Will banks go on extinction if they do not adopt cryptocurrencies?

[Wakate]

The son of Donald Trump, Eric Trump, also the executive vice of the Trump Organization said banks can extinct in 10 years if they do not watch what is coming. I think what he meant is that if banks do not support cryptocurrencies.

He said modern financial system is broken. It is slow. It is expensive. There is nothing on the blockchain that can't be done better than the current financial institutions is working. Banks not working during weekends also not working more than 8am to 4pm which can be a disadvantage to those that is not able to pay money early before 4pm on Friday.

https://youtu.be/cLnNedcVgcU?si=wS2MAylU7I2LFfhC

What is your opinion about this.

We all using paper money now but a time will come when we could not have to pay for goods and services using paper money, everything will be digital throughout and the bank it's do not have the power to ignore cryptocurrency payment system which is going to be a norm with time.

We have already seen big institutions, banks and government investing and also utilizing cryptocurrency as a payment system. The government is already spending too much money for printing of paper money just for them to be in circulation and the idea of crypto payment system will ease unnecessary expenses in due time. This is fiance revolution that is already in place and will soon dominate every region in due time.

[WillyAp]

People would wake up if, for one fortnight there is no more electricity. None.
No Internet just air.

[CryptoBuds]

We all using paper money now but a time will come when we could not have to pay for goods and services using paper money, everything will be digital throughout and the bank it's do not have the power to ignore cryptocurrency payment system which is going to be a norm with time.

We have already seen big institutions, banks and government investing and also utilizing cryptocurrency as a payment system. The government is already spending too much money for printing of paper money just for them to be in circulation and the idea of crypto payment system will ease unnecessary expenses in due time. This is fiance revolution that is already in place and will soon dominate every region in due time.

It should be noted, the idea of ​​a world without paper money has been around for decades, credit cards and online banking existed before crypto came along. And the idea of ​​not using paper money became even stronger with the advent of smartphones. So the digital world would still happen even without crypto but the advent of bitcoin/crypto has accelerated this process.

Crypto have been in the spotlight for the past decade but have primarily been used as a speculative, get-rich-quick asset. It is only truly considered potential and can become a future financial solution when it is recognized by the government. So instead of saying that banks need to adopt crypto to survive, it can be said that its future has become brighter thanks to government and banking recognition. Because if they don't admit it, it's just a speculative market for gamblers.

Banking and crypto will be the perfect combination towards a fully digital world, they cooperate and complement each other, no one depends on anyone.

[leonair]

Let's take a look at it from another angle. Will crypto currency go on extinction if they don't allow use of centralised platforms? Meaning we have more decentralised cryptocurrency, which we know very well the government is not in support of. The answer is no. Both the financial systems and the crypto currency system works on their own. But then, They literally can exist in a way to support each other. Banks has existed far before the era of crypto. People are shifting from banks for so many reasons be that they need more financial freedom. Some are still scared about cryptocurrency being a huge risky investment plan.

People are very emotional and everyone wants to make a lot of money with high risk. And banks are never able to implement this, which is why everyone is chasing investments in large amounts, such as cryptocurrency investments, which can have a huge impact in a very short time, but there is a possibility of huge losses. Everyone always thinks about profit and wants financial freedom. Although crypto is very risky, it provides complete financial freedom, which is why everyone is looking at these investments. No, banks will never disappear because everyone invests for high profits, but they always prefer banks for safe deposits and emergency money. And even if banks do not accept crypto now, they will start accepting it in the future.

[Smack That Ace]

Fiat has lost its value, but we still can't do without fiat. The banking system will always be needed to some point, but their business won't be booming the way it was in the past decades if they don't adapt to trends and what people are interested in. Indeed, they will run out of business pretty soon.

Their policies, charges, low interest on savings, slow transactions, etc., will make all their customers move away from using it. In terms of overprinting local currency, which has ended up devaluing it, that's the decision of the central bank in collaboration with federal inflation won't want anyone to save in their local currency.

As long as governments exist, don't expect banks to go anywhere soon. Besides, Fiat money allows governments to have full control over our financial life. Would you imagine banks disappearing in the future? That means zero control or monetary policy changes by the government. I know crypto (especially Bitcoin) is very popular these days. But I wouldn't count on government ditching Fiat in favor of decentralized, private monies. Not now or in another century.

I'd say banks and governments are only into Bitcoin just to make a lot of money. Not because they believe in it. With the huge taxation benefits provided by BTC, it would be dumb enough to ignore the craze. Banksters, governments, and institutional investors are smart. I'm afraid we aren't, especially when we're letting such entities accumulate a large portion of the circulating supply. The more BTC ending up in their hands, the worse. Ultimately, banks will adapt as they switch to the new digital Fiat system (CBDCs). Expect the erosion of privacy and freedom in the near future. Just my two sats.

You make a very good point. No matter how powerful cryptocurrency is, it is ultimately controlled and regulated by the government, and it will go nowhere if the government bans it. Don't forget, Governments and banks are the ones who control this world. So it is naive to think that cryptocurrency will threaten or make them extinct if they do not adopt it.

No doubt, they accept bitcoin not because they are afraid but because they do not want to miss out on the huge profits and taxes from it. If they really believed in BTC and wanted to adopt it, they wouldn't have created CBDC.

The government is gradually intervening and taking complete control of this market, sooner or later it will become centralized and tightly controlled by them.

[slapper]

We all using paper money now but a time will come when we could not have to pay for goods and services using paper money, everything will be digital throughout and the bank it's do not have the power to ignore cryptocurrency payment system which is going to be a norm with time.

We have already seen big institutions, banks and government investing and also utilizing cryptocurrency as a payment system. The government is already spending too much money for printing of paper money just for them to be in circulation and the idea of crypto payment system will ease unnecessary expenses in due time. This is fiance revolution that is already in place and will soon dominate every region in due time.

It should be noted, the idea of ​​a world without paper money has been around for decades, credit cards and online banking existed before crypto came along. And the idea of ​​not using paper money became even stronger with the advent of smartphones. So the digital world would still happen even without crypto but the advent of bitcoin/crypto has accelerated this process.

Crypto have been in the spotlight for the past decade but have primarily been used as a speculative, get-rich-quick asset. It is only truly considered potential and can become a future financial solution when it is recognized by the government. So instead of saying that banks need to adopt crypto to survive, it can be said that its future has become brighter thanks to government and banking recognition. Because if they don't admit it, it's just a speculative market for gamblers.

Banking and crypto will be the perfect combination towards a fully digital world, they cooperate and complement each other, no one depends on anyone.

Banks have always adapted. They survived credit cards, ATMs, the dot-com boom, and even the rise of mobile wallets by absorbing, co-opting, and sometimes just buying out whatever threatened them. It’s less about extinction and more about mutation.

But there’s something people ignore: banks are way more than money warehouses. They’re relationship engines, trust brokers, infrastructure layers for the boring stuff (mortgages, compliance, interbank settlements). Crypto doesn’t want that job. Most people don’t even want that job; it’s too much friction for the average user, and most don’t want to become their own bank and risk a wrong click wiping out a life’s savings.

I agree with you that crypto mostly lived as a speculative, but if banks don’t adapt, they don’t die. They just turn into utilities, like telecoms, doing the invisible labor while new platforms grab the spotlight. We should all be wonder: "Who gets to set the rules for what counts as money and what counts as trust?” That’s always been the real game, and it’s never just about technology. It’s about narrative control and who we choose to believe. And most people will pick convenience over revolution every single time.

[Orpichukwu]

People would wake up if, for one fortnight there is no more electricity. None.
No Internet just air.

If there is no electricity and no access to the internet, and this just happens one day without any warning, people will think less of Bitcoin and any digital currency at that point in time. They will focus more on how they are alive, how to survive, and how to adapt to that new system, which they are not used to. They will definitely not wake up from anything; rather, some will not be able to survive that situation.

[milewilda]

Fiat has lost its value, but we still can't do without fiat. The banking system will always be needed to some point, but their business won't be booming the way it was in the past decades if they don't adapt to trends and what people are interested in. Indeed, they will run out of business pretty soon.

Their policies, charges, low interest on savings, slow transactions, etc., will make all their customers move away from using it. In terms of overprinting local currency, which has ended up devaluing it, that's the decision of the central bank in collaboration with federal inflation won't want anyone to save in their local currency.

As long as governments exist, don't expect banks to go anywhere soon. Besides, Fiat money allows governments to have full control over our financial life. Would you imagine banks disappearing in the future? That means zero control or monetary policy changes by the government. I know crypto (especially Bitcoin) is very popular these days. But I wouldn't count on government ditching Fiat in favor of decentralized, private monies. Not now or in another century.

I'd say banks and governments are only into Bitcoin just to make a lot of money. Not because they believe in it. With the huge taxation benefits provided by BTC, it would be dumb enough to ignore the craze. Banksters, governments, and institutional investors are smart. I'm afraid we aren't, especially when we're letting such entities accumulate a large portion of the circulating supply. The more BTC ending up in their hands, the worse. Ultimately, banks will adapt as they switch to the new digital Fiat system (CBDCs). Expect the erosion of privacy and freedom in the near future. Just my two sats.

You make a very good point. No matter how powerful cryptocurrency is, it is ultimately controlled and regulated by the government, and it will go nowhere if the government bans it. Don't forget, Governments and banks are the ones who control this world. So it is naive to think that cryptocurrency will threaten or make them extinct if they do not adopt it.

No doubt, they accept bitcoin not because they are afraid but because they do not want to miss out on the huge profits and taxes from it. If they really believed in BTC and wanted to adopt it, they wouldn't have created CBDC.

The government is gradually intervening and taking complete control of this market, sooner or later it will become centralized and tightly controlled by them.

Come to think if ever they would be having that full scale ban or prohibition about crypto transactions.

1. Banning make use of banking services
2. Banning on money remittances
3. Banning on those e-wallets or digital banks

It might be that so few bans above but pretty much sure it will definitely be giving out that huge effect on how people would be able to cash out their coins/tokens
that would be converted into fiat. Its not bad to be that positive towards crypto recognition and adoption but it is just that quite delusional or being too much positive when you do already think off that banks would cease to exist or would be extinct or would be eradicated if ever they wont be accepting crypto? Come to think on whose the one first that did exist? They dont need to adopt something because they can stand alone if they wanted to and considering that humanity has been that trusting them since the beginning of time or when these banks had existed.

[suzanne5223]

 However, check the features he pointed out about the financial system being broken, expensive, and not working during the weekend, if they are not true.

The bank only stops counter services such as financial consulting, complaint handling, credit loan processing...while services such as money transfer, bill payment or withdrawal are all available 24/7. How can it be said that banks do not work on weekends?

That's because the person talking is a whale, and it's impossible to have access to a million dollars through the so-called withdrawal that is claimed to be available 24/7. Besides, if you have experience with the concept of banks questioning you over your plan to withdraw huge funds from your account, you'll understand what Eric Trump implies.

Yes, running a bank is expensive, but banks don't just process transactions like cryptocurrencies and do nothing else. If we pay attention in our daily life, most of the services related to finance and currency are provided by banks or related to them, this shows that the role of banks is not as simple as we think.
Another thing that many people overlook is that banks and governments are two separate entities and have different roles in the economy. Monetary policy is largely decided by banks and that means they are running the economy along with the government. With what they are providing and doing for the economy, for us...I don't think their existence is costly or wasteful.

For a nation to survive and for an economy to function, we need more than a system that can simply process transactions, store value. So no matter how modern the world becomes, the role of government and banks will never be replaced.

Yes, the banks don't only process fund transactions, they are also into other activities (like lending, treasury, depositing, etc.), but they are making money out of it, and if it's not something that works for them, they won't add it to their services.
Nevertheless, this doesn't justify their high transaction fee and long period for international transactions.

The monetary policy of every country is decided by the Central Bank, not the banks, that's why it's called Central, cause it works for the government and the commercial banking.
Having said that, this discussion is not about replacing the role of the government, but it is about the extinction of commercial banking if they don't move along with the innovative technology introduced, because people will always look for alternatives that work for them.

[Abiky]

Banks have always adapted. They survived credit cards, ATMs, the dot-com boom, and even the rise of mobile wallets by absorbing, co-opting, and sometimes just buying out whatever threatened them. It’s less about extinction and more about mutation.

But there’s something people ignore: banks are way more than money warehouses. They’re relationship engines, trust brokers, infrastructure layers for the boring stuff (mortgages, compliance, interbank settlements). Crypto doesn’t want that job. Most people don’t even want that job; it’s too much friction for the average user, and most don’t want to become their own bank and risk a wrong click wiping out a life’s savings.

I agree with you that crypto mostly lived as a speculative, but if banks don’t adapt, they don’t die. They just turn into utilities, like telecoms, doing the invisible labor while new platforms grab the spotlight. We should all be wonder: "Who gets to set the rules for what counts as money and what counts as trust?” That’s always been the real game, and it’s never just about technology. It’s about narrative control and who we choose to believe. And most people will pick convenience over revolution every single time.

That's certainly true, mate. And if crypto centralization continues to increase, banks may end up "absorbing" it. Some banks made a partnership with Ripple, Inc. (XRP's parent company), so anything's possible.

I don't see banks getting ousted or becoming obsolete anytime soon. Governments need them to keep the Fiat monetary system rolling. No retail banks and no central banks = complete separation of money from the state. That won't happen now or in the near future. Truly-decentralized coins such as Bitcoin and Litecoin will remain "second-class" choices for those who value privacy and freedom. Meanwhile, Fiat (which will eventually go digital) will continue to take over the world by storm. With CBDCs right around the corner, banks will only get bigger and stronger than ever. It's too late to "fix the world". At least, we have Bitcoin. That's all we'll ever need.

[BenCodie]

That's certainly true, mate. And if crypto centralization continues to increase, banks may end up "absorbing" it. Some banks made a partnership with Ripple, Inc. (XRP's parent company), so anything's possible.

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

[BitHodlers]

If there is no electricity and no access to the internet, and this just happens one day without any warning, people will think less of Bitcoin and any digital currency at that point in time. They will focus more on how they are alive, how to survive, and how to adapt to that new system, which they are not used to. They will definitely not wake up from anything; rather, some will not be able to survive that situation.

No, it is not the same. There are ways to use Bitcoin without the public grid or internet, but there is no way to use a bank without that. Do some reading.

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

No, owning Bitcoin does not provide any power over it and because of that there is no war. Normal people have had a lot of time to acquire it at low prices, it is only natural that the time had to have eventually ran out. To make your post even worse, all the entities that you listed hold Bitcoin for a large number of people. There isn't really a single entity that owns a lot of Bitcoin for itself.

I do not see any realistic chance of banks disappearing with the current state of things, regardless of whether they ignore cryptocurrencies or not. To make things worse, they are continuing to entrench themselves in the society. While it is still being sold as a private service, it is actually already an utility. There are a lot of things that you are unable to do in many countries, such as pay rent, without a bank account or access to a bank.

[BenCodie]

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

No, owning Bitcoin does not provide any power over it and because of that there is no war. Normal people have had a lot of time to acquire it at low prices, it is only natural that the time had to have eventually ran out.

Obviously you are not aware of banking-related officials who have repeatedly tried to tarnish Bitcoin's name between its inception and today. Obviously you are also unaware that ownership is power, and that the more Bitcoin you own, the more power you have over its market (especially in the context of large institutions who own 5%+ of the supply).

Yes, diminishing returns has made the reward less attractive for new investors though that does not mean the time has ran out, it just means that Bitcoin has matured into a market that is here to say. Not sure how that's relevant to what I initially said about private wealth deployment and ownership though.

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

To make your post even worse, all the entities that you listed hold Bitcoin for a large number of people. There isn't really a single entity that owns a lot of Bitcoin for itself.

Many custodial platforms that were considered safe also held a lot of Bitcoin for a large number of people. Mt Gox, FTX, and countless others have proven the danger and shown the effects of a custodial service vulnerable to its own power...Just to speak about Coinbase and Blackrock (who combined own more than 7.5% of the supply):
- Coinbase have recently lost over $300m from social engineering scams and have had to offer a $20m bounty to catch the culprits, despite that $300m being permanently lost.
- Blackrock have a clause in their ETF filing saying they would "pick" in the event of a hard fork, meaning if they ever chose a hard fork of Bitcoin over Bitcoin, they could dump all of their holdings and reflect the new fork on behalf of ETF holders.

These are dangers of centralized ownership of the supply.

What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

I do not see any realistic chance of banks disappearing with the current state of things, regardless of whether they ignore cryptocurrencies or not. To make things worse, they are continuing to entrench themselves in the society. While it is still being sold as a private service, it is actually already an utility. There are a lot of things that you are unable to do in many countries, such as pay rent, without a bank account or access to a bank.

The utility of banks are on a downward trend. They are trying to keep up, and decentralized protocols are taking more an more market share every year. They are not becoming more entrenched, in fact I'd bet that since 2008 they'd have lost market share from retail investors. I'd bet that the amount lost could be compared/correlated to Bitcoin's market cap, and god knows how many banking fees have been saved through using Bitcoin/crypto over the banks in the last 15 years.

[Abiky]

That is the big war. Bitcoin did a very rare thing by being heavily distributed before banks got a chance to take too much ownership of it. Now it will be interesting to see if they try to take as much ownership as they can of Bitcoin and absorb the market, or if they will always be chasing Bitcoin's innovative tail. It depends how much private wealth can be deployed and if people are willing to sell enough Bitcoin to make power centralization a concern. Right now, with coinbase, microstrategy, blackrock, fidelity and others with a combined ownership of 10-15%+ of the entire bitcoin supply, it is an interesting and pivotal peroid we are in regarding this war.

Yes. Centralization by banks and "Wall Street" is near. Only if they manage to control network nodes and hashrate as well. With most of the circulating supply in their hands, they will have the leverage they need to "bribe" developers in the path they want Bitcoin to head into. The community must stand strong by preventing these giants from ruining Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin. Otherwise, BTC will lose.

Thank goodness, most people still hold BTC, so chances of centralization are slim. Let's not forget that centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Binance are the dominant forces of the crypto market. They can manipulate prices and crash the market if they want to. Like you've said, it'll be an interesting war to watch. Let's hope Bitcoin wins in the long run.

[lionheart78]

Thank goodness, most people still hold BTC, so chances of centralization are slim. Let's not forget that centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Binance are the dominant forces of the crypto market. They can manipulate prices and crash the market if they want to. Like you've said, it'll be an interesting war to watch. Let's hope Bitcoin wins in the long run.

As you stated, it is not about people wanting decentralization, it is the developers' decision to stick to decentralization.  Just like how ETH transition from hybrid POW-POS to fully POS.  I do not think developers will be threatened if a centralized institution owns a majority of Bitcoin, now that Bitcoin has gained its ground.  Bitcoin developers had never been threatened when Bitcoin was just a small community and now that Bitcoin has grown too much, why worry about it?
'
And one best features of the Bitcoin network is no one has the upper hand when it comes to the network, and miners are too decentralized to be manipulated, bitcoin protocol is decentralized in nature so one needs to work hard to make it centralized but I am sure nodes who are fund of the decentralized network will resist this centralization attempt.

[BitHodlers]

Obviously you are not aware of banking-related officials who have repeatedly tried to tarnish Bitcoin's name between its inception and today. Obviously you are also unaware that ownership is power, and that the more Bitcoin you own, the more power you have over its market (especially in the context of large institutions who own 5%+ of the supply).

Nice try. Control of the market price of Bitcoin, does not give you any power over Bitcoin.

These are dangers of centralized ownership of the supply.

What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.

Sure and I agree partially, but there is a but. We can't properly calculate the total value of crypto that was scammed or stolen from individual users. But if we could, it is very probably that the amount stolen from individuals outweighs the amount stolen from large platforms or custodians in recent time. Right? There was a report just recently about a potential $300 million hack which was converted to XMR. You are underestimating the risks of asking people to be their own bank, people who own many number of devices, but do not know how to use them. The elderly people do not know how to use them, the young people do not know either. If they did, these things would not be happening.

Custodians are inevitable in such a large asset class that requires both knowledge and expertise, no amount of whining or complaining will stop custodians from appearing and keeping the majority of the ownership. That said, the bigger the custodian the more extreme security measures do I expect. They have no reason to touch wallets or move large amounts basically ever. They know what they are doing, and on the other hand you can trick many users with a simple enter your seed phrase to claim the biggest ever space jackpot.  

[yhiaali3]

Yes I agree. Banks that don't keep up with the digital age, capitalize on the opportunity, and implement the necessary developments will eventually go bankrupt, or at the very least lose many of their customers.

If we think about it a little logically, we find that most countries now accept Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, even if they haven't officially adopted them. Therefore it's only natural that many banks are moving towards accepting cryptocurrencies in their financial transactions to keep up with the times and meet customers' growing demand for cryptocurrencies. Consequently, banks that insist on rejecting cryptocurrencies will be left out of the equation and will eventually go bankrupt.

[lizarder]

He said modern financial system is broken. It is slow. It is expensive. There is nothing on the blockchain that can't be done better than the current financial institutions is working. Banks not working during weekends also not working more than 8am to 4pm which can be a disadvantage to those that is not able to pay money early before 4pm on Friday.

The banking system does have its weaknesses and they have a limited working system during holidays but banks are still needed by everyone today so it is difficult for them to go bankrupt. In a further stage banks are also starting to be integrated with exchanges where we can convert crypto on the exchange into fiat currency which is sent directly to the bank. This is also one of the innovations of a different form of system acceptance that is starting to be implemented by the government because they realize that the best way is to provide convenience rather than fight it.

This is nothing more than a hint about decentralized platforms and I think he is trying to give a slightly wrong view just because it is slow and expensive. Crypto will never replace fiat and I am not sure it can happen anytime soon because people still need fiat currency and banks as a place to transact.

[EarnOnVictor]

People would wake up if, for one fortnight there is no more electricity. None.
No Internet just air.

Hahaha...This is deep, but only the wise would know.

Crypto here and there, to the extent that people now mistake it for the main economy of the world. I don't know how people are this gullible. Bank is a major part of the world economy, cryptocurrency can't hold that position other than you enjoy them for private/decentralised payments and investment, like any other asset.

[CageMabok]

People would wake up if, for one fortnight there is no more electricity. None.
No Internet just air.

Why do you say that?
If there is still electricity and internet, will people sleep more often and not wake up in the morning? Because if you look back to the past where there was no electricity and internet, people could still live as usual without any more obstacles for themselves. So it's a bit strange when you say people will wake up when there are no more of those two things in their lives, whereas people in the past could still live healthily without those two things in their lives.