Banks all across the globe share a similar interest in making money; disregard the pathetic services they provide; if it doesn't involve money, they wouldn't offer it; everything must be profitable, even if it appears that they are assisting people.
Bitcoin and banks both have the power to transfer money from one person to another, but Bitcoin provides for people's needs without considering itself, unlike banks, which do so constantly.
I've been contemplating how little the general public knows about bitcoin and banking. They don't realize that bitcoin operates on a double standard and will do anything a bank could do without asking for permission, whereas banks will require you to present identification documents dating back to your birth in order to use their services.
When you examine these two institutions, you will find that bitcoin is more appealing than banks, even if some people believe that banks and bitcoin must coexist for acceptance. The observations include the following:
(1) Borderless transactions: Have you ever thought about sending money to someone in another country? Have you gone through the procedure of transferring money to another country? It takes at least 48 hours in every country. Other neighboring countries may speed up bank transactions, but two odd countries/continents need time before payment. Here is where bitcoin comes in; you don't have to register, you don't need any application to carry out any transaction; all you need is your private key to sign that transaction, it goes through miners, and you're done without any interruption or questioning.
(2) Excess fees on transactions: Banks charge you for transactions, and the government charges you for using banks. For example, in my country, we pay VAT(known as Value added Tax) when a transaction exceeds a certain threshold, and you will be charged for that transaction. This is what the government and banks do to people, whereas Bitcoin is free. Transaction fees vary depending on how busy the network is; you may pay as little as a cent when the mempool is nearly empty.
(3) Extra charges for bank notifications: I'm not sure if banks in other countries provide similar choices, but when you enroll for transaction notifications, you will be charged for SMS and email messages. Assume we have to pay some sats to use bitcoin explorer; everything else, apart from the transaction fee is free with Bitcoin, and that is the freedom of using it.
(4) Banks Network Failure: I can relate to this very well because, before the election season in my country, practically all of the banks experienced failure, making it impossible to use mobile banking and transmit transactions across states. Many shifted to bitcoin and USD as an alternative since there is no middleman or point of failure with bitcoin.
(5) Banks' freezing of accounts and limitations: You wouldn't understand if your account had never been frozen before. Banks can make life difficult; you might lose everything if you fail to read their terms and conditions, and there is nothing you can do except follow due procedure; this is what happens when there is a middleman on any platform. Bitcoin overcomes this limitation by granting no constraints to your wallets; you may spend as much as you like and no one can penalize your account because you possess the private key.
There have been lots of issues with banks in the past, although this varies depending on where you live, but they all have similar objectives and people fail to check into these things, this is what bitcoin provides you without any constraints or limitations.
Do people who are actually using or looking to use Bitcoin really overlook things like lower fees, the immutability and accessibility of the network and instant non-premium border-less transactions? I would think that these are some of the most popular things that drive people toward using it. One thing I can agree with, is the accounts and limitations that are overlooked. If this aspect was not overlooked, everyone would use their own self-custody wallets and the effects of exchanges/services going under or running away with coins would be much less. A new campaign more effective than "not your keys, not your coins" needs to be created to also include the banks while putting them next to exchanges, with a push to self-custody solutions.