Not your Key not your coin (86 million bank accounts shutdown)

[EarnOnVictor]

As Bitcoin is now mainstream, we need to prioritize the use of a self custodial wallet.                                                    

86 million accounts are many, how many is even the population of Vietnam that 86 million accounts were deleted? That's to show the control of the custodial arrangement, although the government must have given them enough time and warning before this was done. I don't want to look one sided here. Many accounts that are not properly registered are being used to perpetrator evil, it depends on how we view it.

As for Bitcoin, yes, it has helped many against the overbearing nature of the government, but I always ask myself, is there 100% shield from the government? I guess not! Unless you can always transact Bitcoin-Bitcoin in all your purchases good and services, others, government radar can still catch up. Yet, this is only in knowing, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin will keep you, unless you give up your passkeys.

[Dunamisx]

They may never stop coming after us, because they don't want us to have the freedom in finance and if possible with the while general economy, so that they can control how we manage ourselves, while they earn from us and the economy keep getting ruined by the incidence of inflation, leaving them unaffected, the best way out of these is through the use of non custodial wallets, taking p2p as serious as ever before through a decentralized exchange.

[RockBell]

Bitcoin became a game changer since it was created and it has given us a great alternative to hold our money where we have a total control over it. Anybody that wants privacy and freedom from government controlled traditional currencies should simply convert their money to Bitcoin and enjoy decentralized anonymity. Things like this should be a wake up call for everybody that is still solely depending on government centralized currency to hold their monies, the banks can at anytime freeze your funds. Not your keys not your coins this is the message of Bitcoin to everybody that is not yet taking advantage of it's value to us.

This isn't about moving your money from a centralized exchange because even with a centralized exchange, your money isn't safe. Instead, it's about knowing what to invest your money in and how to keep your assets. What's happening in the centralized network is gradually discouraging people from keeping their money in a centralized system, which has even given people more hope to want to invest in Bitcoin because you will be able to control your money and move it however you want.

Additionally, Bitcoin was intended to be a decentralized platform from the start, and investor privacy should be safeguarded until the centralization and KYC shits all start to appear everywhere. However, there are people who value their privacy so highly that they don't break the rules when using a decentralized exchange.

[fikrett]

They may never stop coming after us, because they don't want us to have the freedom in finance and if possible with the while general economy, so that they can control how we manage ourselves, while they earn from us and the economy keep getting ruined by the incidence of inflation, leaving them unaffected, the best way out of these is through the use of non custodial wallets, taking p2p as serious as ever before through a decentralized exchange.

Agreed.

If we are not our own bank - we are in the hands of those that don't think about us first and foremost, unfortunately.

[MinoRaiola]

I think that picture isn't relevant in this situation, and it doesn't demonstrate the situation being discussed in the OP, because the picture you posted basically shows that Bitcoin is available 24/7 while banks get closed and also aren't operational on weekends, but I basically don't understand why this comparison has to happen because just like Bitcoin, banking transactions are possible even when the banks are closed. Only because the bank is closed it doesn't mean you can't make transactions as long as you have internet banking or mobile banking options.

Talking about the issue being discussed in the OP, I think it has always been necessary for people to do some research before getting involved in Bitcoin and at least know the difference between custodial and non-custodial wallets so that they don't use centralized services for holding their balances even after joining a decentralized market. It doesn't make any sense to let a third-party manage your assets when you can literally do it yourself an stay out of any sort of threats or anything where you account could get blocked or frozen, and funds confiscated.

You are right, the picture looks good and is positive in relation to Bitcoin. You can also carry out transactions at the weekend with a bank, but not everything. For example, international transfers dont work within a few minutes. Or, in some cases, larger amounts are not transferred abroad without verification. This is not the case in all transaktions, but it is not 100% possible. Cash withdrawals are also not possible on weekends, or larger amounts of cash must be registered, sometimes two days in advance.           

Only bank branches are closed on weekends, while online banking is open 24/7. I think you understand that because you are also using banks for your daily life. You are even using it more than bitcoin because it is still the main means of payment.
Like everyday bills, or on the weekend when you take the kids out, do you pay with bank or Bitcoin?

In all fairness, banking is not perfect, it has its own drawbacks and risks. We should not put all our trust in them and let them hold most of our money, not only because we do not have full control over our assets, but also because inflation will erode their value. But there is no denying that we still need it in our lives.

Thats true, we still need banks. They control money, which isnt the best way, but they also protect it. Or protect owners that they dont lose it. If you ignore the financial crisis of 2008-2009, when many people lost their money. But we need their services and they keep the economy running.

[john_egbert]

Thats true, we still need banks. They control money, which isnt the best way, but they also protect it. Or protect owners that they dont lose it. If you ignore the financial crisis of 2008-2009, when many people lost their money. But we need their services and they keep the economy running.

They are still the ones being the most used services out there by anybody, and even though they are not perfect - BTC won't outright become the full-on transition option for them in the future, and we must always understand this.

[Bastketsrus]

News will continue to be a wake up call for others to stop relying on Centralised platform for data and funds.

A sudden news from the government for a new policy in situations like this, can lead to state unrest expecially when many fails to get it done before deadline because of limited handstand more. Speaking of something that happened in a more recent years in Nigeria.

No new policy will make you lose the access or control of your coin on a non-custodial wallets.

You're spot on. Governments can flip policies overnight and people relying on centralized platforms are the ones who get hit the hardest. That’s exactly why self-custody matters—your coins stay in your control no matter what rules change.

[Mahanton]

I could remember years ago when CoinBase introduced a tough KYC procedure, and all the users of the exchange who cant comply with or execute the harsh KYC cant access their funds.

Folks were notified several months in advance and could move their funds like I did if they wanted to. Even those who somehow missed the emails from Coinbase warning of the KYC changes could/can still access their coin after jumping through several hoops going through their verification process.

The same no doubt applies to the unverified Vietnamese bank accounts - funds in them has not been seized but rather locked until the owners can be verified. It may be a PITA but such is life in the modern world. Deal with it.

I never used Coinbase so I never knew this and I am surprised they didnt deny access to funds.

Remember Poloniex, not the current one owned by Justin Sun but the original one. The exchange grew in popularity when it was shown on MSNBC teaching people to buy XRP on their exchange. Then they had to get tough with regulations and they basically locked peoples funds for years, there was no warning.

You couldnt get it out at all. I think all they let you do was trade. And it took maybe a year or so before people got their accounts approved and finally got to withdraw. Was a very difficult time for many users.

It shows how exchanges handle regulation very differently coinbase even though strict with kyc gave people time and options either verify or withdraw before the new system kicked in it was more of a hassle than an outright trap which is why so many users still see it as one of the safer centralized exchanges. But poloniex back then was a completely different story they blew up fast without having the proper compliance in place and when regulations finally hit them they just slammed the door shut on withdrawals for a long stretch of time users had coins locked for months sometimes more than a year and all they could do was watch prices move while they sat on balances they couldn’t touch the fact that trading was allowed but not withdrawals made it even more frustrating cause it felt like being trapped in a room where the windows were open but the doors were locked.

This kind of history is why a lot of old school crypto folks still stress not keeping large balances on exchanges if you control the keys you don’t get locked out by surprise rules or sudden policy changes sure kyc today is standard across most centralized platforms but the lesson from both coinbase and poloniex remains clear you don’t really own your assets until they’re in your custody exchanges can delay restrict or force new processes anytime and users just have to deal with it because regulations aren’t going away. The irony is many newcomers still repeat the cycle storing everything on exchanges for convenience until something like this happens again it’s almost like every generation of traders has to learn the same hard lesson all over.

[Hewlet]

As Bitcoin is now mainstream, we need to prioritize the use of a self custodial wallet.                                                                                                     

convenience and the ease of access has been the main reason why users always put a blind eyes to the fact that it is unsafe to leave a coin in an exchange  for so long. until it dawns on them and they become the victim. it is just like the banking system, until government regulation comes up that makes it hard for you to even gain access to your funds, the trust on the banking system will always blind people to the possibility of a thing as this happening someday.

The issue of over taxation of all the money that goes through the banking system in some country is another serious thing people are gong through and combined with this, it tells of how systems that are regulated by the government can suddenly become infringed upon and lead to a loss of your asset or money due to some unfavorable policy.

[Davidvictorson]

News will continue to be a wake up call for others to stop relying on Centralised platform for data and funds.

A sudden news from the government for a new policy in situations like this, can lead to state unrest expecially when many fails to get it done before deadline because of limited handstand more. Speaking of something that happened in a more recent years in Nigeria.

No new policy will make you lose the access or control of your coin on a non-custodial wallets.

I can relate to this. There is even a new tax policy for bank account holders and they must do it. But so far, I have not see any option to do it virtually for those who can't do it because they are not physically present in the country. Just like the story that we read, this will affect their accounts in no small way. And this is one of the cons of centralization and the selling point for decentralization. If the governemnt ever agrees to bitcoin, they will want control. In my estimation the chances of this happening is slim.

[nemesis_incarnate]

News will continue to be a wake up call for others to stop relying on Centralised platform for data and funds.

A sudden news from the government for a new policy in situations like this, can lead to state unrest expecially when many fails to get it done before deadline because of limited handstand more. Speaking of something that happened in a more recent years in Nigeria.

No new policy will make you lose the access or control of your coin on a non-custodial wallets.

I can relate to this. There is even a new tax policy for bank account holders and they must do it. But so far, I have not see any option to do it virtually for those who can't do it because they are not physically present in the country. Just like the story that we read, this will affect their accounts in no small way. And this is one of the cons of centralization and the selling point for decentralization. If the governemnt ever agrees to bitcoin, they will want control. In my estimation the chances of this happening is slim.

Custody is not the reason people come to banks / such institutions, and it never will be

So people should understand the risks of giving their custody to someone in such cases.

[Marvell1]

Just imagine right now that there's a life threatening emergency and the person's bank account has being blocked under this new policy and is yet to have access to pass the face and finger print KYC due to the crowd and daily king queues.

As far as I know, users can do KYC directly on the bank's app, they don't need to go to the counter to do it. You only need the help of a bank employee if you cannot use a smartphone or your smartphone does not support NFC.

Furthermore, banks have given customers advance notice from July 1, 2024, which means customers have more than a year to comply with the regulations. Banks would not suddenly or randomly block such a large number of accounts without notice and reason.


It seems that many people have never heard of this and have not taken the time to learn about it. You only know the information from this article and only have a one sided view, then quickly draw unfair conclusions about what the bank is doing.

Instead of thinking that the owners of these bank accounts will lose money and get into trouble. Why not think that these are the number of accounts used for scams and money laundering, and with the new regulations, they can no longer use those account numbers?

[HelliumZ]

Keeping the money in the bank and keeping the money to the third party is the same thing where you have no security in keeping the money, it is normal for the third party account to be shotdown. This is an important difficulty in the central transaction system, which has seized the bank account of the large amount of the public in Vietnam. Undoubtedly for the Bitcoin public from all these difficultiesThe best method will be. Where the third party will not be able to control the control system. Here you have no fear that you can use your account from any part of the 24 hours at any time and no one will face the situation that one will shutdown.

[Woodie]

On one side of the coin, Vietnam's approach on trying to curb cyber related crimes can be commended because tough choices have to maybe for big changes to happen, but this is also not the best option knowing very well that personal data won't be 100% safe in the hands of the state. And having to just shutdown over 86 million accounts is also crazy... Are these closed accounts empty or anything that lacks the biometrics was been targeted, otherwise this kind of development pushes people towards technologies like cryptocurrecies where they can enjoy full control away from prying eyes , just hope crypto isn't banned in these parts of the world because such law's make sure that there is no way out.

#Crypto is the future.

[nemesis_incarnate]

Centralised financial system causes you unnecessary panics ontop your own hard earned funds which is what we don't experience with self custody of our funds under decentralisation. Basically, those that still relies on the traditional banking wouldn't understand what it means to enjoy privacy and control of your own funds not till they get to funding themselves in this position.

Just imagine right now that there's a life threatening emergency and the person's bank account has being blocked under this new policy and is yet to have access to pass the face and finger print KYC due to the crowd and daily king queues.

Yep. Especially in places where the situation may truly be shaky and blockage due to big fiat sums incoming / outcoming may cause such an event to occur..

To be your own bank is a bliss.

[Guccho]

On one side of the coin, Vietnam's approach on trying to curb cyber related crimes can be commended because tough choices have to maybe for big changes to happen, but this is also not the best option knowing very well that personal data won't be 100% safe in the hands of the state. And having to just shutdown over 86 million accounts is also crazy... Are these closed accounts empty or anything that lacks the biometrics was been targeted, otherwise this kind of development pushes people towards technologies like cryptocurrecies where they can enjoy full control away from prying eyes , just hope crypto isn't banned in these parts of the world because such law's make sure that there is no way out.

#Crypto is the future.

I think when countries like Vietnam take big steps to crack down on cybercrime  it may seem admirable at first glance. Sometimes  making big changes requires making tough decisions. However  it is very difficult to guarantee that personal information is completely secure in the hands of the state. The project of closing over 86 million accounts is perhaps overly drastic and almost  crazy  considering the scale and impact of the project. This raises the question of what is the reason for closing these accounts whether they were actually unused  or were they targeted because biometric or other verifications were not completed. Such measures create uncertainty and resentment among people  which can weaken their trust in technology. As a result  many may turn to alternative platforms or technologies  such as cryptocurrencies  where they can maintain their own control.

Even if the government enforces overly restrictive laws  it can encourage people to adopt crypto. For example  the limited regulations in place in Europe and European countries have not completely stopped crypto adoption; Instead  people have paid more attention to digital assets and decentralized finance.

[milanoital]

Exactly if you don’t control the keys, you don’t control your money. Banks can’t protect what’s truly yours.

[john_egbert]

On one side of the coin, Vietnam's approach on trying to curb cyber related crimes can be commended because tough choices have to maybe for big changes to happen, but this is also not the best option knowing very well that personal data won't be 100% safe in the hands of the state. And having to just shutdown over 86 million accounts is also crazy... Are these closed accounts empty or anything that lacks the biometrics was been targeted, otherwise this kind of development pushes people towards technologies like cryptocurrecies where they can enjoy full control away from prying eyes , just hope crypto isn't banned in these parts of the world because such law's make sure that there is no way out.

#Crypto is the future.

I think when countries like Vietnam take big steps to crack down on cybercrime  it may seem admirable at first glance. Sometimes  making big changes requires making tough decisions. However  it is very difficult to guarantee that personal information is completely secure in the hands of the state. The project of closing over 86 million accounts is perhaps overly drastic and almost  crazy  considering the scale and impact of the project. This raises the question of what is the reason for closing these accounts whether they were actually unused  or were they targeted because biometric or other verifications were not completed. Such measures create uncertainty and resentment among people  which can weaken their trust in technology. As a result  many may turn to alternative platforms or technologies  such as cryptocurrencies  where they can maintain their own control.

Even if the government enforces overly restrictive laws  it can encourage people to adopt crypto. For example  the limited regulations in place in Europe and European countries have not completely stopped crypto adoption; Instead  people have paid more attention to digital assets and decentralized finance.

All it should tell us is the fact that we need to never question our desire for custody of our own.

Because otherwise, we become vulnarable to god knows what.

[Agbamoni]

The government have no right to delete all these accounts without giving proper information beforehand. Unless the news omit that part because no law or new policies are forcefully enacted immediately it was made, when they are yet to give duration on which it should be effective. 4 years ago, in my country the government decide to eradicate old notes. We had about 8 months + period to discard all old notes and get the new ones. This is a similar situation of which I expect the Vietnamese government to have informed the citizens before deleting 86 million bank accounts.

[melinoe]

The government have no right to delete all these accounts without giving proper information beforehand. Unless the news omit that part because no law or new policies are forcefully enacted immediately it was made, when they are yet to give duration on which it should be effective. 4 years ago, in my country the government decide to eradicate old notes. We had about 8 months + period to discard all old notes and get the new ones. This is a similar situation of which I expect the Vietnamese government to have informed the citizens before deleting 86 million bank accounts.

I too hope that would the case, but I wouldn't be suprised if there would be action needed to get the authorities saying a proper answer regarding the situation.

As I understood, there was time to get your data rolling and not have your account shut down, but alas.