<sarcasm> Thanks for reading the blog post </sarcasm>
I'm not arguing in "Change for change's sake" What I'm saying is that when banks were conceived they had a simplistic and singular purpose (keeping physical money there because it was not practical to keep it all at your own house)
The reason I think we should be seeking a fundamental change in banking is that we're not literally having to store gold(or even that much cash) in bank vaults these days.
Most money is moved in a non-material sense(which is why the reference to data)
"Why? Because so-called big data is "in"?" No. Because moving money is moving data, and simply put the information that allows you to move money lives online, it IS data. The kinds of things that can be stolen or leaked from any provider can allow almost anyone to spend your money like its theirs and they don't have to walk into a retail bank to do it.
This is why banks are fundamentally data problems at this point.
So while I appreciate your opinion I would relegate your opinion to banking not being broken back to a pre-2007 world where smartphones did not exist.
Was communication broken? YES Did people not realize it? ABSOLUTELY ... just because you don't see it at first sight doesn't mean it does not exist.
Let's think outside the box a bit. that's where true innovation is bred.
Time to break out one of my pet peeves: Inactive account fees.
If I stick money in a bank account and just leave it there, does that cost the bank money? No. (Transactions cost the bank money; non-transactions don't.) The inactive account fee looks a lot like "If you're not looking, we'll see if we can take some of your money". It would be quite reasonable to look on that as stealing.
7 comments
[ 10.6 ms ] story [ 522 ms ] threadWhy is that a problem? Change for change's sake is stupid.
"In fact, it should be so far removed from what we call “Banking” today that it should not even make sense to some people at first. "
That will make it so easy for me to trust your bank.
"The next generation of banking should start off as a data company. "
Why? Because so-called big data is "in"? How exactly does making my bank a data broker make it a better place to keep my money?
Hey, you know the old saying... if it ain't broke, fix it with data.
I'm not arguing in "Change for change's sake" What I'm saying is that when banks were conceived they had a simplistic and singular purpose (keeping physical money there because it was not practical to keep it all at your own house)
The reason I think we should be seeking a fundamental change in banking is that we're not literally having to store gold(or even that much cash) in bank vaults these days.
Most money is moved in a non-material sense(which is why the reference to data)
"Why? Because so-called big data is "in"?" No. Because moving money is moving data, and simply put the information that allows you to move money lives online, it IS data. The kinds of things that can be stolen or leaked from any provider can allow almost anyone to spend your money like its theirs and they don't have to walk into a retail bank to do it.
This is why banks are fundamentally data problems at this point.
So while I appreciate your opinion I would relegate your opinion to banking not being broken back to a pre-2007 world where smartphones did not exist.
Was communication broken? YES Did people not realize it? ABSOLUTELY ... just because you don't see it at first sight doesn't mean it does not exist.
Let's think outside the box a bit. that's where true innovation is bred.
If you do start your own bank, you'll have to explain to customers what's wrong with the current banking system. Start elaborating the problems now.
If I stick money in a bank account and just leave it there, does that cost the bank money? No. (Transactions cost the bank money; non-transactions don't.) The inactive account fee looks a lot like "If you're not looking, we'll see if we can take some of your money". It would be quite reasonable to look on that as stealing.