

Banks can be the masterminds behind crypto projects. Blockchain projects are global fintech testnets. So cryptocurrency is useful for fiat banking systems: all the financial companies experience troubles with bigdata processing at high security level. So the price of BTC is a kind of "airdrop" for testnet participants. Moreover, some fiat banks might influence the prices of cryptocoins in order to make technologies develop in certain ways.

[AmoreJaz]

It was a concern that many have thought that crypto will certainly be able to defeat the banks. But we're getting the picture blurry these days as these banks are also adopting to changes.

They're just doing the innovation through digital payments and currencies that they govern.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency won't defeat or kill central banks, commercial banks and fiat currencies or CBDCs. Bitcoin can outperform fiat currencies, CBDCs in purchasing power over time but by beating, killing I meant Bitcoin will get rid of fiat currencies and CBDCs. It simply won't happen in future and it is kind of over fear.

If a Bitcoin maximalist, investor hope it will happen, it is unrealistic hope. If globally, there are governments, it will not happen.

bitcoin may not outperform fiat, but i believe, just be grateful that btc was invented. fiat is still the major currency that most population will stick to. cbdc is just an alternative but i don't think it will be the major currency, but who knows the future, right?
large population are still depending on bank services, so there's no in a hurry here.

[Bitcoin_people]

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.
Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

When crypto is used in a country the country's bank does not decide it but the country's government decides whether it should. There are many countries who know that they cannot control Bitcoin if it is accepted as a currency in their country so the country's government does not provide legalization. Again, governments don't use Bitcoin because they think their domestic currency will be threatened because it's decentralized. But many countries have legalized cryptocurrencies and they have achieved financial prosperity but many are afraid to do so and do not legalize bitcoin or crypto because they think their local currency will fall.

[HONDACD125]

In short, the answer is no. Banks and crypto are not opposites, but they have different purposes and ways of working. Banks are traditional financial institutions that provide services such as savings, loans, and money transfers. Crypto is a digital currency that uses blockchain technology.

There are some potential conflicts between banks and crypto. For example, banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans. Additionally, banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

However, there is also potential for collaboration between banks and crypto. For example, banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Additionally, banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.

Here are some examples of potential conflict and collaboration between banks and crypto:

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.
Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

Collaboration:

Banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.
Ultimately, the future of the relationship between banks and crypto is uncertain. However, it is clear that both will continue to evolve and influence each other.

Additional thoughts:

It is important to note that the relationship between banks and crypto is still in its early stages. As both technologies continue to develop, it is likely that we will see new and innovative ways for them to work together

In my opinion, banks are under the control of every government, while when it comes to Bitcoin, it is not under the control of anyone, but it is an decentralize crypto currency. Therefore, most governments do not want Bitcoin to be introduced in their country. As far as banks are concerned, the majority of banks do not want crypto currency or Bitcoin to become legal in their country.

Many people still prefer to keep their assets in crypto currencies instead of banks. Since their assets may be at risk of devaluation in banks, they are likely to get good returns on crypto currencies, especially Bitcoin. If people invest more and more. Assets in crypto currencies or Bitcoin instead of banks, this will also have a huge impact on banks. However, banks have their importance and its importance cannot be denied. However, I don't think the relationship between banks and crypt currencies can be cordial, rather the situation between the two is more likely to remain tense, as both perceive each other's existence as a threat to themselves.

[posi]

snip~

Many people still prefer to keep their assets in crypto currencies instead of banks. Since their assets may be at risk of devaluation in banks, they are likely to get good returns on crypto currencies, especially Bitcoin. If people invest more and more. Assets in crypto currencies or Bitcoin instead of banks, this will also have a huge impact on banks. However, banks have their importance and its importance cannot be denied. However, I don't think the relationship between banks and crypt currencies can be cordial, rather the situation between the two is more likely to remain tense, as both perceive each other's existence as a threat to themselves.

Why don't you mention the risks of investing in cryptocurrency and bitcoin? The risk of depositing money in a bank is that the money may lose value over time and the account may be frozen. The risk when investing in bitcoin is that we can lose everything we have if bitcoin suddenly crashes, or our wallet can be hacked...but in return, we have the opportunity to profit big profit instead of depositing money in the bank. Both have their pros and cons.

Apart from bitcoin, the rest of the cryptocurrencies are mostly centralized, so it may not pose a threat to banks as governments may also be looking to control cryptocurrencies, with the exception of bitcoin.

[Patrol69]

Banks and cryptos don't seem like adversaries to me. Every country has banks but not every country has crypto approval. When there are more than one private bank in a country, the competition between the private banks can be called rivals, but since crypto is not approved in most countries, crypto will not be an opponent of the bank. But Bank China let people of their country transact through crypto or let people of their country invest in crypto. Because whenever the people of a country invest in crypto, the amount of people keeping money in the bank will decrease which is harmful for the bank. That's why banks are always anti-crypto but not anti-crypto.

[Texac]

Banks and cryptos don't seem like adversaries to me. Every country has banks but not every country has crypto approval. When there are more than one private bank in a country, the competition between the private banks can be called rivals, but since crypto is not approved in most countries, crypto will not be an opponent of the bank. But Bank China let people of their country transact through crypto or let people of their country invest in crypto. Because whenever the people of a country invest in crypto, the amount of people keeping money in the bank will decrease which is harmful for the bank. That's why banks are always anti-crypto but not anti-crypto.

I don't understand, if cryptocurrencies are considered an investment market, why cryptocurrencies become a competitor of banks?  don't we also have stock markets and foreign exchange markets that are also investment markets? Why aren't they competitors of banks? People are also investing heavily in forex and stocks and the market has a capitalization of tens of trillions of dollars, while cryptocurrencies have not even exceeded $2 trillion.  how will it affect the bank's interests?  are people making unnecessary comparisons and seeing banks as competitors to cryptocurrencies?

[Blitzboy]

It is true that the purpose of Bitcoin is precisely to eliminate the intermediary or the bank.  You say that cryptocurrencies cannot be used without the use of a bank but it doesn't seem like that to me, there are some p2p methods or you can always pay in bitcoin and you will only have money for your wallet

This notion keeps circling in my mind because I have a penchant for weighing the benefits of one approach against another. It's true that P2P can be employed to bypass intermediaries, but thus far, these intermediaries wield significant control, and the reputable stature of banks as trusted financial agents endures in society.

If one were to solely rely on Bitcoin without any FIAT currency, I would find myself unable to procure sustenance (at least for the present moment). For minor expenses, executing BTC exchanges through P2P runs smoothly. However, when it comes to what I perceive as substantial transactions (such as converting BTC to FIAT with large amount), I still find myself reliant on banking services for this large-scale transactions.

You raised a hot topic in crypto talks. Traditional banks have a strong reputation after hundreds of years, while Bitcoin is still establishing its place. P2P trading show us a decentralized future, but infrastructure and society's mindset havent shifted yet.

As you noted, daily requirements are still FIAT-based. Bitcoin can transform the world, but its a "add-on" not a replacement. Its like a tool thats good for some chores but not all.

Due to its safety and strength, people still trust normal banking for major transactions. As Bitcoin ages and our systems adjust, this may alter. Fans cant wait to watch how it changes as its being worked on

[RockBell]

Banks are now looking at how they can gain something - meaning profits - out of cryptocurrency. Why is this so? Because many of banking leaders are now convinced that cryptocurrency is here to stay and its market is expanding. So banks are now looking forward how they can collaborate and cooperate with cryptocurrency most especially since they are sensing of a big demand coming from their own client base. Potential conflicts can always be ironed out for the sake of making a slice in the profit cake.

Aside from banks, I'm sure the government is searching for a method in cryptocurrencies, and banks being involved, in my opinion, will not go well since the banks' basis is with the customers' money, and they are absolutely frightened because the price is not steady. However, banks have access to cryptocurrency. Since money is needed to purchase bitcoin. And the bitcoin has just increased its environment and keep expanding every seconds.  The demand has seriously increased recently and people are really interested. And am sure the government and the banks would have looked for ways just put a stop to bitcoin but it can not work.
But bitcoin are banks are similar but operate in different functionality.

[Agbe]

In short, the answer is no. Banks and crypto are not opposites, but they have different purposes and ways of working. Banks are traditional financial institutions that provide services such as savings, loans, and money transfers. Crypto is a digital currency that uses blockchain technology.

I will say the answer is yes because bank is purely for physical cash transaction which is centralized system of operation while crypto is only for digital and it is for decentralized mode of operation therefore they don't have the same mode of operation.

There are some potential conflicts between banks and crypto. For example, banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans. Additionally, banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

I don't think banks have any issue with cryptocurrency because they are also benefiting from it but it is the authority that has problem with it. The authority fear that crypto would shadow the fiat currency so they don't want the cryptocurrency to be used in their countries.

Here are some examples of potential conflict and collaboration between banks and crypto:

Conflict:

Banks are concerned that crypto could reduce the use of fiat currency and reduce their revenue from services such as credit cards and loans.
Banks are concerned that crypto could be used for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing.

Collaboration:

Banks can use crypto to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Banks can use crypto to provide new services to customers, such as loans based on crypto assets.
Ultimately, the future of the relationship between banks and crypto is uncertain. However, it is clear that both will continue to evolve and influence each other.

Additional thoughts:

It is important to note that the relationship between banks and crypto is still in its early stages. As both technologies continue to develop, it is likely that we will see new and innovative ways for them to work together

As I said, the conflict between banks and cryptocurrency is sponsored by the state governments. Cryptocurrency is a very good investment platform which banks can make more profit from but the government restrict them from using it. So the bank is not happy with the government but individually the bank workers invest in bitcoin.

[Ucy]

As long as it's not the kind of banks people are used to. Going through the wrong kind of banks would be like putting a square peg in round hole whereas it's necessary to fashion a round peg that specifically fits the cryptocurrency round hole, instead of using an incompatible square peg or centralized financial system that is incompatible with the ideals of true cryptocurrency which represents the round hole.
The compatible ones have to be decentralized and non-custodial allowing users to have full control over their funds... or rather, not giving them (the banks) full control over their customers funds. The abuse of customers funds which led to the collapse and bailout of banks in the past was part of the reason Bitcoin was invented, and the power to control funds was given back to their owners. Should we then hand over this power back to the banks to abuse again? Well, certain people have done that with centralized exchanges which are more like the centralized traditional banks but we are currently working hard to create decentralized alternatives that can be as convenient and fast as the centralized ones so people don't have reasons to continue to use them.

And don't forget that cryptocurrency exchange/transaction has to be decentralized peer-to-peer exchange, rather than through the banks or intermediaries. Whatever you build on this space should be built according to this principles.