Also doesn’t help noncitizens like ggg(however many,top of the thread)p

in a multipolar world though, a country being able to do that weakens the currency severely in international markets. countries may like keeping their populace under their thumbs, but they may have overriding concerns - at least that's my hope.

Providing the account != requiring its use

>Not to mention all of crypto on and off ramps are incredibly centralized

The major ones, yes. That's because most of the decentralized ones got shut down or closed voluntarily out of fear of getting prosecuted on ML charges. LocalBitcoins is a good example, first they got their site blocked in authoritarian countries like Russia. Then they had to restrict service in some US states and other more liberal places as well. Finally they shut down operations completely.

The question is if people still want to fight for such liberties or not. There are multiple countries working on CBDCs and to abolish or at least severely restrict cash payments. In many EU countries this is already reality. For example France has a limit of 1000€ for residents.

Cash is a quasi anonymous form of payment, in self-custody. Throughout history something similar has always existed, be it metal coins or even earlier forms of money. There is a real danger as we're on our way to go fully digital to lose control over this freedom to governments and/or banks.

So we're at the "then they laugh at you?" stage of the game it seems?

I guess that happened years ago and we are fully in the "and then they fight you" portion of the timeline.

So you're admitting to having a self-interested stake in getting others to convert a portion of their net worth to crypto, no? Since getting others to buy in would directly provide liquidity to your own position. Tell me, what customer or financial protections are in place for your crypto position. Are there any? At all? Or if the drive holding that "good portion" disappears, then so do your assets, yes? Having a bank close my account sucks. A lot. The answer isn't to buy into an even more broken system built on the exploitation of those looking to buy into a get-rich scheme. The answer is to hold cash for times where your bank isn't available. Cash depreciates in value, sure, but at least it's not locked into a guaranteed deflationary spiral that ends with guaranteed marginal returns. At least my position in cash doesn't pit me in a game against people who bought in cheaper and stand to make exponentially more than I can, off my back even.

Note that his story closes with the admission that he was given his money back. When funds get stolen, they can be clawed back (barring issues of institutional willingness to do so).

For everyone whose Bitcoin wallets get stolen, there is no recourse. There is no customer service number to call, no court in which to file suit, and no service agreement over which to sue. Unless you live in some war-torn country where you don't know what government you'll live under tomorrow, putting a good portion of your net worth in an asset so easily stolen (or lost to something as banal as a forgotten encryption key) is a fool's errand.

Disambiguating the above sentiment from another context, we had a huge problem with Indian immigrants becoming victims of home invasions once it became apparent to opportunists that they accumulate and hoard large amounts of gold in their homes.

If you live in a first-world country, playing by third-world rules will pit you against third-world opponents.

> Each coin has its own ins and outs, there isn't one that is the best. They have their own time and place.

This is just wishy washy rubbish trying to appear "diplomatic" and "balanced". Oh sure, you can mint some monkey jpegs or construct a needlessly complex and public smart contract for some esoteric "use case", but the truth is the majority of people in the world don't want or need those things.

People just want a money that works. You can send or receive it instantly across international borders, that no one can stop, and it doesn't lose it's value over the years.

Bitcoin is the only game in town, the "crypto bros" just don't realise it yet because they can make obscene amounts of money from pump and dump schemes with flashy marketing about "use cases" and "yield".

Wake up or get burned, again and again.

I was under the impression that all of the "pegged to the dollar" coins are too fragile for storing money long term. But USDT dropped down to 94 cents during the crash I was thinking of when others more thoroughly collapsed. What's the difference there?

It's actually INCREDIBLY easy.

99% are scam to be ignored, so really just looking at the oldest "coins" works.

Basically there is only BTC, BCH, XMR and ETH to choose from (of you cant tell the rest are scams that's on you).

Between those 4, BTC is a ponzi scheme for morons that doesn't really work as cash, eth is a hobby security but has equal potential to break or go to $1million.

That leave BCH and XMR, the only two cryptocurrencies that are not obvious scams.

Actually withdrawing too much cash was one of the reasons cited in the article for banks closing down people's accounts ;)

Going off of this article at least, it can take a few weeks for a bank to either reopen your account or send you the balance. Having around a month's worth of emergency cash would make sense to be able to handle an account closure like this.

I am a firm believer of having 10% of ones liquid net worth in cash or equivalent not gatekept by anyone but myself.

This is from extremely hard won personal experience.

Yes, it's a lot of cash. I don't mean keep it all under your mattress.

Edit: A month of your total living expenses including mortgage/rent is what I would deem as both reasonable, and an absolute bare minimum. Not having this on hand would make me feel extremely uncomfortable as you are living at the pleasure and whims of others.

$200 emergency cash would have allowed him to fill up with gas, and pay for a motel or wherever he was going over the weekend.

Having multiple cards would too (I have a debit card and two credit cards, kept at home, but I don't want to be stuck with no money if my wallet/phone gets stolen)

I have no idea why a university which had received multiple on time payments would suddenly drop someone off the role for paying a few days late (especially with a reasonable excuse like "my bank put my account on hold")

Sure it wouldn't solve this specific problem faced by this specific person at this specific time. But I'm willing to venture that a lot of people who had similar problems would have been in a much better spot had they had a bundle of cash in a sock drawer or something.

But cash can't be used for lots of things, even though legally it needs to be accepted anywhere. I can't imagine it would be easy to pay your $6,000 school tuition with a stack of $20 bills. You might be able to get a hotel room if you paid a hefty deposit on top of what the room actually cost, but you'd be just as likely to run into some 20 year old desk agent who can't be bothered to find the form for that, if it even exists.

Yeah the point of government services like a central bank or a public healthcare option or what have you is that they provide a floor of "this is the worst service/bargain you can possibly get", and then the private sector needs to compete against it (sometimes by dishonestly implying they have a better product when their product is worse, but that's its own can of worms).

For basic necessities to modern life, there needs to be a state provided minimum quantity of access, so that you can't be screwed over by corporations just deciding you aren't profitable enough, or cornering the market and price gouging, etc.