Topic: 1.7 billion people are still Unbanked; chances for bitcoin - page 2. (Read 508 times)

As an Indonesian, I'd like to share a little bit of my experience here after living for 26 years.

Some people here don't actually have a bank account, even though the nearest bank branch is just 1 kilometer away from their homes. Those without a bank account are generally individuals with lower economic power, where their salaries are sufficient to meet their needs and have a little fun with their earnings.

They don't really need a bank account because cash alone is enough. In fact, if someone wants to buy BTC (Bitcoin), the most effective way is to have a bank account. This means that one cannot own BTC without a bank account.

Meanwhile, people with relatively low incomes choose not to open a bank account because transactions can be done in cash, simply for purchasing necessities or even just for having some fun with the remaining portion of their earnings.

Is this a golden opportunity for Bitcoin?

Not in Indonesia. Their incomes are not sufficient for it, and they are still not willing to take risks with their primary funds. Even though Bitcoin is more appealing for investment, they would automatically open a bank account to facilitate easier transactions.

many people in this topic are shouting claims like
"internet"  "electric" "distance"

many of these rural communities in africa, china and india do not need cabled utility..
they have mini solar panels to charge cell phones which operate through cheap to set up cellular towers..

these days africa, india, china have faster more reachable internet than villages in the US/UK

these unbanked people in china. africa, india do not have traditional bank accounts needing to be set up in traditional bank branches.. instead they also bypassed the infrastructure of needing to build things like bank branches.. instead they use non-traditional payment services.. such as m-mesa/alipay.. thus although unbanked. they can and do have access to the internet and cellular to make payments..

after travelling to many countries for years the hindrance of bitcoin is not technology.. but the political game plays of devs thinking that fee's need to be more then a coffee/pizza just so that it promotes people to move away from using bitcoin and instead into their corporate sponsored middle men service networks.

in short its the bitcoin fee that has become the biggest barrier of entry. not technology

Oh yeah, the classical WU charges us 105% of the money we send!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61407509
Also:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60526390

I've done so many simulations over this that I don't even remember which is what and where from whom!

But basically, there are so many ways to send money cheaply, instantly, without the need to go and buy Bitcoin, send Bitcoins then have your relative exchange it god knows how that it has lost much of its sparkle.
I know what foreign workers do here, they just open a bank account as they are allowed to, get a debit card, and either ship the card home or enroll it in Curve or google pay, and the relatives can use the money instantly, without the need for WU, Moneygram or anything else.


They don't need to be saved, and things do progress, I would be more concerned about access to clean water than the internet or a smartphone.
Also, the questions are invalidating concerns, as long as they have money they can spend that, bitcoin or fiat is the same, if they don't have money to spend daily then there is no need to pay 1$a  day in fees, which drastically reduced the number of transactions needed.

Your concern is more like the electric cars consumption, how will we power all of them and where which was actually driving demand down and thus invalidating the problem.


Oh yeah, the revolution Defi and lending has bought, starting with Blockfi and ending with Celsius, or the half a billion in rug pulls in Defi scam projects last year.

You're forgetting one aspect, with a  bank you can take a loan even if you don't have the money, it has worked like this for centuries, Defi you can't take one unless you have collateral which is really stupid in the first place, you're putting 200% of the loan at risk of liquidation because of a sudden dump and you end up paying twice in a matter of months. Plus, since most of the world earns its paycheck in rupias or yuans or pesos, you might end up paying twice or thrice since most give loans in USD, not devaluating Zimbabwe dollars.

I briefly imagined the condition of people in remote areas which I have visited who are generally not technologically literate and the environment is usually constrained by contemporary infrastructure, I don't think that bitcoin will help much other than as a store of value. And maybe you wouldn't even suggest they own bitcoins if they had to follow the rules of storing and operating wallets safely, because imo they'd be more sloppy.

I agree with your criticism. The bank acts as an intermediary for the development of bitcoin and for people to join the bitcoin world. I often criticize banks in my articles, but banks offer this opportunity if someone who will buy bitcoin for the first time can easily reach the market. You can easily transfer money to exchanges. We can send money to many exchanges and buy bitcoin directly with a debit card, but many people whose salary is in the bank do not prefer this way. They transfer directly from the bank and receive bitcoin from the exchange. Few people use other methods.

In fact, the answers to these questions you ask will be answered over time, and then bitcoin will have reached its peak.

How many of those would afford to pay with BTC?

How many of those would be able to buy BTC before having a bank account?

How many of those would afford to pay the extra 5-10% cash intermediaries and Batm charge?

How many of those have a smartphone?

How many of those have electricity and internet?

How long it will take to send bitcoins to 1.7 billion people when they just half of that in the entire blockchain in 15 years?

Why do you think having BTC will save them since they are in a situation when they can't even create a bank account?

With what money will people that live paycheck to paycheck would buy Bitcoin?





 

I would not agree that the fees for sending money from abroad are so big, because we had already had such discussions on the forum before and I think @stompix showed some examples on WU transfer. In addition, the volatility that BTC has should be taken into account, because the one who sends must first buy BTC, and then the recipient must sell it to get cash.

Even if we talk about LN, theoretically the value of BTC sent in a very short period of time can change +/- 5% or more. Of course, the higher value will not bother anyone, but for someone who loses 5-10% by sending BTC it will certainly no longer be a good option.

On the side of the unbanked people it won't bother them, but for the sender it may be a priority to him. As he must have learnt about how bitcoin works also sending money to loved ones privately at home reduces so much stress for both parties.

Without using exchanges and banks, how can we own bitcoin while bitcoin is still considered a speculative asset for profit? By the way, how do you enter this market without using a bank or an exchange? If you say we shouldn't store bitcoins on exchanges, I'll agree with you, but using exchanges to buy, sell or exchange bitcoins isn't so bad either. Without exchanges, are you sure the market would develop to where it is today?
Like it or not, to ramp into bitcoin, we all need to use centralized things like fiat, banks, and exchanges.

Bitcoin network will be one of their choices if they are unable to access bank system. Altcoins will be one of their choices too and many altcoin networks can provide cheaper transaction fees than Bitcoin network, which means a lot for unbanked people who are not rich, don't have much money to spend and they do care more about how much they have to spend for each transaction in transaction fee.

Have easy access and self-control their finance and transactions without need to go to have bank accounts, time for transportation to reach bank offices are their biggest concerns. Privacy is important but it might be lower in their concern priority.

Most of these unbanked people are from the rural areas and such regions provides lots of workers and most of them work outside the country. If a person in diaspora wants to send money back home and he realizes that his loved ones are unbanked, what will he do? So with BTC, such people may escape from the remittance high fees. BTc will open the minds of many people who receive it. Everyone on the internet require some private and fast Ttransaction, it'll surprise you to know how electricity is everywhere including the rural area.

Going through the thread I don't see why people think using bitcoin demands lots of knowledge. If a person is there to instruct unbanked people on how to receive and send money, which is the most crucial aspect of bitcoin, the bitcoin usage process would have been more easier to them.

Can't really say that people don't rely on banks or don't even need banks especially in the rural area. One factor for this instance is they don't have any excess funds to start a bank as people in the rural area is actually not that rich compared to the people living in an urban area where there's a lot of establishment and businesses, and of course, banks will take advantage of that fact as they can also start their business in that specific area. But rural area, they cannot really take their business there as the people doesn't have any business that needed banks plus, internet access is very rare.

Yeah. We can't trade BTC without having a bank account. If you don't have a bank account, how do you convert your crypto currency to Fiat, except until BTC or crypto currency in general becomes accepted as a legal tender.

Just because 1.7 billion people are unbanked doesn't mean they are all financially independent. In fact, there are many reasons why such a large number of people do not have a relationship with the bank. They are not educated enough to understand bank transactions, they may not have internet connection, or they don't have enough financial resources to be involved with banks. I don't think Bitcoin will have a significant impact on these 1.7 billion unbanked people worldwide. If those who are involved with Bitcoin try to explain to others about the block chain technology financial transaction platform then maybe in the future they will know a lot and choose Bitcoin as their bank.

Well don't you think that those people might me poor not to have money to save in banks I don't see how they would be interested in Bitcoin. Anyone who by now has never ever been involved in banking is largely have to do with their exposure and probably they are poor.

Many of those set if people may not have the basic device nor do they have the basic tech knowledge to get involved in Crypto-currency. So I think the best way Bitcoin can capitalize on them is giving them the knowledge and advantage of Bitcoin in comparison with the banking system.

Yes, you are on point, and I agree with you on this very statement of yours, because truly the unavailable of banks and internet network in most of these places have a big role to playing why there are a lot of unbanked people, which I have strong doubt it's a menance Bitcoin can't remedy, as to be able to own Bitcoin, one need a bank account where to deposit fiat which will be used in buying Bitcoin via p2p or any other means.

I think this topic is discussed by many other titles and I still have some thoughts about this, because the banking system was never founded to provide open services to all it was introduced to trap the money and control the economy if they really wanted to bank each and every person it was so easy for them but they choose money over the customers. Bitcoin and DeFi especially revolutionized the services in the financial system, it was so hard to even open a bank account before, and for the leading and borrowing haha forget about it, without any reference, we may never get access to these services.

But now things are different in this market each dn every user has access to every sort of financial service without credit history and useless restrictions. Even with a small amount I can lend money, I can access each and every sort of service whenever I am in need. This is why we call Bitcoin and DeFi the future of finance.

A lot of people are unbanked because Banks are too expensive, but they using other cheaper services like M-Pesa. "M-Pesa – one of the largest mobile money services in Africa – has seen a steady increase in customer numbers from 2017 to 2022, eventually reaching over 52.4 million customers in the financial year ending 31 March 2022." - Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139190/m-pesa-customer-numbers/

So, there are many other services that are not taken into consideration when they draw up statistics like this. Yes, Bitcoin can bring Banking type opportunities to them, but people still use Exchanges as an on ramp into Bitcoin... which is bad. 

Then unbanked are unbanked for a reason; they don' have money to bank. They also don't have access to internet which makes it hard for them to use the crypto technology. In many cases, they also don't have a means of identity (an identity document) and at some point, crypto will exchange with fiat and you need a government ID to transact in fiat currency. It's a chicken and egg situation.

For online banking (apps), physical addresses and office buildings are also not needed, but at the same time, it also allow you to receive and send money to almost anywhere in the world. Just like bitcoin, online banking requires a smartphone and internet. In fact, if you compare online banking and bitcoin, there are identical in these categories. I don't consider at the moment the other aspects of btc and give analogies from the position of an ordinary person who is not versed in new technologies.

I suspect that these 1.7 billion people don't use banking services and bitcoin for the simple reason that they are either below the poverty line, because of which there are no smartphones and PCs, or there is no Internet connection, or they live far from civilization in small villages. It would be a mistake to assume that every person on the planet will be able to buy, own and use BTC. No. This will interfere with the reasons described above or others.

Don't expect you to get people hooked on the bitcoin. 100% (even a close percentage) of the population of bitcoin can't be covered.