I think that we need to diversify the risks and keep part of the capital in the bank, and invest part of it in the crypto-currencies. This is the most advantageous strategy at the moment.
You should diversify your payments because the price of most coins can change while going to a totally different direction that you may have planned for. 
Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 15. (Read 9898 times)
Gradually, we are tending towards the age that virtually everyone everyone would come to the knowledge that cryptocurrency is a well developed and safest form form through which our money can be kept. All we need do is to ensure that we use very safe means to keep our currencies, such as using hardware wallets.
Yes i think so investing in crypto and leaving money there is more satisfing and safer than the bank hope you can deal with volatility
Holding in bank is more safer than holding in Crypto, Crypto is more volatile being holding in Crypto can really make one to be more depressed, most especially during the bear season, I will advise you hold in fiat
I'd not say so because still crypto is exceptionally volatile and that's basically not good at all for storing money...yea, you can gain profits but risks are higher.
I do not think that cryptocurrency is more dangerous than banks. When storing funds in the Bank, you may still be required to 
and when you store cryptocurrency, your funds may grow or decrease. But there will be no expenses. 
I think that we need to diversify the risks and keep part of the capital in the bank, and invest part of it in the crypto-currencies. This is the most advantageous strategy at the moment.
Virtually no risk when buying zolotoy and real estate, but the income here is small. A small risk in the placement of bank deposits - the bank can still go bankrupt, but bank interest is often more. Investing in crypto currency is the most risky measure, you can both lose everything and increase your capital several times. Then everyone chooses.
for security, of course I prefer their bank to guarantee that our money will not be lost in contrast to crypto no one guarantees the loss of our money
Very little chance that in the event of a crash, the bank will pay you your savings, because they will not be at the bank and such people as you will be very much.
My opinion is that cryptocurrency doesn't bult such ezopasny and stable as banks in the nearest future. Crypto are the most unstable investments. In this market everything can be lost very quickly or on the contrary - to get big profit.
Tim Draper: More Secure in Bitcoin Than the Money Sitting in Wells Fargo
Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.
During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.
The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”
These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.
Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”
Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.
If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.
Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.
The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.
Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com
Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.
During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.
The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”
These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.
Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”
Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.
If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.
Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.
The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.
Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com
Money in crypto is safer than the bank because, you don't require Atm
It's much safer to keep money in the bank, but your profit from the deposit is unlikely to get used to annual inflation in the country. In the cryptocurrency, invest riskily, but profit can get more money.
I would say that BTC shows us a good price stability last month. Some interesting BTC activity is going on the market right now. I am still not sure what happens right now, but I believe that BTC will hit new ATH till the end of December. Wait till the end of September, the price should become even good for investment.
I'd not say so because still crypto is exceptionally volatile and that's basically not good at all for storing money...yea, you can gain profits but risks are higher.
To store their money banks will be the most stable and reliable storage, but in terms of the work of your money, it is better to use the crypto currency. Here, the opportunities for earnings are much higher, but accordingly,
the risk of losing your funds is also very large. The most acceptable option would be to use both the bank and the crypto currency at the same time.
the risk of losing your funds is also very large. The most acceptable option would be to use both the bank and the crypto currency at the same time.
All who are afraid of need to keep money under the pillow) 
and everyone who wants to earn needs to find them use.
and everyone who wants to earn needs to find them use.
never think like that, as we see it today. crypto prices dropped dramatically, while the money in the bank remained safe and remained in the amount. because crypto is volatile, it cannot be used as a place to save money like a bank.
Well, I in the crypto currency somehow calmer to keep, now even we have a lot of our ruble quickly depreciates , and bitcoin is a great replacement
even though thus the news about the level of security offered by Crypto is higher than that of the bank, I still believe in the bank for the level of security of my money, because it does not have the exchange rate or the movement of money at regular intervals.
and also registered in a special insurance agency if the bank.
and also registered in a special insurance agency if the bank.
This topic has a mixed reaction in terms of the answer because with cryptocurrencies your security is solely your responsibility and while some people feel its safer that way. The modern banking system has certainly made precautions to safeguard the investment of people an I think your money is safer that way and there are proper safety nets in place for crypto investors.
Ita not really a rocket science, if you're talking about the storage only then of course money is safer in the bank but it won't give you any significant return. On the other hand, if you want to get a good return then crypto is best, put your money there.
Jump to: