"At its worst, for every £100 the banks had lent, if as little as £3 or £4 failed to be repaid, it might be enough to bankrupt them."
9 karma · joined June 8, 2021
Other points:
- KYC exists on most of the major crypto exchanges with Coinbase and Gemini doing this properly. Proof that it works in the long term is not there yet of course.
- Fraud mostly happens through the traditional banking system. It's more complicated and embedded in how things are done but it's still fraud. The BBC on Barclays role in 2008: "At its worst, for every £100 the banks had lent, if as little as £3 or £4 failed to be repaid, it might be enough to bankrupt them."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51593639
- I struggle to see the sharp differences between a Coinbase or Binance (ok minus the overleveraged trading on the latter) and a Revolut or Monzo. Both allow different ways of accessing crypto within custodial model, have KYC, have a debit card. The only difference is how they have each responded to poorly formulated regulatory frameworks (2-3 years ago). Once again, binance sucks in so many ways but there's still something incredibly misleading about the way it is covered.
- Tether is no good but Dai is an excellent alternative. In any case, Tether operates similarly to many banks where 1:1 shadowing of money held/money deposited is obviously never going to work out as a profitable business model. Tether is not viable long term but neither are most banks then.
These things aside, my main overall point here is that:
- UK financial institutions should protect consumers but should not create information asymmetries (via state run media and highly influential financial press) that heavily predispose a certain outcome in the favour of a tiny subset of companies innovating in this space. For example, FUD focussed on a single company that is directly competing with Revolut or Monzo. This is anticompetitive in my view and there is such a lack of clarity on what is acceptable that it is likely to stifle any innovation going forward.
The FCA ruling is not really the problem imo, i'm more reacting to the financial press such as FT and the Economist. Cooling down overleveraged small traders about to lose it all on some bad investment is definitely a good thing. However, intentionally misleading people via major newsites including the BBC is not.
This hints at anti-competitive sentiments from a group of "traditional" investors/blatant media outlets who can't keep up with the pace of change. Instead of trusting the FT to manipulate your opinion you can now deal with economic media directly and this is best done via MetaMask or many other similar platforms.
^ basically the outcome of a section of a university from one person on a limited budget
1. Customise a curriculum engaging with younger tutors in niche areas (e.g. youtube, teachable or if theres others comment). 2. Do this for a few years and make sure to meet people/do appropriate things and publish them online. E.g. do a good podcast/lecture series. 3. Publish on Xiv like sites with high quality results/arguments/original ideas or demo/explain things on youtube. If a preprint site doesn't exist for you then make one and contact people.
This might get you x100 the exposure of your average PI and eventually funding will come around to your ideas as universities become a total farce. 10 years down the line the tepid overtures to gitlab and github turn into a full on rejection of high overhead university education. Rental or pooling services for expensive equipment or access to resources would also help immensely.
Castles in the sand!
Design and architecture are activities and so is engineering. When someone performs the activity to some sort of recognisable standard then it is what it is. In sum, yes, of course he is an architect and its completely unsurprising and not worthy of mention!