Precisely the failure of crypto is thinking that people will follow "fundamental crypto values" and underestimating the power of convenience and ignorance. "Traditional financial institutions" are inevitable in crypto.
Also, if I do decide to use a custodial provider, I can choose to use a provider that publishes proof of reserves [0], giving me more confidence in the provider.
With fiat, you also have the option of storing gold yourself.
Granted, that would be stupid, but it's certainly an option.
You have the option with Fiat too - you can get paper currency and store it yourself in a secure location. $10,000 can be stored in $100 bills in as little as c0.03 meters^3.
Using a bank is much more convenient to store Fiat though if you want to buy/sell things, much like using an exchange to store Crypto is much more convenient if you want to trade crypto (because let's be honest, not that many people are using Crypto to buy pizzas!).
The security is based on you remembering a 12 word string or geolocation, and the string/geolocation can't be siezed via court order (other than exceptional circumstances, or by finding the location/keys).
The 'storage' in both instances is decentralised. If you forget your 12 word string or geolocation, you lose your money.
Banks on the other hand:
* Provide convenient and safe access
* Will invest your money (in exchange for interest).
* Allow you to reset your credentials if they are forgotten (by proving identity)
* Are centralised
As time moves on it's clear to me all these assets are becoming important members of the financial landscape. If crypto were merely a degraded version of the dollar, then I don't think so many people would use.
All of those are more convenient than storing dollar bills or gold bars. So, yes, fiat has options, crypto is another kind of option and probably the most convenient for self custody, hence a very good one to avoid trusting institutions.
That's really not the same though. With crypto I can store on a hardware wallet that requires a pin to unlock (and resets after 3 attempts) with a backup seed stored elsewhere (potentially split up in n of m shares). How do I backup my cash? How do I lock up my cash in a similar way?
In addition, I can setup "smart" wallets that require an approval from another person to initiate the transfer. Or forces a cooldown period on transfers. None of this is possible with cash.
You buy a vault or a safe, which you can access with a 'pin-code' (in the fiat world this is called a combination lock). Safes come with two keys, which allows you to keep a backup of your 'secret' elsewhere, and you can also insure the cash inside if you want to pay for a full 'backup'.
In addition, "smart" safes and dual lock safes are available which have two keys, mean you need approval from another person to initiate the transfer.
It's not an exact 1:1, but you can hardly say that you don't have the option of storing Fiat by yourself.
... what do you call putting cash in your wallet?
With crypto I can:
* lock my cash on a device behind a pin (with forced reset after a few attempts)
* back it up in multiple physical locations, and require n of the m recovery locations to be accessed for recovery
* memorize the seed phrase before escaping from an oppressive regime
None of this is possible with cash in my wallet.
In a fixed money supply currency, fractional reserve banking should be illegal and banks should instead make money off fees. Venture capital should put their own money at risk to invest in the economy. How will people afford houses though? The housing market booms and busts because of the wildly fluctuating availability of credit caused by the money multiplier rapidly creating and destroying money which is tied to the fractional reserve banking concept. Homes would be drastically cheaper and people would actually be able to save to buy them if it weren't for the huge supply of rapidly created and later contracting credit available to buy them. Things we buy with credit like housing and education have gone up steadily in price, while things bought with cash have not.
The fractional reserve people are so sick of crypto, that ,in one platform, you can buy bitcoin but you can't send it to a crypto address. You have to get your friend on the platform, you can send it to them, and then they can convert it back into fiat. It's ridiculous, you're basically just buying and selling a security that tracks Bitcoin and not Bitcoin itself.
>In a fixed money supply currency, fractional reserve banking should be illegal and banks should instead make money off fees
Which, ok... But then jump to
>The housing market booms and busts because of the wildly fluctuating availability of credit caused by the money multiplier
Which seems to be a thesis about our current world. I can't figure out the connection between them. Are you saying this is evidence of why the first thesis is correct? But USD is not a "fixed money supply currency", which was how we started out.
I understand that easy credit induces demand for housing which has inelastic supply and somewhat sticky prices. This doesn't seem to be a problem of Fractional Reserve banking though. The VCs in your proposed system will still invest in mortgages as a fairly safe bet, because people are highly motivated to have a place to live.
And mortgages are an important tool so people have a place to live _before_ saving for 30 years. Given our current population dynamics and everything else...
I think that the problem with the Cryptocurrencies movement has been that the use peopel want to give to it has surpassed the technological advances that it provides. At some point, the ETH network will get there, providing "trustless" alternatives for a lot of the stuff that CeFi services are giving. But that is still several years away.
If that proves to be important in the long run is something that we will see in the future, of course.
But people don't care too much about that. If so many crypto users, who we can assume are more informed and care more about decentralization than the average person, massively flock to centralized exchanges, why would the general population use decentralized services if they're worse?
But -- will every single entity that actually does follow "fundamental crypto values" be destroyed? Almost certainly not. That's where the good (and healthy) action is. Follow THAT, everyone.
CEX and DEX can both have hacks. An open source DEX can be verified, formally tested, and made immutable and un-upgradable on chain, like Uniswap.
Uniswap V2 contract is 2 years unchanged, $3.8B TVL and $1B daily volume, close to 10 year old Coinbase CEX. Not bad for being a joke.
I'd rather gamble with Uniswap protocol risk than FTX human fraud and greed risk.
Hardly says that DeFi as a category is reliable.
You said "day traders on FTX are learning first hand the value of DeFi", but DeFi is just as much of a shitshow as the rest and has had just as many collapses.
I am one of these people: I had funds locked into a CEX, was lucky to pull them out some days before turmoil but others not so lucky. During that time my DeFi holdings were fine. I would now rather take on protocol risk of something established and proven like Uniswap, instead of risking with an unregulated CEX.