Topic: Proof instead of trust transparent need at least some % banks need to proof fair (Read 81 times)

I think you have a very wrong conception of how both banking and stablecoins work. I'll focus on the stablecoin aspect because the "way how banks work" is a rabbit hole (in some countries like the US not even fractional banking is mandatory anymore, i.e. banks do not need to back even a fraction of the customer's funds as a liquid reserve. See Capital requirement instead).

Stablecoins aren't like Bitcoin, where there's a token with a limited supply. Instead, like fiat, they can be "printed" out of thin air by their issuer. They audit their reserves sometimes to prevent the coin from depegging, and in general I believe at least most of their funds are backed. Otherwise we would see much heftier depeggings. But the "backing" itself is the problem, because volatile assets like stocks can be a part of this backing.

Imagine your bank now accedes to your request and withdraws 40% of your money in stablecoins to your wallet. What does this prove?

The bank could have an agreement with the stablecoin issuer. The stablecoin issuer could for example be buying 1% of the bank's stocks and print stablecoins for this value, and the bank could give out the stablecoins to their customers if they request it. (In fact I answered to this thread because there were rumours about BlackRock and Coinbase doing something very similar with the "bitcoin stablecoin" cbBTC.)

Stablecoin issuers are just another type of bank, even if they are regulated differently (depending on the country). But they work approximately in the same fashion, so a stablecoin withdrawal is not really better than the numbers you see in your online banking account.

dude, you can always withdraw 100% all of your money there's no catch, maybe if it's a big money they will need some time to get the money for you but that's just how it works, bank can't sustain from the fee they earned alone by providing service, they need to profit from venturing the capital in their hand and get interests out of it.

I mean speaking fairly if you did exactly the same thing, letting all people withdraw their money from stablecoin, converting it to fiat, it will also cause depegging, which in a nutshell, stablecoin crisis, because not all the reserve is available anytime.

I don't think it will happen to our country, to be honest. They'll introduce digital fiat for sure, but they will not market it as stablecoin or something similar. They'd argue it's better or faster than stablecoin, even though it's the same thing as digital data that represents people's wealth. Even if they do that, it won't serve as a proof of reserve for the public, even the government IMO. Maybe we can identify the hot wallet they use, but it's easy to hide it since they'll likely use permissioned/customized database/blockchain for that. CMIIW.

As far as I know at least in my local banks especially, for most banks, asking to take out money in stablecoin may not be practical at this juncture in time. While the notion of stablecoins has been increasingly becoming more popular, even to the point of possible regulation, most banks don't currently deal in them. Maybe a new bill could push banks into the stablecoin space, but that's not quite here yet.

On the other hand however, the question of not having access to your own money is one of basic fairness, but also one of liquidity and stability in the banking system. The stablecoins themselves are not without risk, they have faced problems like investor "runs" in market upsets, as illustrated by the implosion of Terra last year. While the idea of stablecoins is a furtherance, they are simply not quite the answer for mainstream banking at this juncture.

You make some very simple points that question openness and access to any facet of the banking system. You'd want to know your deposits are safe and accessible, quite understandably, especially when there might arise a problem accessing your account. The idea of issuing most of the wealth in a stablecoin speaks to the ever-growing interest in decentralized currencies and other forms of currency that empower more personal wealth.

Although banks are subject to the law, they often use lengthy processes that few might consider fair or transparent. There ought to be equal demands on the process for transparency. A financial institution should be as accountable as a responsible person is held accountable. You can separate a fraction of your assets in a stablecoin as one way to make those assets more liquid and accessible.

In the final analysis You want transparency and fairness in your financial transactions. This means that it has to be done balanced. Customers will feel safe and informed about their financial information. It can bring a change that benefits everyone by starting discussions on these topics.


In fact, you make some valid points about bank health constraints and the risks involved. Indeed, most banks today have intricate financial structures which tend to leave customers confused on how to really manage their finances. Without verifiable evidence for ownership, it can prove frustrating and uncertain. More so in light of past experiences when banks fail.

Your referencing of your work on Bitcoin- diversifying so that one is not so reliant on the banks-is highly relevant. Individuals will have control over their funds and other options in case they have some issue with their bank. This is diversification to reduce risk. At a time when one thinks banks are "Too big to fail," but risks exist just the same, this is diversification to move assets out of reliance on banking.

While banking may be a complex business, at least exploring the most popular, like Bitcoin is actually empowering for people. All it's about is finding your balance, and don't become too tied to one system. The way you approach this is what says you have a clue and are aware of what your financial future can be like, including a need to be flexible.

I'm more than happy if my banks provided verifiable proof that they have a "hot wallet", but we know that's impossible. Maybe they give that to the government, but me and the average joe wouldn't be able to see it. There are too many cases where banks in my area went bankrupt because they failed to return the customers' money because they moved that money to fund investment/lending activity to grow their capital. So not sure if that's effective either.

That being said, I bet the top banks in my country have more than enough capital to serve most of us. Not to mention the government won't let them collapse since it might affect the economy. I understand your frustration when you got wrecked by their slow process, hence why you shouldn't put all your wealth into one basket. I don't think we can change how they work since they're too big already, we just have to use Bitcoin to make sure we don't rely on them too much. CMIIW.

I dont know how much money you actually have in the bank, all I can say is that I can empty my bank account every month without a problem!  
However, Im not sure what thats supposed to "prove." Surely you dont think you have more money than the bank has in reserve?

By the way, I do not think there is a bank in the world that will issue you money in stablecoins, but in actual fiat. I hope you know what "stablecoins" means.

Ask your bank you can withdraw at least 40% of your money as stablecoi.
If they cant do that then how we know money is really there? 
I have problems with my bank been 2 days i cant access my money but when i late my payments nobody don't ask me nothing let's be fair and equal If i have to be honest and transparent and comply with AML laws then Banks and other instutions need aswell.
Gone are the times when stronger ones think they don't need proof nothing.
So ask your bank atleast some % to withdraw some of your funds in stablecoins in your own wallet you see we don't ask them 100% just some % wich i know that it's my real wealth i can count on.