These are in no way comparable.
I'm getting tired of these dishonest "crypto is the same" arguments. It's not even close.
Banking is well regulated and monitored. There are mechanisms to protect people, rout out bad actors, and legal means to reverse transactions. Crypto is a "code is law" wild west, full of sharp edges and irreversible hacks and scams.
I would suggest to you that you need to think of this in a different way.
There are mechanism and then there are legalities.
You may receive a transaction and you have a mechanism to reverse the transaction, but now your account is tagged as the sender is a known tracked account. You have just interacted with a known drug dealer, terrorist, enemy of state etc and you are now by association suspected of wrong doing. Reverse the transaction, your account is still a data point in some database.
Send money to the wrong account, and yes you may stand a high chance of getting it back but you may not.
The situation does differ when it comes to hacks though.
My information is correct. I worked in fintech.
> There are legal means to force the recipient to send back erroneously sent funds in bank payment systems, the transactions themselves are generally non-reversible (some banks learnt that the hard way after accidentally sending money to Lehman Brothers after their collapse).
This is not evidence to the contrary. In fact, this bolsters my claim.
> The same rules apply to blockchains too, and people have successfully demanded refunds where the other party was known.
When the parties are known actors in jurisdictions you can reach. Crypto is a Wild West of anonymity, deception, rug pulling, scams, and hacks. It's constantly in the media for how often people are screwed by these systems. We wouldn't see frequent pleas for reversals if the system itself could actually restore victims.
Banks are incredibly well regulated. You can't even start a bank without permission from the state, and applying for permits requires that you meet a multitude of criteria and have organizational and process maturity.
Don't pretend crypto resembles banking. It's a shitty pasquinade.
It isn't: https://www.thelocal.de/20080917/14357/
"Officials at KfW frantically attempted to stop the transaction once they realized what was happening, however, they were unable to get their money back."
The same bank came under fire a few years later for sending about $5.4bn to four banks by mistake, however they were able to recover all of that because they hadn't done that literally hours before the recipients went bankrupt.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/busi...
what guarantees reversibility is the legal system, from which crypto is definitely not exempt, contrary to what some people (including you) seem to believe. enforceability is a different question, but if you don't have a billion-dollar balance sheet like these institutions, you'll find that it's impractical for many fiat transactions too.
think about it: when you sent some money in accident, who do you contact? the bank (which could simply revert the transaction if it was reversible), or the recipient (who will initiate a new transaction if they're acting in good faith)?
Maybe those affected have already spent their Christmas present from 'Santa'.