It's also not like bitcoin because the exchange doesn't own dollars deposited at them and isn't run by a guy living in Dubai who's going to steal all of it.
this is an odd consensus because you just described how all bitcoin exchanges in the US operate.
they are centralized in which funds can be seized, censored, and they all have money services licenses just like their corresponding banks do.
right, not like bitcoin, like bitcoin exchanges, just like the person said and you somehow ignored.
far more similarities than differences for this comment and the other comments at your level to be focusing on the differences and confused about the existence of similarities.
Some crypto maximalists ignore many of the intrinsic aspects of crypto (decentralized consensus, cryptography, etc.) because in their use case, it's just 'digital money.'
So when a completely dissimilar example of 'digital money' comes up, they equate it to crypto, even though it lacks many of the intrinsic aspects of crypto.
None of the intrinsic aspects of crypto matter if its in a centralized exchange. In the cases of a centralized exchange BTC may as well equal fiat, for it has all of the downsides of fiat alongside the risk of an exit scam/mass theft, and with none of the insurances one may have with a fiat institution.
So, unfortunately, for these “crypto” maximalists, the crypto aspect of their digital currency is just some fun trivia and not something they even bother to leverage.
No, completely opposite. It is like a regular, centralized, and controlled by the government ledger[1] but faster, no more batch files at the end of the day like ACH and that is all.
Now is a matter of banks to pay the providers[2] to integrate with their systems and ledgers.
I work with a couple of organisations that have been advising public institutions on their investigations into CBDCs, and the entire timeline of FedNow development took place after CBDCs had initially been conceptualised. CBDCs became a mainstream concept in 2016 when the Bank of England started discussing them publicly. The Faster Payments Taskforce report (which was the basis of FedNow’s design) came out in 2017, and the Fed announced its plans to start work on FedNow in 2019. Many advanced economies announced plans to start seriously investigating the use of CDBCs in 2021, but they’d all been discussing the concept for years at that point.
I don’t know whether the fed’s investigation into CBDCs will result in it adopting one. But FedNow has been designed in such a way that it could easily be modified to support one. You’d just have to implement a version of it where the allowed participants were everybody who’s allowed to have a bank account, rather than only banks.
It's like a centralized exchange in which funds can be seized, censored, and the participating brokers are licensed. Nothing like bitcoin.
It's also not like bitcoin because the exchange doesn't own dollars deposited at them and isn't run by a guy living in Dubai who's going to steal all of it.
this is an odd consensus because you just described how all bitcoin exchanges in the US operate.
they are centralized in which funds can be seized, censored, and they all have money services licenses just like their corresponding banks do.
right, not like bitcoin, like bitcoin exchanges, just like the person said and you somehow ignored.
far more similarities than differences for this comment and the other comments at your level to be focusing on the differences and confused about the existence of similarities.
There are decentralized exchanges which operate in the US.
2 replies →
I don't see how this is anything like a crypto exchange, is there something I'm missing here?
Some crypto maximalists ignore many of the intrinsic aspects of crypto (decentralized consensus, cryptography, etc.) because in their use case, it's just 'digital money.'
So when a completely dissimilar example of 'digital money' comes up, they equate it to crypto, even though it lacks many of the intrinsic aspects of crypto.
None of the intrinsic aspects of crypto matter if its in a centralized exchange. In the cases of a centralized exchange BTC may as well equal fiat, for it has all of the downsides of fiat alongside the risk of an exit scam/mass theft, and with none of the insurances one may have with a fiat institution.
So, unfortunately, for these “crypto” maximalists, the crypto aspect of their digital currency is just some fun trivia and not something they even bother to leverage.
No, completely opposite. It is like a regular, centralized, and controlled by the government ledger[1] but faster, no more batch files at the end of the day like ACH and that is all.
Now is a matter of banks to pay the providers[2] to integrate with their systems and ledgers.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le8Me8AfK8k
[2] https://www.frbservices.org/news/press-releases/072023-fedno...
Some would say suspiciously so. Which is why some commentators think this is being implemented as a prerequisite of a CBDC.
The FedNow project was in the works long before any serious CBDC idea was conceptualized.
I work with a couple of organisations that have been advising public institutions on their investigations into CBDCs, and the entire timeline of FedNow development took place after CBDCs had initially been conceptualised. CBDCs became a mainstream concept in 2016 when the Bank of England started discussing them publicly. The Faster Payments Taskforce report (which was the basis of FedNow’s design) came out in 2017, and the Fed announced its plans to start work on FedNow in 2019. Many advanced economies announced plans to start seriously investigating the use of CDBCs in 2021, but they’d all been discussing the concept for years at that point.
I don’t know whether the fed’s investigation into CBDCs will result in it adopting one. But FedNow has been designed in such a way that it could easily be modified to support one. You’d just have to implement a version of it where the allowed participants were everybody who’s allowed to have a bank account, rather than only banks.
2 replies →