Banks team up to create new currency

>>3316554
But banks already own fiat, they want to own crypto now?

Where do you think FIAT comes from? Who do you think is printing all that money and putting it into circulation? Do some fucking reading, banks getting into crypto is bad news long term.

>>3316626
>banks getting into crypto is bad news long term
Why would that be?

>>3316659
If you look back throughout history, currency has either been completely under government control, or as part of a free market. It is only recently that banks have taken over the creation of new wealth.

Cryptocurrencies have the potential to wrestle away the control from banking institutions and return to a true market. This is because banks are unable to dictate the amount of currency distributed, and more importantly where this newly created wealth is invested.

Should banks enter the crypto market they will dictate the creation of new coins. In the short term we'd see our investments grow as the normies rush in after the news, but long term crypto would end up just like FIAT, worthless and controlled by jews.

>>3316980
Just don't buy BANKCOIN then?

>>3316980

hard to say, it might still end up better than before. If every bank now forces their own crypto coin and auto converts your money to their crypto on their website etc. then wouldnt that also create massive healthy competition between banks?
the banks with the fairest auditable tech stack would get more customers because we would believe in their coin.

but again, hard to tell how this will play out. they might just do nothing, it gets regulated to helll anyway, they might only use the tech to speed up transactions...

Personally I think cryptos will get regulated away at some point but im too dumb to understand how. I mean crypto at its core is just a distributed database of simple strings with an icon in front.
outlawing a simple concept like that seems retarded.

>>3316554

Bitcoin has come such a long way...

OMEGA ONE

>>3316577
they want to enter the blockchain because its better

>>3317045


>>3317053

The problem isn't just bank coins - it's banks trying to enforce domination of a single/conglomerate of coins on the market.

Remember, if we print money it's considered counterfeiting or at best it's declared "non legal tender". If they do it then it's "expanding the economy". Who's to say they won't dominate market share of existing coins with worthless FIAT while its still early, then get central government to outlaw new ICOs.

Okay.

This will take 5 years till a bunch of major companies even settles on anything.

If they want to be as ambitious as ETH/NEO/etc., they will never finish quickly with something good. Otherwise, ETH et. al. will remain isolated nieches.

>>3316554
You are all idiots. Bitcoin itself was a creation of the central banks. Whoever buys the Satoshi history is a fool. You can tell digital cryptography differences BEFORE and AFTER bitcoin code was released proving it had a dedicated team of mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers developing it.

File: 1504358925616.jpg (89KB, 750x736px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 750x736px

>>3317102

shhhhhh.....

>>3317162
3 people count as a team though

>>3317209
Point is that they knew this shit coming in the 70s or so, just like gold was a treat to their cartel back when the British empire was the only super-power they planned ahead to set a digital "gold" above other future crypto-currencies. And I bet you they are looking for whats going to replace crypto and develop it first so the change can be smooth and always under their will not in a chaotic way.

>>3317102

Stfu i dont want the ico to sell out in minutes

>>3317102
isn't this just another Kyber?

>>3317162
This tinfoil retardation again. Yes, I'm sure that central banks created a decentralized currency that allows me to send money to people who banks and payment processors will have nothing to do with reducing their control. That makes total sense and is not schizoid ramblings at all.