The article title is "How to become a bank", and it was written by the bankofengland.co.uk by a glance at the url, so the first question is: "How did they become a bank?", is it not?

It's not like HN is devoid of WallStreet'rs or City'rs, among them this is just standard knowledge. I mean of course it's a bit of a stretch to say the bankers financed the Jacobin revolution which was a large precursor event (except they sorta did but it was different bankers etc), but instead of getting into the history, I have a real feeling your snide remark at the end is largely due to you viewing any mention of the name Rothschild as being done by "paranoid conspiracy theorists". The Rothschilds have been a powerhouse of interconnected banking families for a long time, and have been open about it, including for example how they aren't aristocrats in the UK for various reasons. Their strategic brilliance in business is an inspiration for the cunning businessman, and they still are doing business around the globe today, and the fact that they very largely got there by lending to governements and creating central banks is also well known as fact.

So it gets very tiring when any mention of them is so tainted by ones preconcieved disdain for anything perceived to be "drivel of a conspiracy theorist" that their response becomes such an attack.

The reality of banking is so much more personal and good old boys than any document could ever show. This is obviously a move to pull in the fintech and other tech startups that want to function as a non-traditional bank ala paypal, probably due to cryptocurrency and algorithms taking over the world. That said, I have heard talk that the UK has been lowering the barrier of entry to traditional banking as well.

I still see, systematically, the central bank by fiat as one of the core problems we need to overcome as a species. All banks (traditional, fintech or otherwise) will be subservient to that central banking system until it changed, and I think some of the crypto-startups may have taken a poison pill by adopting into the traditional banking infrastructure so quickly (and largely due to regulatory fears, etc) instead of working on a purely internet-ized solution. (which is also why I think the big btc jump the last few years has actually been due to central fiat actors trying to see if they could execute the ~50% attack. A nice side benefit is that btc is easily traceable, which is what makes it superior in their eyes (not to users/consumers though)to cash)

My point is, that in the end, the real discussion we ought to be having as a matter of fact is very much about the core fundamentals of the banking system, which I think ergo includes discussion of it's origins, that I think it's great potential discussion matter, and that I very much disagree with your flippant dismissal of my post as "paranoid conspiracy drivel".