It's incredible to me that people choose to make fun of the uselessness of crypto, when former 1st (or close to it) world countries produce stories like this about bank collapses and locked accounts / evaporated money.
Make fun of fraud or emissions or whatever if you want... but come on, there's an obvious use-case for owning your own money.
I agree with you. I'm a crypto skeptic, but even in our own (US) history, you've had bank freezes, and at one point, if you held gold in your bank, it was confiscated.
Anyone who thinks these events are permanently in the past is ignoring the lessons of history.
I personally place the long term value of all current crypto coins at 0$. Risk makes them a poor medium of exchange for the average person, and new investors eventually want to have positive returns on their investments.
Crypto is not any more "controlled by math" than french fries are "controlled by chemistry". I hate everything about crypto but this is by far the cringiest talking point; probably because I'm a mathematician.
My initial reaction is a massive groan at the seamlessly meaningless platitude, but that's unfair. Maybe you were in a rush, on the phone, and there's a cogent argument that I'd be eager to hear out.
Edit: To elaborate: both "Controlled by violence" and "Controlled by math" I view as summarized and abstracted way beyond point of sheer uselessness; and only used to propagate a particular point of view. That point of view may be accurate or not, I may agree with it or not, but it does not include useful data or conduct a honest discussion. There's a lot of math involved in fiat money from central banks. There's nothing in crypto that may prevent or shield from violence. Individuals certainly earn money/wealth/value in certain way and their storage medium of choice cannot be summarized in such simple ways. And "Controlled by math" is massively misleading - at best, at best, we can say it has some origins in math. But it certainly is not controlled by math - it is ultimately controlled by people and institutions.
> there's an obvious use-case for owning your own money.
There's also an obvious reason people don't do that. Money under the mattress - whether it's dollar bills or a hardware wallet - is vulnerable, too, and has minimal recourse when it's lost to carelessness or hostile action.
Governments seize crypto all the time. Exchanges pause withdrawals. Entire shitcoins collapse entirely. People lose their keys.
I don't know this woman's situation but the general assertion is people need their money to pay for basic goods/services
> leaving much of the population unable to pay for basic needs
I think the argument for crypto would make sense if everywhere accepted it, but I don't think it would be that useful if you need to exchange to fiat currency at volatile exchange rates to feed your family...
The range of crypto -> gift card or crypto -> virtual credit card options have improved quite a bit, and you usually get ~2% cashback for purchasing these which can help to alleviate some of the loss through fees. In the US and AU you can pay a lot of bills with crypto through sites like Bitrefill. I find that you can basically live on crypto in Australia now, but this probably wouldn't be true for people living in poor countries as Visa/MC/ and the gift card vendors don't bother with small/risky markets.
And you are still relying on centralized third parties such as Visa and Mastercard (not to mention the crypto exchange that issued the card) to continue doing business with you, so I would argue the situation hasn't improved in reality.
What makes you think your centralized crypto exchange would be any better in handling your "money" than your bank is? Why can't they freeze your money to respond to a fraud claim or government order just like a regular bank?
People put their money in the bank to safeguard themselves from getting robbed. Yes, sometimes the banks end up being the thieves. But if people simply stashed their money under the mattress, that would be like going back to square one. Thugs would have a very easy time, taking your money, if all they have to do is convince you to reveal the key.
Can you elaborate how crypto solves this issue in an optimal way?
1. You can store cash, if you choose to. Way way way easier than Crypto. This should be the end of this argument but let's continue.
2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash? Otherwise, you're just at mercy of unregulated "exchanges" as opposed to "banks" and your power is even lower and the horror news stories even more plentiful.
3. Ultimately, crypto is a complicated technological stack that (and we will have a difference of opinions) government, if it sufficiently chooses to, can shut down and control. Crypto introduces a mind boggling chain of technical dependencies and gotchas and risks and dangers, which are super fun for us on HN to play with and argue about, but are a pit of snakes and spikes for most regular people (and just because somebody somewhere who's not technologically adept has used crypto successfully, that does not mean they were not exposed to massive risk; you can play Russian roulette and "win", it does not make it a good idea)
1. You can store cash but, in most developed countries, if you try to actually use a large amount of that cash you will find that no-one will accept it or you will get repeatedly audited. The only reason to hold large amounts of cash, in the view of banks and the govt, is tax avoidance...which is usually correct.
2. It is easier, it is safer. Way easier (again, almost no places accept cash for transactions due to AML, I know a guy who used to pay for his cars with briefcases of cash, he stopped being able to do that more than a decade ago...I am in the UK).
3. I used to agree with this point but actually shutting down a P2P network is going to be very tricky in practice. If one govt in the world decides it doesn't want to do this, it won't happen. Crypto is still a terrible customer experience for regular people: fees are unclear, you can put in the wrong address and the money is gone, etc. A lot of this can happen with bank transfers too though (and does, Citi accidentally wired someone $500m in 2020, iirc, and has been unable to get it back).
I come from a traditional finance background (and studied economic history, I did my thesis on monetary policy in the 60s so I am quite familiar with the limits on purchasing gold to prop up Bretton Woods). I was initially sceptical of crypto but, imo, it is a superior technology. Not for all transactions, for example some central banks have introduced instant bank transfers, but for some. And, in some cases, it will be a superior store of value. This is already happening in the place mentioned in the OP: the reason people are taking their money out of banks is crypto, holding cash does nothing for you because inflation is nearly 200% annually, you take it out and by next month your cash is worthless, your life savings wouldn't buy a loaf of bread.
You can convert your money to a USD pegged stablecoin instead of your local currency which is losing value at a faster rate. Plus easier to store and move large amounts IMO
>1. You can store cash, if you choose to. Way way way easier than Crypto.
No.
1. Cash is bulky and if you need to store a non-trivial amount it quickly gets expensive (eg. installing safes). Crypto can be stored on a piece of paper, or in your head.
2. cash is treated unfavorably in various legal systems, from civil forfeiture (aka carrying a suspiciously large amount of cash) to outright bans on cash transactions over a certain size
3. crypto can be stored redundantly (ie. 2 of 3 multisig), cash can not.
>2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
If we compare like for like (ie. stuffing it under your mattress doesn't count), then I find the effort to train someone to use a 2 of 3 multisig software to be comparable to installing some sort of floor bolted safe.
Every time I hear these arguments I just think "buy gold" (or other precious metals) and be done with it. It weighs a lot but I feel its value will never really diminish, even in a post apocalyptic setting. At some point someone will trade for rare shiny metal that has practical uses beyond just being rare and shiny (e.g. anti corrosion coatings.) Whereas government issued money might be useful as toilet paper and crypto a distant memory of failed technological promises.
In Vietnam, the largest bill is about $20, which increases the space storage requirements. Let's also remember that people need a safe place to store that cash.
> Way way way easier than Crypto.
Not true at all. Stablecoins, like USDT, are trivial to get and store in quantity.
> Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
App on a cell phone? Yes. I've travelled all over Vietnam and even in the most remote of remote places, people living in shacks by the side of the road, with no running water or bathrooms, they have 'smart' phones and inexpensive good coverage 4G.
if there was a privacy stablecoin, like USD monero, i wouldn't hesitate to put my savings there. as long as it had a secure future and easy way to use that money for payment. unfortunately this is not possible and i don't think it ever will be.
mainly because cryptos are not really backed by anything. and anything that is backed will be so heavily regulated as to be a government cbdc. and you're back to square one. already usdc and usdt can be frozen in your wallet.
You can own your own money if you like but you can't define its value by yourself regardless of whether it is fiat paper money, bits in a bank account, or bits in a distributed ledger.
In addition governments can simply outlaw your money and then it will be worthless for important things like buying houses, cars, food, water, electricity.
I am not saying we should hold up banks, or commit crimes, but in very recent years, I have had at least three experiences with my own bank and my relatives bank that made me really sit back and ponder.
A relative was going to gift me a (fairly, not huge) sum of money. The bank refused to allow them to wire transfer. As in, flat out, nope, you want to wire transfer more than say $5,000 and it is not to a corporation (e.g. mortgage, car company, etc, but to an individual) the answer is NO. This was truly eye-opening to me. This was their money. As in, hey, I worked for this money, and I would like to spend it. And... the answer is no. Of course, I understand, they can just cut a check, or make a money order, but that adds a delay, and hey, what is the bank there for? To add delays?
A very similar thing happened to my bank. I literally was going to purchase a used item, it was a few grand, I went in, said I wanted a few grand from my account. The answer was NO. Write a check or grab a money order. Hey, regardless of the situation, regardless of "perhaps this person is doing a shady cash-only deal", that money in the bank is technically MINE, right?
NO, its not my money. Its the banks money. I guess possession is really 9/10 of the law. After a few of these incidents happened and I started talking to friends, I head similar stories over and over. I find it amazing that citizens are pretty calm about this. It took a fair amount of emotional intelligence to not freak out in the lobby when the teller tells me the money I really worked for I just can not have right now.
And the reason why is AML. Your experience is bad, but have you seen the public reaction when a bank has been involved in money laundering?
It is irrational (and strange, countries in the EU will happily launder your money, some domestic banks still accept suitcases full of cash in the basement but the rage is all directed to US/UK banks where money laundering is almost impossible without blackmailing someone in AML...this happens, but it is fairly rare...and risky because most banks now have teams of people watching their AML staff, following them outside work, going through their emails, etc.).
The solution is simple: remove AML/KYC regulations. Let police investigate and find evidence of crimes. This isn't the job of banks, banks aren't the police, AML departments are basically run as private police departments, and the false positive rate is (unsurprisingly) through the roof. They also don't do a particularly good job with true positives either: some obscure Kazakh politician wants to open an account with $5m...okay, there is no Wikipedia page for him, he has provided proof of income, you suspect it is forged, you call the Kazakh police, they tell you it is legit...it is very hard to get right because you don't have any legal investigatory powers.
This is spot on. Although I disagree with the removal of AML/KYC regulation, this is indeed the reason why it's so complicated. HSBC was fined heavily and only came out of judiciaral control recently because they didn't care enough about money laundering. All the banks are scared to shit to be pinned by the regulator now, so that's what you get.
I used to work in wealth management, I worked in research but once you see how this stuff actually works...why?
The issue with HSBC wasn't related to them not caring enough, what happened is that some employees in their Mexican office essentially went rogue. HSBC can't blackmail their staff, money launderers can. HSBC can't bribe their staff with suitcases full of cash, money launderers can. HSBC can't threaten to execute your kids, money launderers can.
And, again, even if you assume this all isn't true...banks do not have the investigatory powers. People who want to launder money do not turn up a bank with a briefcase full of cash, and wink repeatedly at the cashier when handing it over...they put substantial resources in disguising the source, and working out where the gaps are (with HSBC, it was currency exchange...this has been a weak spot for decades because it is mostly used by large corporates and there is an assumption that AML happens somewhere else in the chain). Police stopped doing this job because it was too difficult...and they had the powers, why people think banks can do it is beyond me.
The stuff you read online about low integrity or not caring is just obvious nonsense (it wasn't why police failed in the first place, police cared a lot, they just weren't as good as the money launderers so blamed banks).
thank you for this post -- overall, I would add a personal "unsubstantiated claim" that a big, big part of new additional requirements, micromanagement, constant ID problems and moving the goal posts regarding cash flows is .. insiders at credit and banking, ex-finance career money handlers and others wearing a uniform, executing and getting away with financial theft. Ordinary citizens with "a life savings" are far more rare than "college educated with a gambling habit" insiders on the business side of money, forging, smearing and blaming while pocketing the results. I believe I saw this in the USA with VISA credit, mortgages and other forms of personal finance, leading up to the 2007 meltdown.
Second rant part - regulatory compliance boils down to a "pain game" in so many old industries.. We know 'x-y-z' is happening but we shut it down when we find it, versus, 'newly promoted enforcement official needs to show success now' motivated audits, new regulations and 45-day decrees. All players at a certain size are guilty but the question is intent, awareness and effort to curtail.
Bluntly, the expression is "sh* rolls down hill" .. meaning that the least able, least aware and least mobile get stuck with additional restrictions, burdens, in some cases fines or entrapment, while Big Business shows up to work again tomorrow.
I've paid for plenty of things with wire transfers to another person, domestically and internationally, without any complaints from my bank. Writing a check isn't always feasible depending on where they are.
A cashier's check, not a personal check. Every sane seller will receive one, it's literally what they're meant for. There's no fraud when it's a check from a bank.
I don't see why that would be any more trustworthy, How do I know if the bank is trustworthy and is going to honor it?
I literally had one of the big banks in Australia steal several thousands from me by "loosing" paperwork in their internal mail service TWICE. I had to make a big show of photographing it and bringing a witness for the third time to stick.
I obviously switched banks after that experience, but it definitely made me realize that even big respected banks can't be trusted.
Of course it's more trustworthy. It's money drawn on a regulated financial institution, not some random person's personal account.
And you can call a bank and verify that the cashier's check is valid, so fraud is impossible. Calling for verification is standard practice. And then you deposit that cashier's check at your own bank.
If banks stop accepting each other's cashier's checks, that means the entire financial system has basically collapsed and you've got bigger things to worry about.
I get that you had an issue with paperwork, and that sucks, but that has zero bearing on the trustworthiness of cashier's checks.
To be honest, these comments here on hacker news is the first time I have ever heard about the concept of cashier's checks. If someone had tried to hand me one of those for something expensive I was selling before today I would have thought they were trying to pull a fast one and scam me.
I feel like I would need to see the law guaranteeing these cashier's checks before I could put any trust in them. If they are just another financial product then I don't see how they supposedly are any safer than the other dubious financial products that banks dream up.
I have always just used transfers, even for large amounts, they are mandated by law to be same day here.
I don't know where you live (Australia?) but in the US cashier's checks are standard. For decades, if you close one bank account and open another, you transfer the money with a cashier's check. If you pay first month's rent and deposit on an apartment you're renting, you do it with a cashier's check before you're allowed to pick up the keys. Any time you're dealing with thousands of dollars between parties who don't trust each other, it's cashier's check.
You don't need to see the law any more than you need to see the law to know that if you put a stamp on a letter it will get delivered by the post office. Cashier's checks aren't another financial product, they've been around for a lot longer than you or me. (If you're not in the US then practices might be different, I don't know.)
The OP said "write a check" which implies a personal check. A cashiers check is better than a personal check, but not forge-proof.
For a business, there are different rules and risk thresholds. But for me, if I'm selling something valuable (car, high-end bicycle) to an untrusted party, it's cash or wire.
It is forge-proof because it's standard practice to call the bank to verify it's legit.
If you're selling something valuable, cash can be counterfeit and you can be robbed. Cashier's check is standard and always possible, and I can't imagine why you wouldn't accept it. Wire is a good extra option but it's not always possible.
I mean call it "scam proof" if you want to be pedantic?
Point is, if you want to make sure you're not scammed by a forged cashier's check, you can easily do so. You can protect yourself from being scammed by a forgery, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to call it forge-proof.
That's not going to work. The cashier's check has to be made out to a payee, so it's going to have your name on it. If someone forges a second copy and changes the payee, you'll find out the check wasn't written to you when you verify it.
So no, it is completely untrue that any caller to the bank will get an OK. Only someone with your name will. If the bank confirms the check's info, it's good.
Where I live, person to person wire transfers are absolutely normal. Probably because checks have never been much of a thing. I have seen like 3 in my life and all of those originated in the US.
yep, I have seen one check when I was like 7 and have absolutely zero confidence that I would be able to tell a real one from a fake. I don't think my bank even does checks. It doesn't do physical branches either, so how would I even deposit one.
It’s not even the bank’s money but the bank’s debt to you. When you give a bank money you are accepting an IOU with pages of conditions because they lend out most of it and do not keep enough money to pay everyone back. Banks don’t want withdrawals because that limits their ability to lend and make profits off the interest etc plus capital control laws are common to prevent bank runs etc, so they erect barriers to withdrawal and can prevent it entirely. When you’re prevented from withdrawing your money that is a sign the loan you gave the bank went bad.
No sane seller is going to accept a check or MO for something of value - too high a chance for scams.
I suspect most problems like you've encountered are bank policy due to increasingly stringent anti-money-laundering regulations. But, not sure how "use a check" is helpful since nobody would every accept one.
Do PayPal or Venmo allow large transactions? That might be the best option today?
What are you talking about? This is what cashier's checks are for. Every sane seller is going to accept a cashier's check. That's what they're for. You can even call the bank that issued it to verify it's valid.
Of course you use a check. Not a personal one, but a cashier's one.
I won't use a cashier's check, simply because I've never seen nor used one before. If the buyer really insists, then I'll go with the buyer to the bank and cash or deposit it before giving them the product to make sure it's not a fake piece of paper.
A cashier's check is equivalent to cash without the hassle, because it's backed by the bank that wrote it. They already took the money out of the customer's account, so there's no chance of it bouncing.
Some might consider having to Google the phone number for the bank, calling the bank, navigate through the bank's phone system, getting put on hold, and reading a bunch of numbers to the bank's employee a hassle.
Similar situation with a money order. The cash has already been paid up-front, before the money order can even be printed. It's pretty much guaranteed money.
Sorry, but the bank is giving you totally reasonable options here -- you can always write a check to friend/family who trust you (know it won't bounce), and you can always get a cashier's check to pay someone who doesn't trust you (e.g. buying a car).
Banks have daily and monthly limits on how much cash you can withdraw, for reasons of both logistics, fraud, and crime. And it's similar with wire transfers that have a risk of fraud, because they can't be reversed.
Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? And why couldn't you get a cashier's check for the used item? That's how it's always been done, for many many decades.
Yes it's your money and you can withdraw it any time via check or cashier's check. The other options like wire and cash are extra options that come with understandable limitations. But there's nothing wrong with checks.
>Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check?
We wanted it now and I was 1000 miles away. A wire transfer before 2PM local time would have been in the bank that day. They getting a MO or Certified check and sending it overnight now costs more money and adds a possible 24 hour delay, AND some banks do not cash cashiers checks, but put a hold on them. They CAN (IIRC) hold it for 9 (yes NINE, I have literally had this happen) days before cashing.
I mean, yeah, honestly it's not a reasonable expectation with consumer accounts to be able to transfer large amounts of money same-day and then be able to withdraw them immediately.
Established businesses can do that because it's routine and not prone to fraud. Consumers can't simply because so many red flags for fraud risk get raised.
Yes you can transfer your money to whoever you want, but it's also always going to take up to 24-48 hours to do, and up to 2 weeks to be able to cash out. It's fraud protection, and while it may be annoying, it's also understandable, and just something you need to be able to plan ahead for. Money isn't instantaneous except in small amounts, and this is by design.
77 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 139 ms ] threadMake fun of fraud or emissions or whatever if you want... but come on, there's an obvious use-case for owning your own money.
Anyone who thinks these events are permanently in the past is ignoring the lessons of history.
I personally place the long term value of all current crypto coins at 0$. Risk makes them a poor medium of exchange for the average person, and new investors eventually want to have positive returns on their investments.
Crypto is not any more "controlled by math" than french fries are "controlled by chemistry". I hate everything about crypto but this is by far the cringiest talking point; probably because I'm a mathematician.
Can you please elaborate? :)
My initial reaction is a massive groan at the seamlessly meaningless platitude, but that's unfair. Maybe you were in a rush, on the phone, and there's a cogent argument that I'd be eager to hear out.
Edit: To elaborate: both "Controlled by violence" and "Controlled by math" I view as summarized and abstracted way beyond point of sheer uselessness; and only used to propagate a particular point of view. That point of view may be accurate or not, I may agree with it or not, but it does not include useful data or conduct a honest discussion. There's a lot of math involved in fiat money from central banks. There's nothing in crypto that may prevent or shield from violence. Individuals certainly earn money/wealth/value in certain way and their storage medium of choice cannot be summarized in such simple ways. And "Controlled by math" is massively misleading - at best, at best, we can say it has some origins in math. But it certainly is not controlled by math - it is ultimately controlled by people and institutions.
You've obviously never fired an automatic weapon in a data center.
There's also an obvious reason people don't do that. Money under the mattress - whether it's dollar bills or a hardware wallet - is vulnerable, too, and has minimal recourse when it's lost to carelessness or hostile action.
Governments seize crypto all the time. Exchanges pause withdrawals. Entire shitcoins collapse entirely. People lose their keys.
https://saifedean.com/podcast/bitcoin-in-lebanon-with-thomas...
Article explaining the p2p money changers in Lebanon that use crypto
https://restofworld.org/2021/the-cryptocurrency-dons-of-beir...
> leaving much of the population unable to pay for basic needs
I think the argument for crypto would make sense if everywhere accepted it, but I don't think it would be that useful if you need to exchange to fiat currency at volatile exchange rates to feed your family...
What makes you think your centralized crypto exchange would be any better in handling your "money" than your bank is? Why can't they freeze your money to respond to a fraud claim or government order just like a regular bank?
Definitely! But on a blockchain you don't own your money, the consensus does. The Ethereum split proved this.
do i own the house i bought? well, yes as long i keep paying property taxes.
what is ownership really and how much more/less does one own crypto vs. money in bank. is it quantity dependent? is it time sensitive?
there are no certainties in life, besides death and taxes.
Can you elaborate how crypto solves this issue in an optimal way?
1. You can store cash, if you choose to. Way way way easier than Crypto. This should be the end of this argument but let's continue.
2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash? Otherwise, you're just at mercy of unregulated "exchanges" as opposed to "banks" and your power is even lower and the horror news stories even more plentiful.
3. Ultimately, crypto is a complicated technological stack that (and we will have a difference of opinions) government, if it sufficiently chooses to, can shut down and control. Crypto introduces a mind boggling chain of technical dependencies and gotchas and risks and dangers, which are super fun for us on HN to play with and argue about, but are a pit of snakes and spikes for most regular people (and just because somebody somewhere who's not technologically adept has used crypto successfully, that does not mean they were not exposed to massive risk; you can play Russian roulette and "win", it does not make it a good idea)
2. It is easier, it is safer. Way easier (again, almost no places accept cash for transactions due to AML, I know a guy who used to pay for his cars with briefcases of cash, he stopped being able to do that more than a decade ago...I am in the UK).
3. I used to agree with this point but actually shutting down a P2P network is going to be very tricky in practice. If one govt in the world decides it doesn't want to do this, it won't happen. Crypto is still a terrible customer experience for regular people: fees are unclear, you can put in the wrong address and the money is gone, etc. A lot of this can happen with bank transfers too though (and does, Citi accidentally wired someone $500m in 2020, iirc, and has been unable to get it back).
I come from a traditional finance background (and studied economic history, I did my thesis on monetary policy in the 60s so I am quite familiar with the limits on purchasing gold to prop up Bretton Woods). I was initially sceptical of crypto but, imo, it is a superior technology. Not for all transactions, for example some central banks have introduced instant bank transfers, but for some. And, in some cases, it will be a superior store of value. This is already happening in the place mentioned in the OP: the reason people are taking their money out of banks is crypto, holding cash does nothing for you because inflation is nearly 200% annually, you take it out and by next month your cash is worthless, your life savings wouldn't buy a loaf of bread.
Inflation is big and getting bigger. In Lebanon, it's sky high.
No.
1. Cash is bulky and if you need to store a non-trivial amount it quickly gets expensive (eg. installing safes). Crypto can be stored on a piece of paper, or in your head.
2. cash is treated unfavorably in various legal systems, from civil forfeiture (aka carrying a suspiciously large amount of cash) to outright bans on cash transactions over a certain size
3. crypto can be stored redundantly (ie. 2 of 3 multisig), cash can not.
>2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
If we compare like for like (ie. stuffing it under your mattress doesn't count), then I find the effort to train someone to use a 2 of 3 multisig software to be comparable to installing some sort of floor bolted safe.
In Vietnam, the largest bill is about $20, which increases the space storage requirements. Let's also remember that people need a safe place to store that cash.
> Way way way easier than Crypto.
Not true at all. Stablecoins, like USDT, are trivial to get and store in quantity.
> Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
App on a cell phone? Yes. I've travelled all over Vietnam and even in the most remote of remote places, people living in shacks by the side of the road, with no running water or bathrooms, they have 'smart' phones and inexpensive good coverage 4G.
mainly because cryptos are not really backed by anything. and anything that is backed will be so heavily regulated as to be a government cbdc. and you're back to square one. already usdc and usdt can be frozen in your wallet.
In addition governments can simply outlaw your money and then it will be worthless for important things like buying houses, cars, food, water, electricity.
A relative was going to gift me a (fairly, not huge) sum of money. The bank refused to allow them to wire transfer. As in, flat out, nope, you want to wire transfer more than say $5,000 and it is not to a corporation (e.g. mortgage, car company, etc, but to an individual) the answer is NO. This was truly eye-opening to me. This was their money. As in, hey, I worked for this money, and I would like to spend it. And... the answer is no. Of course, I understand, they can just cut a check, or make a money order, but that adds a delay, and hey, what is the bank there for? To add delays?
A very similar thing happened to my bank. I literally was going to purchase a used item, it was a few grand, I went in, said I wanted a few grand from my account. The answer was NO. Write a check or grab a money order. Hey, regardless of the situation, regardless of "perhaps this person is doing a shady cash-only deal", that money in the bank is technically MINE, right?
NO, its not my money. Its the banks money. I guess possession is really 9/10 of the law. After a few of these incidents happened and I started talking to friends, I head similar stories over and over. I find it amazing that citizens are pretty calm about this. It took a fair amount of emotional intelligence to not freak out in the lobby when the teller tells me the money I really worked for I just can not have right now.
It is irrational (and strange, countries in the EU will happily launder your money, some domestic banks still accept suitcases full of cash in the basement but the rage is all directed to US/UK banks where money laundering is almost impossible without blackmailing someone in AML...this happens, but it is fairly rare...and risky because most banks now have teams of people watching their AML staff, following them outside work, going through their emails, etc.).
The solution is simple: remove AML/KYC regulations. Let police investigate and find evidence of crimes. This isn't the job of banks, banks aren't the police, AML departments are basically run as private police departments, and the false positive rate is (unsurprisingly) through the roof. They also don't do a particularly good job with true positives either: some obscure Kazakh politician wants to open an account with $5m...okay, there is no Wikipedia page for him, he has provided proof of income, you suspect it is forged, you call the Kazakh police, they tell you it is legit...it is very hard to get right because you don't have any legal investigatory powers.
The issue with HSBC wasn't related to them not caring enough, what happened is that some employees in their Mexican office essentially went rogue. HSBC can't blackmail their staff, money launderers can. HSBC can't bribe their staff with suitcases full of cash, money launderers can. HSBC can't threaten to execute your kids, money launderers can.
And, again, even if you assume this all isn't true...banks do not have the investigatory powers. People who want to launder money do not turn up a bank with a briefcase full of cash, and wink repeatedly at the cashier when handing it over...they put substantial resources in disguising the source, and working out where the gaps are (with HSBC, it was currency exchange...this has been a weak spot for decades because it is mostly used by large corporates and there is an assumption that AML happens somewhere else in the chain). Police stopped doing this job because it was too difficult...and they had the powers, why people think banks can do it is beyond me.
The stuff you read online about low integrity or not caring is just obvious nonsense (it wasn't why police failed in the first place, police cared a lot, they just weren't as good as the money launderers so blamed banks).
Second rant part - regulatory compliance boils down to a "pain game" in so many old industries.. We know 'x-y-z' is happening but we shut it down when we find it, versus, 'newly promoted enforcement official needs to show success now' motivated audits, new regulations and 45-day decrees. All players at a certain size are guilty but the question is intent, awareness and effort to curtail.
Bluntly, the expression is "sh* rolls down hill" .. meaning that the least able, least aware and least mobile get stuck with additional restrictions, burdens, in some cases fines or entrapment, while Big Business shows up to work again tomorrow.
I literally had one of the big banks in Australia steal several thousands from me by "loosing" paperwork in their internal mail service TWICE. I had to make a big show of photographing it and bringing a witness for the third time to stick. I obviously switched banks after that experience, but it definitely made me realize that even big respected banks can't be trusted.
And you can call a bank and verify that the cashier's check is valid, so fraud is impossible. Calling for verification is standard practice. And then you deposit that cashier's check at your own bank.
If banks stop accepting each other's cashier's checks, that means the entire financial system has basically collapsed and you've got bigger things to worry about.
I get that you had an issue with paperwork, and that sucks, but that has zero bearing on the trustworthiness of cashier's checks.
I feel like I would need to see the law guaranteeing these cashier's checks before I could put any trust in them. If they are just another financial product then I don't see how they supposedly are any safer than the other dubious financial products that banks dream up.
I have always just used transfers, even for large amounts, they are mandated by law to be same day here.
You don't need to see the law any more than you need to see the law to know that if you put a stamp on a letter it will get delivered by the post office. Cashier's checks aren't another financial product, they've been around for a lot longer than you or me. (If you're not in the US then practices might be different, I don't know.)
For a business, there are different rules and risk thresholds. But for me, if I'm selling something valuable (car, high-end bicycle) to an untrusted party, it's cash or wire.
If you're selling something valuable, cash can be counterfeit and you can be robbed. Cashier's check is standard and always possible, and I can't imagine why you wouldn't accept it. Wire is a good extra option but it's not always possible.
Point is, if you want to make sure you're not scammed by a forged cashier's check, you can easily do so. You can protect yourself from being scammed by a forgery, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to call it forge-proof.
Now any caller to the bank will get an okay.
On deposit, bank, with better abilities to detect fraudulent paper will determine one of the two is not real.
That doesn't seem forge-proof.
Bounce proof maybe, but that assumes you can tell the document in your hand is the original.
So no, it is completely untrue that any caller to the bank will get an OK. Only someone with your name will. If the bank confirms the check's info, it's good.
It’s not even the bank’s money but the bank’s debt to you. When you give a bank money you are accepting an IOU with pages of conditions because they lend out most of it and do not keep enough money to pay everyone back. Banks don’t want withdrawals because that limits their ability to lend and make profits off the interest etc plus capital control laws are common to prevent bank runs etc, so they erect barriers to withdrawal and can prevent it entirely. When you’re prevented from withdrawing your money that is a sign the loan you gave the bank went bad.
No sane seller is going to accept a check or MO for something of value - too high a chance for scams.
I suspect most problems like you've encountered are bank policy due to increasingly stringent anti-money-laundering regulations. But, not sure how "use a check" is helpful since nobody would every accept one.
Do PayPal or Venmo allow large transactions? That might be the best option today?
Of course you use a check. Not a personal one, but a cashier's one.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-tre...
Banks have daily and monthly limits on how much cash you can withdraw, for reasons of both logistics, fraud, and crime. And it's similar with wire transfers that have a risk of fraud, because they can't be reversed.
Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? And why couldn't you get a cashier's check for the used item? That's how it's always been done, for many many decades.
Yes it's your money and you can withdraw it any time via check or cashier's check. The other options like wire and cash are extra options that come with understandable limitations. But there's nothing wrong with checks.
We wanted it now and I was 1000 miles away. A wire transfer before 2PM local time would have been in the bank that day. They getting a MO or Certified check and sending it overnight now costs more money and adds a possible 24 hour delay, AND some banks do not cash cashiers checks, but put a hold on them. They CAN (IIRC) hold it for 9 (yes NINE, I have literally had this happen) days before cashing.
Established businesses can do that because it's routine and not prone to fraud. Consumers can't simply because so many red flags for fraud risk get raised.
Yes you can transfer your money to whoever you want, but it's also always going to take up to 24-48 hours to do, and up to 2 weeks to be able to cash out. It's fraud protection, and while it may be annoying, it's also understandable, and just something you need to be able to plan ahead for. Money isn't instantaneous except in small amounts, and this is by design.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/16/1117658776/lebanon-bank-hosta...
(also mentioned in OP's article, but some people don't or can't read the article)