Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

Rangoth

Rangoth

Vyemm Raider
2,213
2,482
Maybe. It’s not that it’s revolutionary but SoFi came at people as a bank first. So if they make getting bitcoin seem simple it will open the door to more folks and if other banks follow it will be massive.

I’m thinking of it like those programs of “round to nearest dollar into your savings” or whatever. Crypto has always been confusing and out of reach to most. Remember this board is consistently 6-12 months ahead of populous, especially on technology issues.
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 1 user
Flobee

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,993
3,483
Khane said:
I can see this being a positive for people that actually want to actively trade bitcoin or just DCA into actual bitcoin, however, are the other, established crypto trading platforms/exchanges still dubious and insecure? In other words, is there any real, actual benefit for someone who understands BTC doing this over holding their own wallet and trading on one of those other platforms?

BTC in your bank! sound great but it probably translates to "We'll hold your keys for you!" with no mention of if thats via hot wallet or frequent updates to a cold wallet or... "We'll be the custodian of your BTC!".

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
No, you've basically got it. Its a perception thing plus the FDIC insurance. I'd actually guess a traditional bank is far more likely to re-hypothicate and misrepresent how much they actually hold than an exchange is. Banks have never been burned on it before so I'd guess they'll learn the hard way. The only reason this is interesting is its a shifting of the overton window. Who thought banks would be holding Bitcoin 10 years ago?

Outside of that its an ease of access thing. Essentially everyone in America has a bank, not everyone has an exchange or trading account.

EDIT: I guess there is also the fact that you could argue that Banks have an enormous effect on governance and them being able to make money on Bitcoin improves the likelihood of number go up via policy decisions... also increased likelihood of co-option but thats the gambit Bitcoin has to run, can it survive the banker bros.
 
Last edited:
Sanrith Descartes

Sanrith Descartes

I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
<Gold Donor>
49,149
132,837
Currently have a old Gemini account I recently logged back in. Thoughts on continuing to using Gemini or swapping to Coinbase for US buying/holding BTC?
 
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
20,853
17,703
Control said:
Sorry, parachuting, but why does bitcoin need to be money?
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be money. But what is its purpose? The BTC maxis would tell you it's an "insurance" policy and a way to transact "outside the system, man!!!".

But the part Bitcoin maxis never seem to grapple with is if the U.S. financial system ever actually failed to the point where you'd need Bitcoin as a hedge, you wouldn't be able to use it anyway. The same government that controls internet infrastructure, ISPs, exchanges, and banks could throttle or outright block the on and off-ramps overnight. They don't need to "ban" Bitcoin (they'd do that too though); they just have to make it impossible to transact or convert at scale.

So yeah, BTC can be an interesting speculative asset or a philosophical protest against fiat, but as "insurance" it's useless if the insurer (the U.S. system/fiat) goes under and the regulators decide nobody's leaving the wreckage with their crypto bags. In that kind of collapse, you're not buying groceries with sats, you're bartering bullets and gasoline.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be money to have value, but pretending it can save you from a sovereign-level financial crisis is fantasy. If the U.S. goes down, it's not taking Venmo offline, it's taking everything offline.
 
Arden

Arden

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,995
2,268
Kirun said:
It doesn't need to be money. But what is its purpose? The BTC maxis would tell you it's an "insurance" policy and a way to transact "outside the system, man!!!".

But the part Bitcoin maxis never seem to grapple with is if the U.S. financial system ever actually failed to the point where you'd need Bitcoin as a hedge, you wouldn't be able to use it anyway. The same government that controls internet infrastructure, ISPs, exchanges, and banks could throttle or outright block the on and off-ramps overnight. They don't need to "ban" Bitcoin (they'd do that too though); they just have to make it impossible to transact or convert at scale.

So yeah, BTC can be an interesting speculative asset or a philosophical protest against fiat, but as "insurance" it's useless if the insurer (the U.S. system/fiat) goes under and the regulators decide nobody's leaving the wreckage with their crypto bags. In that kind of collapse, you're not buying groceries with sats, you're bartering bullets and gasoline.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be money to have value, but pretending it can save you from a sovereign-level financial crisis is fantasy. If the U.S. goes down, it's not taking Venmo offline, it's taking everything offline.
Click to expand...

This is a great argument if the world has two settings:

1. Everything stays exactly the same forever, or

2. The U.S. suffers a total system-wide collapse where the entire internet and payment rails are taken offline.

But those aren’t the scenarios most Bitcoin holders are talking about. The far more realistic case (and the one history repeats constantly) is gradual monetary debasement, rising inflation, tightening capital controls, or selective financial surveillance.

In those scenarios, Bitcoin doesn’t need to become everyday spending money, it just needs to outperform fiat as a long-term store of value, which it has done for over a decade. You don’t buy BTC to survive an apocalypse; you buy it to survive a slow grind.

Total collapse makes any financial asset useless (except maybe gold- and that's arguable). But in every scenario short of that (i.e. the ones we’re actually likely to experience) Bitcoin materially improves your financial position relative to holding only dollars.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Flobee

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,993
3,483
Kirun said:
It doesn't need to be money. But what is its purpose? The BTC maxis would tell you it's an "insurance" policy and a way to transact "outside the system, man!!!".

But the part Bitcoin maxis never seem to grapple with is if the U.S. financial system ever actually failed to the point where you'd need Bitcoin as a hedge, you wouldn't be able to use it anyway. The same government that controls internet infrastructure, ISPs, exchanges, and banks could throttle or outright block the on and off-ramps overnight. They don't need to "ban" Bitcoin (they'd do that too though); they just have to make it impossible to transact or convert at scale.

So yeah, BTC can be an interesting speculative asset or a philosophical protest against fiat, but as "insurance" it's useless if the insurer (the U.S. system/fiat) goes under and the regulators decide nobody's leaving the wreckage with their crypto bags. In that kind of collapse, you're not buying groceries with sats, you're bartering bullets and gasoline.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be money to have value, but pretending it can save you from a sovereign-level financial crisis is fantasy. If the U.S. goes down, it's not taking Venmo offline, it's taking everything offline.
Click to expand...
You should listen to what "Bitcoin maxis" say they believe more and talk about it less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.