The article states that crypto might replace government central bank issued fiat currency, and therefore all bankers will lose their jobs.
How does that play out? One, there is nothing stopping anyone from generating a new crypto (bank issued?) and a new ledger and transaction verification system. Let's say Bitcoin hits it's stated limit. What is to stop Bitcoin from releasing Bitcoin2 and a new ledger? Or just extending the ledger forever? I don;t see how crypto has anymore protection from inflation, it's still not based on any specific tangible product, it is still as "fiat" as central bank fiat currency.
Two, banks on the lending side make money by assessing interest on money borrowed. Does a banker care if the money is USD, CAD, GBP, or BTC? Not if they get their piece of the pie in the formed of interest earned. On the investment side, again, bankers don't care what the assets are valued in, just as long as the asset value goes up, they are happy and collect their bonuses. I don't see the disruption of the market like the author does.
As for knowing where the money came from, to a point, that is a good thing, and then, it is also a bad thing when it comes to illicit activities. I'm torn. I really don't care if a person does some illicit activities and makes some (Bit) coin. But, we have seen what copious amounts of illicit funds do in the hands of people who will protect that at no cost - the Colombians of the 80's, the Mexican border cartels today. No bueno!
The article states that crypto might replace government central bank issued fiat currency, and therefore all bankers will lose their jobs.
How does that play out? One, there is nothing stopping anyone from generating a new crypto (bank issued?) and a new ledger and transaction verification system. Let's say Bitcoin hits it's stated limit. What is to stop Bitcoin from releasing Bitcoin2 and a new ledger? Or just extending the ledger forever? I don;t see how crypto has anymore protection from inflation, it's still not based on any specific tangible product, it is still as "fiat" as central bank fiat currency.
Two, banks on the lending side make money by assessing interest on money borrowed. Does a banker care if the money is USD, CAD, GBP, or BTC? Not if they get their piece of the pie in the formed of interest earned. On the investment side, again, bankers don't care what the assets are valued in, just as long as the asset value goes up, they are happy and collect their bonuses. I don't see the disruption of the market like the author does.
As for knowing where the money came from, to a point, that is a good thing, and then, it is also a bad thing when it comes to illicit activities. I'm torn. I really don't care if a person does some illicit activities and makes some (Bit) coin. But, we have seen what copious amounts of illicit funds do in the hands of people who will protect that at no cost - the Colombians of the 80's, the Mexican border cartels today. No bueno!
The article states that crypto might replace government central bank issued fiat currency, and therefore all bankers will lose their jobs.
How does that play out? One, there is nothing stopping anyone from generating a new crypto (bank issued?) and a new ledger and transaction verification system. Let's say Bitcoin hits it's stated limit. What is to stop Bitcoin from releasing Bitcoin2 and a new ledger? Or just extending the ledger forever? I don;t see how crypto has anymore protection from inflation, it's still not based on any specific tangible product, it is still as "fiat" as central bank fiat currency.
Two, banks on the lending side make money by assessing interest on money borrowed. Does a banker care if the money is USD, CAD, GBP, or BTC? Not if they get their piece of the pie in the formed of interest earned. On the investment side, again, bankers don't care what the assets are valued in, just as long as the asset value goes up, they are happy and collect their bonuses. I don't see the disruption of the market like the author does.
As for knowing where the money came from, to a point, that is a good thing, and then, it is also a bad thing when it comes to illicit activities. I'm torn. I really don't care if a person does some illicit activities and makes some (Bit) coin. But, we have seen what copious amounts of illicit funds do in the hands of people who will protect that at no cost - the Colombians of the 80's, the Mexican border cartels today. No bueno!