There are alternatives like Bitcoin, but on HN they're met with immediate resistance and bad faith arguments. An open mind genuinely interesting in learning about alternatives is needed to have this discussion.
How is it a bad-faith argument to accurately state that using Bitcoin as a "bank" would be far too volatile for basically everyone.
The alternative -- which doesn't require fad technology and buzzwords -- is "narrow banking": deposit-only banks that don't loan money out, and therefore can easily survive a 100% run on themselves.
Hell, this doesn't even need to be a for-profit business. The Fed should just offer consumer accounts, free of charge. The USPS could offer banking services at their branches for people who need to do things in-person.
> Bitcoin as a "bank" would be far too volatile for basically everyone.
If you use bitcoin as collateralized lending and borrowing, it becomes a banking tool. Price becomes far less of an issue as long as you maintain your collateralization ratios. Volatility of the price is at least partially offset by the utility of earning interest on it. This also has the effect of making bitcoin more scarce as it becomes more and more locked up as debt. 21m max, it becomes deflationary if enough people become their own bank.
> The Fed should just offer consumer accounts, free of charge.
No. We have enough government control of finances as it is.
Ever have the state board of equalization empty your bank account without any warning because they thought you owed them money? I have. It has been two years and I still haven’t gotten my money back.
Bitcoin's volatility is a significant concern as it undermines its potential as a reliable store of value or medium of exchange. However when governments print money like bandits, Bitcoin is a hedge that preserves wealth better than a rapidly inflating currency or any other asset in the last decade, despite its volatility.
Agreed. That said, I'm not afraid to talk about some aspects of crypto here and I think it is worth pushing against the few noisy profiles that are so strongly anti-crypto. I just have to word things in a way that I'm speaking about facts and not trying to directly shill something, which I'm honestly not.
This comment I made recently might shed some light on what I'm talking about...
It is possible to lend wrapped bitcoin as collateral, borrow against it and then re-lend out that borrowed thing (or use it to provide liquidity). Essentially enabling one to use that bitcoin "investment" to work for you instead of just being a shiny pet rock that HN loves to hate on. This is part of 'being your own bank' and a way to move away from the traditional banking system into something more decentralized.
DeFi is also why I say that the biggest threat to bitcoin is wrapped bitcoin. =) I haven't touched the actual bitcoin chain, in years. Given that other chains, which support wrapped bitcoin, now use a fraction of the energy they did previously (proof of stake), it makes the ESG arguments around bitcoin itself, go out the window.
